|
15 Nov 04 - 11:07 AM (#1327357) Subject: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Jerry Rasmussen Gotcher attention? For many years, I ran a folk concert series where I worked. Every once in awhile, I'd book a bluegrass group and I couldn't help but notice that half my regular audience didn't show, and half the audience was people I rarely saw at the series. They'd come because it was a bluegrass band. At one of the bluegrass concerts, I talked about the fact that half the audience had come just because it was a bluegrass band and wouldn't come again until I booked another bluegrass band.) I asked them if that was the case, to talk to me after the concert and tell me why they didn't come to the folk concerts. Several of them stopped to talk as they were leaving, and the most common comments were that they didn't want to spend an evening listening to someone sitting in a chair, playing guitar and singing protest songs. I thought that was a rather bizarre perception of folk singers, and argued that only a very small percentage of folk songs are "protest" songs. I think that image comes from the 60's, where so many songs written at that time were tied to a movement... anti-war, civil rights, women's rights.. If you listen to the anthology of American Folk Music, or thumb your way through Allan Lomax's books on folk songs, "protest" songs are in the real minority (even counting Down On Penny's Farm, Farm Land Blues and similar songs as "protest" songs.) But, I was speaking to deaf ears. As far as they were concerned, folk singers sit around and bitch to guitar accompaniment. (I noticed in another recent thread that a Catter commented that most folk songs are political... NOT) This being Mudcat, someone can flip the title of this thread and make it Why Folk Musicians Don't Like Bluegrass. But that's another topic. I know that there aren't a lot of bluegrass fans in the Cat, 'cept for Martin Gibson and a handful of others. But, any comments are welcome. Does this count as an American thread, Martin? :-) Jerry |
|
15 Nov 04 - 11:21 AM (#1327373) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Mooh Well, it's all just sound, isn't it? I have never understood the bias that distinguishes between one genre and another so readily, and perhaps that's just my personal disability. Rap I don't get, too damn repetitive, loud, and I don't get the message, and I'd feel the same about other musics if I couldn't relate for the same reasons. If there's an obvious connection to other musics, I'm generally okay with it, all music being deriviative and all that. It's all just sound. Pecae, Mooh. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 11:22 AM (#1327375) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Wesley S As someone who loves both styles it's a shame that more fans don't cross over. The two styles have cross pollinated so often. I'm sure many folk fans look at bluegrass like they look at stock car racing. A lot of people going very fast in circles going nowhere. Some of the rules of bluegrass can be rigid but then again haiku is a ridig form also. It's how much freedom you find within those confines that interesting. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 11:27 AM (#1327381) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Les B I just betcha this evolves into a discussion of blue states vs red states - there are similarities! :) |
|
15 Nov 04 - 11:28 AM (#1327382) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Frank bluegrass music comes from the esteemed autocratic Bill Monroe who spelled out his cultural preferences pretty clearly. It's a hierarchy that tends to be rigid and up tight. The Newgrass is far more musically interesting and is often reviled by the bluegrass "purists". Bluegrass reflects a cultural point-of-view that is marginally accepted by those not a part of that "culture". It's interesting that there are no African-American bluegrass musicians. That should tell you something. Frank |
|
15 Nov 04 - 11:30 AM (#1327386) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Wesley S Frank - My God you mean - Ricky Skaggs is WHITE ?? |
|
15 Nov 04 - 11:32 AM (#1327389) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: dick greenhaus The folk music scene, on both sides of the pond, has been fragmenting. In the UK, singers (generally) don't seem to play instruments; instrumentalists (with obvious exceptions) don't sing and dancers don't talk to anyone but other dabcers. In the US, what was once "folk" has split oiff into Blues, Old-Timey, Bluegrass, Gospel,Country, Irish, Celtoid and a flock of oher specialties which seldom seem to inteact. Back when bluegrass was new (early 1950s), it was viewed as a commercial form of music that was being forced upon the folk scene--I remember the schism between "bluegrassers" and "Greensleevers". Onct upon a time, I remember dancers who sang and played, and all the permutations possible. Prolly never no more. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 11:37 AM (#1327393) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: SINSULL I love Bluegrass, Jerry. But just as I can only handle trad ballads in small doses, I can only take so much bluegrass at one time. It all starts sounding the same. I haven't heard a real protest song in ages. How long a go did you take your survey? |
|
15 Nov 04 - 11:46 AM (#1327407) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Jerry Rasmussen Hey, Frank: Two members of my gospel quartet are certifiably black and grew up in the south... one in Virginia and one in South Carolina. They both really like bluegrass and when we go to a folk festival, they always seem to find their way to the bluegrass workshops. As for blacks... how many blacks like folk music? Or even know what it is.. Joe and Frankie both grew up listening to the Grand Ole Opry and probably know early country music better than most white northerners. Some of it is cultural, but some is geographic, too. The survey was many years ago, Sinsul, but I expect that the same opinions still hold. I agree that a part of the reason is cultural. I've gone to a couple of bluegrass festivals, but they are probably more prevalent in "red" (voted for Bush) states than blue ones... Jerry |
|
15 Nov 04 - 11:55 AM (#1327413) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous The real bluegrassers I come into contact with and play with, haven't much use for folk music or folksingers in general. You can thank for the most part..............................Glen Yarbrough. A warbler to the max and the epitome of over production. Or Judy Collins and Joan Baez types. the more folk, the more shunned. However, it seems like types like John Prine are tolerated and deservedly so. Of course hippie grassers like Bela Fleck and Sam Bush (along with players like Herb Pedersen and the late Jerry Garcia are what neutralize the total redneck/hillbilly thing and in my opinion, make bluegrass all the more exciting. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 11:58 AM (#1327417) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Moses I just like good music. Bluegrass, reggae, ragtime, folk, classical etc. - don't care what you name it. If its good, I'll listen. I'm not a musician though..... |
|
15 Nov 04 - 12:12 PM (#1327428) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous Well, that's just wonderful, Moses. BTW, thanks for going up on that mountain. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 12:13 PM (#1327429) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Joe "In the UK, singers (generally) don't seem to play instruments" I must be going to the wrong clubs - where very few singers don't play instruments. Maybe they are the wrong clubs too, 'cause Bluegrass always gets an enthusiastic reception. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 12:26 PM (#1327439) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Pete Jennings Special Concensus are coming to one of my local clubs here in the UK (Chase FC, (January 28). I'm a "folkie" and I'll definitely be there. A US Bluegrass band in England - meets both sides of the "American thread" discussion! |
|
15 Nov 04 - 12:26 PM (#1327440) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Uncle_DaveO Let's think about the appeal of the two musics: Bluegrass (in my view, at least) has two areas it focuses on: It's a vocal/harmonic style, but the sung words are really not too important; the singing becomes just some of the music. and It's an instrumental/harmonic style which depends heavily on speed, instrumental virtuosity, and a certain kind of insistent rhythm. Maybe there's a third aspect, too: The subject matter of the singing seems rather circumscribed. Themes that spring immediately to mind are old-fashioned Christian religion, and mother, and then a few others like trucks. But, as I observed above, the subject matter isn't as important as the musical style; the words are sort of a necessary evil. In folk song, the appeal (at least to me) resides mainly in the words; the instrumental accompaniment, if any, is sort of a condiment to serve with the main meal of word meaning. Folk music people are likely listeners who primarily enjoy the story or word stream. Bluegrass people will be those who tend to focus on that hard driving rhythm and the characteristic harmonies found in bluegrass. As I see it, of course. Now I know before I ever click the "submit" button that many here will see me as mistaken in this, if not wrong-headed, but that's my take on it. Any comments? ("Come on, Dave! You know there will be comments!") Dave Oesterreich |
|
15 Nov 04 - 12:27 PM (#1327441) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Steve Latimer While there aren't a lot of black Bluegrassers, there some. The Ebony Hillbillies I have not heard these guys, but I have heard good things about them. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 12:32 PM (#1327447) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Pete Jennings Aw, come on, Dave! (I can also be found down the pub listening to some good ol' rock'n'roll with hard driving rythms. Mind you, the harmonies can be a bit scarce!:) Pete |
|
15 Nov 04 - 01:19 PM (#1327500) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: kendall I've been hired to do many bluegrass festivals, and they like what I do.They welcome the break. So, I can only conclude that it depends on the performer. I like bluegrass (in small doses) and I love folk. However,I would never do a thiry verse ballad at a bluegrass festival. I've seen many folksingers who put ME to sleep, so it's easy to imagine what someone who is used to hard driving bluegrass would think of them. Bluegrass is "playing" music" and it's fun to jump in there and get all bruised up, but it's tiresome to just listen to for any length of time. Someone called folk music, "Heavy Mental". |
|
15 Nov 04 - 01:19 PM (#1327501) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Uncle_DaveO I didn't mean that nobody who likes one likes the other. Sorry if I came across that way. But I think there is a tendency in the way that I described, and that, for those who have decided and pretty-much-exclusive tastes, the division comes about based on the listener's preferred emphasis. Dave Oesterreich |
|
15 Nov 04 - 01:34 PM (#1327514) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: frogprince I guess I've just been lucky; in the live music scenes I've been around lately, hardly anyone seems interested in the distinction. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 01:42 PM (#1327525) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Ebbie I like the drive of bluegrass. I like the picking. I especially like the trading off of leads. And the high harmonies. On occasion, there are slower tunes, too, which my ear appreciates. I do get tired of the simplistic lyrics. But when I listen to Doc Watson, I change my mind again. Saying that black people don't play bluegras, to me, is like saying black people can't swim or that black people don't sing country. I've seen and heard plenty of exceptions. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 01:42 PM (#1327526) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Maryrrf 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! |
|
15 Nov 04 - 02:00 PM (#1327544) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous OK, I'll put it this way. The actual music is secondary in folk music. Doesn't matter much what the melody is about or the tempo or structure of the song, it's the words that really matter. I'm sure that goes over just as well as saying that words to bluegrass songs don't matter. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 02:12 PM (#1327566) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Maryrrf Did somebody say that "words to bluegrass songs don't matter"? |
|
15 Nov 04 - 02:17 PM (#1327573) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Barbara Shaw Hey, I'm a die-hard bluegrasser, and I also love folk music (of which I feel bluegrass is a part). I usually don't care much for watching a single performer with a single instrument, having experienced the joy of participating in as well as listening to harmony and instrumental ensembles in other genres, although there is the occasional performer who can keep my interest solo. It's often true what they say about the lyrics in bluegrass vs folk, and sometimes it's hard to find songs our bluegrass band can do that don't make me gag. On the other hand, many singer/songwriter songs make me gag. And some of both types simply bore me. If I want intellectual stimulation (which I often do), I'm less likely to look for it in music than in some other medium. Music for me is more visceral. It's not true that bluegrass is all fast, and it is true that some folk is very fast (e.g. old-timey tunes). If I have my choice of listening to a solo vs duet vs trio vs quartet vs quintet (stop there) I generally feel that more is more and will more likely end up at a bluegrass concert than a folk concert because more folkies perform alone. Which also accounts for some of their "liberties" with rhythm and timing, which is less often found in ensembles. At the risk of perpetuating more stereotypes and generalizations, I'll join in this fun discussion anyway. Jerry, you find some fine ways to get us talking! |
|
15 Nov 04 - 02:21 PM (#1327575) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Maryrrf Well, vive la difference! In general I would choose to go and see a solo performer as opposed to a group. I'm less interested in the harmony aspects, more interested in words, how the singer expresses him/herself, etc. Obviously there is no right or wrong here - just a matter of what you are looking for. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 02:32 PM (#1327590) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Steve-o This is nothing more than the age-old snotty attitude held by those on both sides of the equation who have small minds. I think some of it is fear, and some is just plain ignorance...sort of a "prejudice" kind of thing. When the two cross-polinate, then you get the GREAT stuff- the Belas, the Grismans, the Rowans, etc. I went to a Bluegrass gathering in the park two weeks ago, and a bunch of those hard core dorks were there, as always. Once we played for a while, the open minds split off and had a great time- the hard cores stood around trading licks on "Way Downtown". It has ever been thus. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 02:33 PM (#1327592) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Barbara Shaw Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention. I do a lot of songwriting, so I'm a bluegrasser but also one of those "singer/songwriters" I complain about. Of course, MY songs are never about my navel or the cookies I baked or things mundane. I have indeed written protest songs as well as fairly cerebral pieces that might do better without any music at all, and I have also written my share of sappy, boring, down-home lyrics put to forgettable melodies. Some of these songs are performed by our bluegrass band, so I call them bluegrass. What's my point? Music is as music hears? All generalizations are wrong? I'll go now... |
|
15 Nov 04 - 02:41 PM (#1327597) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Claire I come from the traditional scene (Old Time an Irish). I wonder if anyone else sees the following contrast the way that I do. Although a lot of bluegrass has an ensemble sound, the attraction, both for the listener and the player, is the solo work. This is often incredibly intricate and showing off an individual players skill. At a bluegrass jam, people take turns to solo, something that almost never happens at an old time jam or an Irish session. The session and jam scene is all about playing together, fitting into lovely tight sound. Single players may be shown off in concerts, but even at concerts the the zen of group playing is really the core sound. Singing is a whole different discussion - but I don't have time to go into it right now. So, I am interested to know if Bluegrass aficionados also find this contrast, or if maybe I have a slanted view. Fun discussion - thanks Claire PS: now that the election is over, my brain can actually handle other things, so it is nice to check in with you all. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 02:48 PM (#1327600) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Arnie I've noticed and I'm sure some of you do too that there is definitely a cultural difference in comparing the bluegrass audience and the folk music audience (here in Canada anyway ). For example not too long ago before they outlawed smoking in the bars here if you went to hear bluegrass in any club around Toronto you could count on it being a smoking pit and a noisy audience (even though the performers may be top notch).(Beer available stuff and most popular -light beer and average like stuff like Molson Canadian). Go hear folk music at a club or pub - audience is quiet, attentive, (many premium beers on tap as well as light). The folk music audience is open to a wide variety of styles, and bluegrass audience is just focused on that style and it's culture for the most part. I recently recorded a banjo CD "The Banjo Special" with bluegrass, old time, and Irish music all on the same disk. High hopes were made on bridging wider audiences with the recording with some success - but it did not meet expectations. The reviews on the recording of the individual genres were excellent, but acceptance of listening to the non preferred style of the listener remained difficult. Observations. I love good music. Arnie Naiman |
|
15 Nov 04 - 02:56 PM (#1327610) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Mooh Arnie, I love that cd, and have been playing it for others lately. If it's okay for the likes of Bela Fleck and Simon Mayor to dabble in a range of styles, it's okay for me. Peace, Mooh. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 03:17 PM (#1327623) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: The Fooles Troupe I have a wide and eclectic musical taste, (a multi-instrumentalist and singer too) encouraged by by parents when young - my mother had wanted to learn an instrument and could sing very well, but came the depression and there was no money, when the money became available, her younger brothers & sisters (who never touched an instrument again and rarely sang!) got the music lessons - my father was a very good classically trained violinist, who didn't see much in certain types of jazz, but liked swing, musicals, pop, etc. Both tended to like everything from opera to pop, but in mixed and varying doses. So do I. In folk, I tend to prefer instrumental ensembles, with or without singers With 'bluegrass', I often tend to have much the same reaction as with 'irish' music - the quote from the movie 'Amadeus' says it all "too many notes for the ear to hear". The locally available players seem to tend to concentrate on technical and agility & proficiency at high speed, and the availability of slower instrumental material, and unaccompanied vocal material is far less overall. My father once was listening to a very young me showing off just how fast I could play things (with absolutely no expression!) and managed to open my mind. He told me that any fool with only very limited musical talent and ability can play fast and loud, because it's easier and requires less technical control than playing slower and quieter, and then picked up his violin and very slowly and steadily drew the bow from the frog to the tip taking minutes to generate a very soft and very pure unwavering tone (he used to play 'hot canary and other fast pieces occasionally too, you know). I like all types of music, from the 'primitive' throat singing styles to opera, instrumental from accapella solo to massed choirs with orchestra & pipe organ, my personal preference when playing is ensemble rather than solo. I was trained as an accompanist by my father, and did a lot of it, playing piano & pipe organ for church singing from kids to congregations, and even in a school orchestra. Listening sensitively to what other are doing is far more satisfying than being a soloist - when I worked in amateur theatre with very limited resources, I found that lack of resources does not inhibit artistic expression, indeed a restriction on choices seems to promote creativity. I also prefer singing harmony to solo personally for much the same reasons. I do like good practitioners who can belt out a tune faster than I can, but it seems just a sort of ego game to me, fun to do occasionally - like the 'how long can you hold a note' singing game, which if I know it is about to happen, I can 'turn on' the technique, and hang on with the best of them - as one who was thought to have asthma as a youngster and did breathing exercises and theatre techniques such as intercostal breathing so as one can 'play dead' - I do have quite a degree of breath control, but not as good as a professional opera singer!, but if you have put the effort into developing your technical skills to handle slower playing, just pure speed gets very boring after a while. Of course I have seen many people (often non-instrumental spectators) decry slow pieces and demand 'more speed', as if that is the only worthwhile musical criteria. Often makes me wonder about their lovemaking techniques.... ;-) Robin |
|
15 Nov 04 - 03:24 PM (#1327628) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous Foolstroupe You obviously have heard very little of the great bluegrass ballads that are sung in a heartfelt manner. It's far from all fast and hard. True there is no right and wrong here. But there is boring and exciting. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 04:01 PM (#1327668) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: The Fooles Troupe "You obviously have heard very little of the great bluegrass ballads that are sung in a heartfelt manner." So true - we don't seem to have much of that (that I know of) locally here in Australia. Martin, would you like to mention a few so I can track them down please? "there is boring and exciting." 'Boring' can be fast or slow - so can 'exciting'... No!!!!...... I meant MUSIC! Robin |
|
15 Nov 04 - 04:09 PM (#1327680) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Steve Latimer Foolestroupe, It was the slower ballads that first drew me to Bluegrass. Down In The Willow Garden by Charlie Monroe, Angel Band and Rank Strangers To Me by The Stanley Brothers were probably the first ones, but there are tons of great Bluegrass Ballads. Check out the Stanley Brothers or Ralph Stanley and The Clinch Mountain Boys. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 04:18 PM (#1327689) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Steve-o I'll jump in here before Martin comes back, Foolestroupe. As far as "modern" Bluegrass styling, you can find the answer to all your questions by getting any and all Seldom Scene albums. Should be readily available in Australia; if not, through the web. Of course, there is lots more, and lots more of the older stuff too, but I'll let others advise you on those. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 04:23 PM (#1327691) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Jerry Rasmussen Man, ask the question and leave the computer for a couple of hours and then settle in for a long, enjoyable read! I pretty much agree with everything that folks are saying in here, and I thought Uncle Dave-O was especially on target. I dug out an old article I wrote on the difference between bluegrass groups, old-time string bands and folk singers and thought I'd throw it on here. With tongue firmly in cheek. Bluegrass Bands: Wear shirts and ties; sometimes even three piece suits Do "shows" Say Mam a lot Entertain Play instrumentals really fast Always have a gospel segment of their show Perform standing up and display fancy footwork Don't encourage the audience to sing along Old-time String Bands: Tune their instruments a lot Usually wear shirts, but never ties Crack each other up Perform sitting down, or if standing are on the clumsy side Preface each song with a lengthy historical background about the band and the recording that was their source Don't encourage the audience to sing along Folk Singers" Wouldn't be caught dead wearing a tie, except Bob Franke Sit down while they perform as often as they stand up Like to talk with the audience Often grind their own axes Encourage the audience to sing along Don't generally think of themselves as "entertainers" In the article, I also found some other quotes from the bluegrass fans: "Bluegrass is for the lower call; folk music is for the upper class" And I added: Bluegrass music does seem to be quintessentially Amurican. John Wayne, red, white and blue, Budweiser, hunting dog, pick up truck, feed hat music. Folk music is Public Television. Bluegrass is Hee Haw Jerry |
|
15 Nov 04 - 04:24 PM (#1327692) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Peace I like good music performed well. That's my criteria. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 04:30 PM (#1327697) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: SINSULL Down In The Willow Garden is Bluegrass? I don't think so. Angel Band? Or do you mean Blue Grass versions of old traditional songs? I too would like to know about Bluegrass ballads, especially ones written originally as Bluegrass. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 04:34 PM (#1327701) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous I came back, Foolstroupe and Steve Latimer and Steve-O couldn't have said it better for me. what they have mentioned is some great stuff. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 04:52 PM (#1327724) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Big Al Whittle I'm trying to think of a bluegrass group in the UK that stayed together long enough to do lots of festivals and stuff like that - recently I mean - obviously we got the odd visit from Country Gazette and the like - but thats a hell of a long time ago. Bluegrass clubs in the UK are terrible - only so often you can listen to Don't Let Your Deal Go Down. One night I heard it five times. What we need is some really young charismatic singers to embrace bluegrass, show us what it can do.... The late Thaddeus Kay and his brother George were that sort of country. Didn't see em billed in folk clubs too much. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 04:52 PM (#1327725) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Arkie People seem to gravitate to music for different reasons; some find the words appealing, some do not pay attention to words, some like it fast, some like it slow and melodic, and for some the appeal is how the music makes them feel. And then again, there are those who have a fairly wide tolerance for many types of music. One thing that I have discovered is that for many people, if they like the performer, they will like the music. Conversely, if for some reason the audience does not like a performer, nothing that person or group does will be entertaining. In old time or folk music the emphasis is usually on the song or tune. In bluegrass the emphasis seems to be on the performance of a tune or song. Arrangements are a bit more intricate and harmonies more practiced. While I would think that most Mudcatters would know the differences between bluegrass and folk or old time music, the general public does not seem to care all that much and refers to almost all acoustic music as bluegrass. At least neither bluegrass or folk performers have succumbed to the practice driving pop and country music these days - that the least essential element in music is music. That it is far more important to express attitude and seduce the camera. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 05:06 PM (#1327742) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: The Fooles Troupe Pop music video clips are mostly just soft porn. So much for 'hard' rock... :-) |
|
15 Nov 04 - 05:06 PM (#1327743) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Barbara Shaw Here are a few more generalizations (tongue also in cheek) from my own experience in both worlds: Folkies tend to be: -better educated -higher socio-economic class -more rule-bound at festivals (low chairs in front, full-height in back, no high-back chairs in the audience pulleeeeeezzz! enter by this gate, camp in neat little squares of this many square feet, etc.) -better singers and likely to sing along in the audience -more diversified (race, sexual preference, ethnicity, religion) -more likely urban -more interested in the lyrics, message Bluegrassers tend to be: -better instrumentalists -more interested in tradition -more formally dressed on stage (my husband insists on wearing a tie when he performs to show his respect for the music and to counteract the hayseed image) -rural or small-town -interested in lyrics that continue the "tradition" and "values" embraced by the bluegrass "culture" -more fun One should never generalize. (I've got dozens more...) |
|
15 Nov 04 - 05:15 PM (#1327748) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous Barbara, as a musician who has played his share of both types, you are so right on. am enjoying your observations. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 06:23 PM (#1327823) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: radriano Martin Gibson said: OK, I'll put it this way. The actual music is secondary in folk music. Doesn't matter much what the melody is about or the tempo or structure of the song, it's the words that really matter. --- Now that all depends on the definition of "folk music." For me, melody matters immensely. Maybe that's why I much prefer traditional music. Traditional melodies are much more interesting and satisfying. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 06:33 PM (#1327832) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,CK Interesting question. I think of bluegrass as the rock n' roll of acoustic music---a lot of it has a frantic nature to it, and I guess that people who like that sound and that beat might not care much about an evening with Michael Smith. I like bluegrass music...in small to moderate doses. I get weary of the themes (Jesus stuff especially), and the banjo can give me a headache. But I also like other forms of acoustic music in moderation too, such as Celtic especially. But I think you're onto something: bluegrass festivals I've been at have a blue collar family picnic ambiance while the folk festivals often have a hep, alternative, old hippie, college, left wing crowd. While we all might say we like all kinds of music, let's face it, when it comes to putting down one's cash, we're probably selective and the folk and bluegrass audiences are 2 distinct sub-cultures with a little overlap. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 07:00 PM (#1327855) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: PoppaGator I'm wondering if one genre's audience tends to include more people who actually play (or sing) than the other's. Much of the awestruck commentary you hear about a picker's speed and/or technique comes from amateur players who only wish they could do the same themselves. There has always been a lot of this type of adulation for rock lead-guitar players, and I think the same thing goes on for bluegrass heroes. On the other hand, a very large proportion of the fans of *any* folk genre are also participants, so I'm not at all sure that the bluegrass audience includes would-be pickers than does the audience for other types of folk music. But I'd of course be interested in anyone's thoughts... |
|
15 Nov 04 - 07:53 PM (#1327906) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Barbara Shaw I think the bluegrass audience has many more participants (pickers) than the folk audience. In fact, the bluegrass culture includes going to festivals and pickin' your brains out all weekend, skipping meals and sleep to jam all day and all night. People who never picked up an instrument before end up taking up guitar or mando or banjo or fiddle or bass and joining in. That's part of the attraction of bluegrass, the welcome to beginners and the campsite jams ("field picking") in addition to the stage shows. At the folk festivals I've been to, there are a few people who play some instrument or other (many more to pick from in folk music), but not nearly the widespread participation that is standard in bluegrass. And folkies rarely jam until the stage show is over for the day, while some bluegrassers never even get down to the stage area. My personal opinion about those folks who go crazy for pickin' speed and dazzle is that it's another gearhead thing. The same ones (usually guys) who are into cars and machines and things with PARTS are the ones who spend hours, whole weekends, talking about (usually) banjo PARTS and licks and breaks and such. Don't get me started on banjos. I live with one. Make that, I live with FOUR. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 08:12 PM (#1327938) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Art Thieme What, you mean Ricki Scaggs isn't a girl?? Art |
|
15 Nov 04 - 09:02 PM (#1328012) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Jerry Rasmussen Let me add why I appreciate Shore Grass so much. I've booked quite a few bluegrass bands over the years, but never one I enjoyed as Shore Grass. Shore Grass makes sure that the words and what the song has to say are never subservient to the instrumental breaks. And, Frank plays what the song needs on banjo, not restricting himself to the narrow range of traditional three-fingered bluegrass rolls. They honor the tradition without being limited by it. Jerry |
|
15 Nov 04 - 09:09 PM (#1328021) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Steve Latimer Sinsull, The versions that I mentioned are definitely Bluegrass Songs. They may have started as something else, but such is the beauty of Bluegrass. By the time those songs left the mountains they were Bluegrass songs, complete with the high harmonies, Bluegrass Instruments etc. Is Sitting on Top Of The World Blues or Bluegrass? I've heard it done both ways and I say it is both. A bluegrass ballad that started life as a Bluegrass song. Several, but give a listen to The Stanley Brothers "The Lonesome River" to start. Carter Stanley wrote it. Carter and Ralph Stanley together were magical. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 09:11 PM (#1328025) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Franz S. I attend three "festivals" a year:NCBS Good Old-Fashioned Bluegrass Festival,San Francisco Folk Music Club Free Folk Festival, and Western Workers Labor Heritage Festival. The broadest range of music is probably at the SFFMC event, but all three are characterized in large part by participatory music. I do a lot of singing along at all three. I don't recall running into anyone being snotty at any of the three. And I am passionately fond of all three. I'm not a performer, but I am a participant. I've been listening to, singing, and trying to play bluegrass, old-timey, folk, gospel, labor, mountain, and country (I'm sure I left something out)almost all my life. I appreciate Barbara Shaw's comments. Let's try to look for the things that unite us. (Lord, that sounds like a Dubya slogan: sorry.) |
|
15 Nov 04 - 09:15 PM (#1328031) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: SINSULL Aside: I am trying to picture Dick Greenhaus as a Morris Dancer. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 09:28 PM (#1328042) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: dick greenhaus Sinsull- What brought that on? I have done some Morris dancing way, way back, but I seem to have recovered. |
|
15 Nov 04 - 09:52 PM (#1328075) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Ron Davies It seems to me several posters have mentioned the most important factor of all--whether you yourself actually do bluegrass or folk rather than just listening to it---it makes all the difference if you're a participant. But if we talk about why bluegrass people don't like folk or vice versa we get into quicksand real fast. What is a bluegrass song? "Sitting On Top of the World" is not---or is it? I've heard some great bluegrass versions of it. "There Is A Fountain" is not--but the Bluegrass Cardinals do, to my mind, the definitive version of it. "Sleep With One Eye Open" is--and for me a great song with a sly sense of humor (also, according to Lester Flatt, banned as too suggestive by some radio stations when Flatt and Scruggs did it). "Little Bessie" is, for me, a bluegrass song--I've never heard a non-bluegrass version of it (though they no doubt exist) and the stark bluegrass instrumentation and "high lonesome" sound fit perfectly. So it may predate Bill Monroe--lots of bluegrass does. A crucial question would be--what about the Carter Family? I can't imagine bluegrass without their contributions. Anyway, it's always too bad when somebody narrows his or her musical taste, and as I said, the most important aspect is doing a type of music yourself. I've stayed up all night til 7 AM at bluegrass parties at least twice and had a glorious time singing and playing. I've also sung and played til dawn at least 3 times doing folk music (not counting Getaways where it also happened) (as I said I really don't think you can separate the two rigidly, especially Carter Family material--why would you want to?) I also like the lyrics in bluegrass--the best seem very evocative of a not too distant past--not only Singing All Day and Dinner on the Ground but also of a time when, for instance. death, even for children, was considered a very accepted part of life (e.g. "Little Bessie") I take the religious lyrics in gospel bluegrass seriously--as the writers meant them. The romantic complaints I don't always take seriously--"Hit Parade of Love"? A sense of humor in music makes it even better. Folk of course is wonderful--partly because of its variety---not just Child ballads but drinking songs, sea songs, farming songs, gospel especially black Gospel, but also Sacred Harp, Klezmir, Irish, Scots, western swing, calypso (especially calpysoes from the 30's and 40's), mining songs, railroad songs, etc., etc. But here again the distinction becomes meaningless---there are great bluegrass railroad songs, mining songs, etc. I've found that in both folk and blugrass gatherings somebody who knows lyrics is appreciated, as is somebody who can do harmonies. Have to admit I can get my fill of bluegrass intrumentals when the goal seems to be to finish first. But I'd say the same of folk ballads read off the page by somebody who really can't settle on a tune and stumbles over the words. Some like vocals, some instrumentals. Optimal for me is a good song, with a chorus, and with great breaks--that way everybody gets a chance to participate, but individuals also shine. On top of this I sing in choral groups, love orchestral music----and doo-wop. There's such a wealth---as several posters have already said---good music is good music-----it's foolish to be narrow. It also limits your own pleasure---needlessly. Why do that? |
|
15 Nov 04 - 09:54 PM (#1328078) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Ron Davies What a coincidence---cross-posted on "Sittin' On Top of the World". |
|
15 Nov 04 - 11:36 PM (#1328119) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Ron Davies Maybe I should clarify. Obviously I'm not nostalgic for the years of TB and smallpox epidemics. But songs about earlier times that really evoke those times I find fascinating. The vast majority of Sacred Harp songs are about death, including the most upbeat. A WAMU d-j here talks a lot about "plumb pitiful songs" and plays a lot of them--lots of listeners, including me, seem to like them. Maybe it's realizing how Hobbesian life was, not so long ago, and realizing how much things ( in the West) have changed. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 01:29 AM (#1328190) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,BOAB "Folk music" is yon stuff that folk sing and play. And folk clubs are plagued [as, apparently are "bluegrass" clubs] by "bigots" who see nothing good beyond trad, or are besotted by shanty, or some other narrow spectrum. Traddy-folkies should realise that, as in the antique business, some things that are dug up would be far better left buried. And our local club in Northumberland ---nominally a "folk club" ,and the BEST in the country at that time [I insist!!] used to welcome all who had a talent for entertaining, and many indeed who entertained only by the merit of their material alone. Shantymen abounded. Traddies were to the fore. And Bill Zorn and the Arizona Smoke Review found a riotous reception. I find great pleasure in all good music [I'm like Moses in this respect---as long as "Moses" isn't a pseudonym for Charlton Heston!]. I found to my delight that Bluegrass tends to be "three-chord' in structure, and invites participation of "lesser mortals" alongside vituoso fiddlers and banjo maestros. I have a great love for the good traditional music and song of many lands. I revel in shanties [being cursed with a voice like a foghorn!:-) ] And I think I would have difficulty finding a celtic piece that wasn't worth a look and listen. Och!---I'm just music-daft!! |
|
16 Nov 04 - 08:45 AM (#1328462) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Jerry Rasmussen Hey, Ron: You sound like my kind of man. Last night, while I was adding comments to this and other threads about old-time, bluegrass and folk music, I was listening to a two CD set of the best of the Orioles. It took me close to twenty years to finally find a compilation that included one of my favorite recordings of theirs.. Don't Go To Strangers. Why do people who love folk music hate Jazz? Why do people waste their time and energy hating any form of music? Not appreciating it is one thing.. I don't appreciate opera or rap or disco, but if it speaks to someone else, then it has it's own, inherent value. It just doesn't touch my ears. The qualities of bluegrass that several posters find endearing are the same qualities that others (myself included) find repetitive or even irritating. And by the bye: Old-timey music which is held up as the comparison in this and the thread on the subject is characterized as going on forever, with words mostly as an after-thought. If a band is playing for a dance, the music and the rhtyhm and the DANCE (no duh!) are the purpose of the music. The other times when old-timey bands play, the music, the words and the humor are the purpose. I booked old-timey bands for concerts for many years, and the songs were three or four minutes long, with an emphasis on the song, not the instrumental breaks. When I booked the same band for a dance, they played repetitive fiddle tunes as a support for the dancing. Different strokes for different folks. Jerry |
|
16 Nov 04 - 09:05 AM (#1328479) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Barbara Shaw Jerry, thanks for the nice words about ShoreGrass. We combine some elements of bluegrass, old-timey, folk and even some blues in our band. Frank loves clawhammer as much as Scruggs-style banjo, which makes things very old-timey on some songs. And often when I try to write something bluegrassy, it comes out bluesy or folkie. As can be expected, the sticking point on some of the original music is the LYRICS! When I try to include more "content" there is a resistance from some quarters who want to keep it "simple." Hey, I'm fighting the good fight anyway... Here's a good example of a song that exemplifies the folk process and demonstrates some commonality: Curtains of Night (AKA I'll Remember You Love in my Prayers), written by William Shakespeare Hays in 1869. This song was done by the Carter Family (early country), I heard it first by Stecher & Brislin (folk), Ralph Stanley recorded it (of course, he's recorded just about every song ever written, giving it his unique mountain sound) and I heard Dan Tyminski (of Union Station) perform it on stage with his own bluegrass band. The Carter Family and Stecher & Brislin use a different melody from the Stanley and Tyminski versions, but all are 4/4 time. Then our own Kendall Morse comes along and sings me a version he knows with a totally different melody in 3/4 time! All great. It's the LYRICS that tie them all together. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 09:26 AM (#1328501) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GLoux Gail Gillespie does a great version of "Curtains of Night" with the W.S.Hays lyrics on her Travelling Shoes CD backed by the New Southern Broadcasters. It's in 4/4 time. Old-time. -Greg |
|
16 Nov 04 - 09:52 AM (#1328530) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Joe "The actual music is secondary in folk music. Doesn't matter much what the melody is about or the tempo or structure of the song, it's the words that really matter." Thanks for the insight - I always wondered why so many folk performers choose songs that are devoid of any appeal tunewise - now I know. I'll try to stay awake long enough in future to appreciate the lyrics. If the "actual music" is a throwaway, why not simply recite the piece - or, better yet, do monologues? |
|
16 Nov 04 - 09:53 AM (#1328533) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Arnie I think that many bluegrass musicians with years of playing experience have a keen interest and deep respect for various forms of folk music. This comes about by knowing where the music roots are when you search out the music. There are for example old time musicians that are techincally capable of playing bluegrass music as well on a professional level and visa versa- e.g. such as Art Stamper, Kenny Baker, John Hartford, Tim O'Brien, Mike Seeger and many others who understand profoundly the music and it's roots and are also not afraid to take the music in new directions as well. Some of the great young players I know around where I live are certainly opening up these days and respecting other forms of music and the musicians who play. Chalk it up to experience of playing music with others informally, or perhaps performing at music camps and festivals where all forms of music gather in one place. A lot of bluegrass musicians and audiences are focused in only their world only as a choice - be it a matter of lifestyle , taste, or perhaps non exposure and appreciation for other forms of music. You could say the same is true in musicians and audiences of other genres as well. Tradition - a big part of bluegrass no doubt. How many times to we hear the same Gospel songs, or Scruggs tunes, or Bill Monroe classics over and over from bands. It can get a bit tedious, unless you are ingrained in the culture of bluegrass. Good bluegrass musicians know this and are reaching out in new ways - and they sell lots of records in compared to most folk music recordings. Have a good read of Ron Block's IBMA Keynote Address on "What is Bluegrass" http://www.ronblock.com/ibma.keynote.2004.html Arnie Naiman |
|
16 Nov 04 - 10:13 AM (#1328560) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Barbara Shaw Those same old songs get very tedious, even for those of us ingrained in the culture of bluegrass! Those are the jams that I walk away from after a few minutes. In their defense, the people doing them have often been hanging out and playing music together for years and get great joy from playing the old tunes together each year at their festival reunions. Others who play the old chestnuts are very often rookies, just discovering the music and finding their magic for the first time, not the bohillionth time like some of us. There's a great new band called King Wilkie, five young men who make wonderful, traditional bluegrass with their own NEW songs. If you get the chance, go hear them. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 10:49 AM (#1328608) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Steve Latimer Arnie, I have extremely diverse musical tastes. My only real exposure to the Banjo was through Bluegrass, mainly because I attempt to play it. I got the Banjo Special not long after it came out, and as much as I think Mr. Quinn is one of the finest BG pickers I have heard, I really like the stuff that you, Chris Coole and Brian Tenehy do. What a great CD. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 11:15 AM (#1328647) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Arnie Steve - I thank you for your comments about the Banjo Special. It was our goal to get some bluegrassers to hear players in the other styles too in hopes of appreciation such as yours. Everyone's ear is different. David Freeman's review from County Sales was good except, He flat out stated his dislike for the Irish music. The Old Time Herald review stated their dislike for the bluegrass cuts and hailed Brian Taheny as a great player. Sing Out and Bluegrass Unlimited liked the whole deal. Go figure - it'a all in the ear of the beholder. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 12:18 PM (#1328744) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Pete Jennings Oi, Jerry! I like jazz as well! Maybe not overkeen on the trad stuff, but I saw some great live bands playing for free in my student days in Bristol (UK). Back then it seemed every pub had a jazz gig and I regularly used to go to a Sunday lunch gig and then play at a folk club in the evening. There's only one criteria for the music I like best: it has to be LIVE. Pete |
|
16 Nov 04 - 12:30 PM (#1328760) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: SINSULL Thanks, Steve. The Stanley Bros are now on my "To Buy" list. Sorry Dick - that was pure stream of consciousness. Don't know where it came from. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 12:38 PM (#1328764) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Steve Latimer Sinsull, I would recommend starting with this one. There are some sound clips. Check out tracks 2 & 16 to start. I love Flatt & Scruggs, J.D Crowe etc, but there is just something about the Stanleys that make them my favourite. Someone once said that they never strayed very far from the mountain. Although they are a Bluegrass band, I think that they are closer to Old Time than a lot of the others. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00000294U/qid=1100626418/sr=2-3/ref=pd_ka_b_2_3/002-2356520-4593636 |
|
16 Nov 04 - 01:01 PM (#1328792) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous Guest, Joe I said that completely in sarcasm in response to someone who said the lyrics in bluegrass are secondary. I wish you would have read the whole thread so you would see what I was responding to. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 01:15 PM (#1328803) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Frank Jerry, I want to return to the initial thread. African-American people do like folk music. There are representatives notably in this form of music. Odetta, Josh White, Leadbelly, Leon Bibb, Jackie Washington, Sparky Rucker, Taj Mahal, (many names not known these days) and more. One of the problems is that the music has been segregated along cultural lines and redefined for cultural reasons. Bluegrass is essentially a newer form of music with Bill Monroe as the leading icon. Maybe it is opening up now to African American people and musicians and this is certainly a better trend. I haven't seen it yet but I will take your word for it. There was a time before the music marketing forces began to take over bluegrass, blues, old-timey, celtic, ethnic etc. would have fallen under the rubric of just plain folk music. That obviously has changed. Now the folk music label seems to have narrowed due to the insistence of the bluegrass community that they are not folk. For some reason, probably political, they have narrowed the definition of folk to be constricted to protest or topical music and/or the stereotypical coffee house singer (many singer/songwriter) playing for urban audiences. I find this tendency toward exclusion to be unfortunate and as a result, bluegrass becomes a rubber stamp rather than a growing and innovative musical expression. A lot of this has to be placed at the cultural rather than musical level. Lets face it. Many bluegrass musicians are hard-nosed because they are prejudiced against the urbanization of America. This includes being uncomfortable with the presence of black people. It works in reverse. black people have no real interest in bluegrass because they feel it alien to their interests and needs. The same type of snobbery found in bluegrass, used to take place amoung the traditionalists of folk music which at that time was defined differently though ironically the definition came from folks who were mainly from the cities. Today, there is a rich growth in the field of music whereby there are musicians out there who can play a variety of musical styles well, far better than when I was growing up. Fortunately, they are often not drawn into the semantic wars of bluegrassers, folkies etc. They play and enjoy. I happen to like all kinds of music including bluegrass but I see these lines drawn basically by non-professional musicians. i also see this as a manifestation of just plain old prejudice and a mythical ideal of what constitutes a rural or southern landscape. Bluegrass started in the oil fields of Indiana and is a johnny-come-lately to the deep South. It has to be seen as part of a larger picture of American music and not segregated to exclue anyone who isn't a mythical white rural southerner. Frank |
|
16 Nov 04 - 02:17 PM (#1328868) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Steve-o BTW Jerry, thanks a lot for this thread! American music WILL be discussed when we finally get a good subject. More, please. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 02:58 PM (#1328922) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: ard mhacha To-day I have been listening for the umpteenth time to the sound track from, O Brother where art thou, sheer magic, and also to the Planxty comeback concert, also music to die for. If it`s good bluegrass or good folk, it makes no difference listen and enjoy. |
|
16 Nov 04 - 08:47 PM (#1329310) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Barbara Shaw Some bluegrassers don't like folk because the songs can be jam-busters. Complex melodies with unpredictable chord progressions and subjective timing are not the kind of thing you can join in on, and participation is a big part of bluegrass culture. There are other jam-busters, but certain folk songs are sure to break up a good session. |
|
17 Nov 04 - 12:12 PM (#1330045) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Steve-o Whoa..."complex melodies with unpredictable chord progressions"...what "folk songs" have you been listening to?? |
|
17 Nov 04 - 12:23 PM (#1330063) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Pete Jennings ...and "subjective timing" ! Beats me. Have any examples in mind? |
|
17 Nov 04 - 12:43 PM (#1330089) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Barbara Shaw OK, not that complex, but more than the typical 3 chords found in a bluegrass song: Summer Fly (Cheryl Wheeler) Coal Tattoo (Billy Edd Wheeler) Sing With the Angels (Rick Fielding) We've tried all of these at bluegrass jams and watched everyone drop out, turning it into a performance rather than a jam. The "subjective timing" refers to pauses and retards and other personal expressions and tempo variations that you might find in a folk song rendition but rarely in a bluegrass song. |
|
17 Nov 04 - 01:05 PM (#1330117) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Hootenanny Barbara I thought that you were referring to folk songs rather than recent compositions ?? Surely if you are playing in a 'jam' then everyone participating needs to know the material whatever genre you are playing in. If you don't know the material how can you take part? May I suggest that you don't try and introduce your taste on other people's sessions but start your own. Others who are familiar with the material and enjoy playing it will then join you. Too much slagging off people for their taste! It's all music (well most of it) and whatever we play/sing surely we do it for fun. |
|
17 Nov 04 - 03:10 PM (#1330253) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Barbara Shaw At the risk of continuing the never-ending "what is folk?" discussion, let me say that I don't consider folk to be only old songs. Cheryl Wheeler is surely a folk singer by anyone's definition, no? My point about folk songs in a jam vs bluegrass songs is precisely that people can usually join in on a bluegrass song that they've never heard before. Most of the songs are quite simple and do not require knowing the material. I've heard hundreds of songs at jams and festivals, and always leave them having heard many, many more that are new to me. And usually no familiarity with the song is required to join in. In fact, I look forward to hearing new songs at every jam. As for introducing my taste on other people's sessions: we carry so many instruments in our camper and usually camp in a compound with 2 or 3 other families, so we almost always jam at our own site or our own house. People join us all the time. My point was that for the "folk" songs mentioned, the jam became more of a performance during that song, rather than a participatory event for everyone, because the songs were too difficult for people who were not familiar with the material to join in easily. I'm not sure what "slagging off" means (I can guess) but I don't think I'm criticizing anyone's taste. My initial post states that I love both bluegrass and folk, and although I'm in a working band, I can assure you I do it for fun. |
|
17 Nov 04 - 04:30 PM (#1330334) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Jerry Rasmussen Barbara and Frank are awright Jerry |
|
17 Nov 04 - 09:39 PM (#1330634) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: The Fooles Troupe "If the "actual music" is a throwaway, why not simply recite the piece - or, better yet, do monologues?" Dylan, come back, all is forgiven... |
|
18 Nov 04 - 09:14 AM (#1331015) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Hootenanny Barbara, apologies for lapsing into the vernacular "slagging off" = "badmouthing". In my world Bluegrass music is "Folk", as are cajun, old time(y), ballads, banjo tunes, fiddle tunes, blues and any material that has been around for a few generations and survived without the asistance of brainwashing by the media and their damned playlists. I have to admit I don't know the name Cheryl Wheeler, what does she do? I suspect (possibly incorrectly) that she is a singer/songwriter and she may be very good at what she does but I can assure you that you cannot make a claim that she is surely a folksinger by anyone's definition. As you rightly state above "What is Folk" is a never ending argument. Billy Edd I do know (I received some audition tapes of his many years ago) and I really enjoy his work however I don't hear much/any of it now that I am aware of. Which of his songs are now performed in folk circles? I'm looking for enlightement not an argument |
|
18 Nov 04 - 09:35 AM (#1331033) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,LUDOBOIS GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL , BECAUSE IN A SENSE PEOPLE (NOT EVERYBODY)DON'T SEE MUSIC AS ORIGINAL BUT MUCH MORE AS A STYLE WICH THEY CONFORM TO AND THAT DEMAND SUBMISSION CAUSE LIKE RELIGION THE RIGHT ONE CAN'T GO TO TWO DIFFERENT CHURCH. bUT I THINK THAT IT IS PERHPAS MORE REAL IN THE PLACE WHERE THES KIND OF MUSIC THRIVES SIDE BY SIDE EVEN IF IT'S IN DIFFERENT TIME, CAUSE PEOPLE SEE THIS AS PERSONAL AS PARTS OF THEIR INDIVIDUALITY AND IDENTITY. FOR MY PARTS IN CANADA I DON'T SEE THIS KIND OF SEGREGATION, FOLK MUSIC FORE ME MEANS NOTHING SINCE IT HAS PRACTICLY EVERETHING IN IT (BLUEGRASS FOR SURE), OH YEAH I DON'T THINK YOU COULD REDUCE FOLK BY CATEGORISE IT, LIKE IF LYRICS SOMETIMES IS PREDOMINANT IS BECAUSE MUSIC DON'T ALWAYS HAVE GO THROUGH TIME LIKE LYRICS. THANK YOU, HOPE I DON'T HAVE LOOK CONDESCENDANT TO ANYONE, LUDO SORRY FOR MY ENGLISH MUSIC IS THE HEALING FORCE OF THE UNIVERSE |
|
18 Nov 04 - 10:04 AM (#1331065) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Barbara Shaw Sorry about my own provincialism mentioning Cheryl Wheeler. She's very well-known around the northeast USA, and I assumed incorrectly that everyone knew her. She writes wonderful songs, has a beautiful voice, and accompanies herself on guitar. Yes, singer/songwriter. I don't really know anything about Billy Edd Wheeler except as the songwriter of "Coal Tattoo." And I assumed that most mudcats would remember our own Rick Fielding, a wonderful singer/songwriter from Toronto, Canada, who died this year. My point was that these songs and others like them are too difficult to do in a bluegrass jam situation. In fact, I resort to looking at my songbook to get the correct chords when we do it. (My husband has no such problem, but that's my problem). That would be one reason "Why bluegrass musicians don't like folk" if in fact they don't. Other bluegrass musicians in fact love folk. Take Charlie Waller, for example. He recorded many, many folk songs. (Am I being provincial again? I hope not...) Jerry, I'll getcha for starting this thread! Do you have any idea how many other things I have NOT accomplished, getting absorbed in this (most interesting) discussion?? |
|
18 Nov 04 - 10:25 AM (#1331079) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Terry Allan Hall GUEST,Frank - look into the McHenry Family Band, an excellent "black" bluegrass band that most festivals WON'T book because (apparently) the M.F.B is the wrong shade. A real pity, because they're fantastic! |
|
18 Nov 04 - 12:08 PM (#1331177) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Jerry Rasmussen Terry Allan Hall: I'll take the tip offered to Frank. Of course, there were black old-time string bands, too. The Dallas String Band being the best known (and wonderful.) I imagine there are some Hindus who love ragtime, but the exception doesn't negate the generality. :-) Jerry |
|
18 Nov 04 - 05:33 PM (#1331553) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Hootenanny Barbara The recently late Charley Waller's work I have been familiar with since the first Country Gentlemen recordings in the early sixties and saw him on his (only ?) trip to England a few years back. He certainly had wide tastes and the ability to put the stuff across including some great country songs. I really don't believe that most bluegrass musicians dislike folk (depending on your definition), how can they it's the roots of their music. What I do believe is that if they have a session going on and someone attempts to join in with music or instruments that don't fit into what's going on then they might not be too happy, same with any session surely. I get involved in bluegrass type sessions and old timey sessions and don't mind who joins in provided it fits and they know when to hold back. Someone playing spoons at a bluegrass session or bodhran at the old time session would certainly give me reason to put down my instrument and pick up my pint. |
|
18 Nov 04 - 11:36 PM (#1331892) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Ron Davies Jerry--- You were dead right in your first posting on this--many people--not just bluegrass fans have a wildly distorted picture of folk music. It is certainly true that bluegrass people want to participate all the time-- not just patiently wait for your turn in a song circle, nor listen to navel-gazers sing about their own angst. Folk is obviously far far more than the navel-gazers, but unfortunately there is some of that. Even more unfortunately, sometimes they sell big, and since it's now so easy for anybody to do a CD, that's what the folk DJ's get flooded with, and they play a distressing amount of it. It's also really hard to write a song dealing with societal problems without using a sledge-hammer approach, which comes across as (usually leftist) propaganda or the aforementioned whining. To the degree radio folk DJ's play this sort of thing, traditional or "music in the tradition" is marginalized and folk gets unfairly tarred with the bad singer-songwriter brush. Mudcatters prove constantly that there are still excellent singer-songwriters around, by doing it themselves--I heard a lot of great newly written --(say, in the last 30 years)--songs at the Getaway, for instance. But the stereotype of a Jewell--- (or whoever the prototype is these days)--- wanna-be is really hard to shake. When the general public (including but not restricted to bluegrassers) think of folk, they either think of Blowing in the Wind folk-scare stuff or whining singer-songwriters. It's a blatantly unfair and distorted perception, but persistent nonetheless. |
|
19 Nov 04 - 12:18 AM (#1331930) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: balladeer Billy Edd Wheeler wrote The Coming of the Roads, a big hit for Judy Collins back in the day. Great thread! |
|
19 Nov 04 - 12:12 PM (#1332482) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: PennyBlack We like music. Folk, Bluegrass, C&W, Irish, Pop, Classical, Punk, Jazz etc etc. PB Bluegrass - "Folk Music with an overdrive" - Earl Scruggs |
|
19 Nov 04 - 01:39 PM (#1332563) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Ebbie Cheryl Wheeler is very well known in Alaska also, Barbara Shaw. She writes excellent songs- including the ironic '(Honey), Don't Forget the Guns'. She puts on a good show. |
|
20 Nov 04 - 08:23 AM (#1333453) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Fortunato Congrats, Jerry, on getting up a thread that's worth contributing to and reading. Although the title of the thread may appear divisive at first glance, it is precisely the innumerating of differences that forces the realization of commonality. Ron, who often jams with us, by the way, Jerry, is one of the more eclectic players and singers around our area and can contribute in many genres. Our old pal Rick Fielding liked to use "Rolling in my Sweet Babies Arms" as an ice breaker, he did so with me the first time we sat down to play togther. That song began as Old Time (no it wasn't a fiddle tune, ahem...) traveled into Bluegrass and Country. But is performed by Doc Watson at Folk Festivals. Rick's choice was a perfect one in that that song, like Ron's example above, "Sitting on Top of the World", travels across the American Folk/Tradtional/Old Time/Bluegrass/Blues genre boundaries. Susette and I travel across the boundaries, also. In fact, we don't see them as boundaries, and distinguish between them only when asked: "What kind of music do you play". How I dread that question, as there is no short answer. As we have seen illustrated in this thread, we don't agree on the definitions and one never knows what one has truly said to the questioner. regards, chance |
|
20 Nov 04 - 08:48 AM (#1333474) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Barbara Shaw they know when to hold back... That's another reason why some bluegrassers don't like folk, again related to the jam situation. Folkies (and others) inexperienced with bluegrass jam etiquette (many good threads on this) tend to play along all the time. In a good bluegrass jam, you can hear every instrument and every voice and people know to HOLD BACK when someone is taking a lead break and HOLD BACK so as not to obstruct the vocals. Rookies thrashing away on their guitars during someone's break or during the singing will raise the irritation factor tremendously and break up a good jam. This of course is unlike an old-timey jam, where everyone happily plays along together in unison. Communication and education solve this issue quickly and add new people to the circle if done gently. |
|
20 Nov 04 - 10:28 AM (#1333542) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,reggie miles I didn't know that this was an issue until recently. I was at a popular bluegrass event. I heard not only bluegrass being played but oldtimey, fiddletunes, swing, country, celtic, jazz, singer/songwriters and even what I consider folk music being played there. Even some of the headliners at the event held workshops about songwriting and performed their own material in such a way that did not strike me as being bluegrass at all. This gave me some ease as I don't possess, musically speaking, what seems to be a prerequisite in most bluegrass, that ability to solo at great speed. I also don't approach what intruments I do play in the same way as they seem to command I do in order to be a part of their circle. About the closest thing I can do to join in is play some bottleneck slide solos. I use my homemade resonator which is a cross between a Dobro and a National, I call it a Nobro. It is tuned in a different form but still a version of open G and though it has a square neck I play it as a round neck, and not lap style. That's how I set the guitar up to play when I made it. I get strange looks from some, right from the start, when I approach to join in one of their jams. I can sing and lead a song or even add some vocal harmonies. I can also add some harmonica solos but I've noticed that harmonica is not widely accepted unless you can play solos like the devil and keep up with their fastest Celtic stuff or fiddletunes. I can't, but what I do does serve my purposes and in my opinion does sounds nice on a few things that they play. I can really bust up a jam when I approach them with my washboard, the one instrument on which I can keep up when speed is a factor. It is visually very stimulating and looks like something Spike Jones might play. I think that shocks most bluegrass players. Before I even get an opportunity to play they figure I'm gonna make way too much of a disturbance in their formula approach to playing. Actually, quite the opposite is true. I've learned, after scrubbin on the darned ol' thing that more is often less when it comes to percussion and that subtlety is a good thing. Still there's that visual factor some find uncomfortable and tend to shy away from. Most don't consider washboard, especially one with as many crazy additions as mine has, as being an acceptable bluegrass instrument. I'll admit that I do enjoy exploring some of the zanier aspects of what I've added to my ol' Maytag but only where and when it's appropriate. Another instrument that I can add to those rare slow numbers that bluegrass musicians are sometimes known to play is the musical saw. The saw has the capability to flow beautifully and harmonize well within many types of music, just not that speedy stuff that bluegrassers are so fond of playing. I can solo with it or play back up softly. It has a very vocal quality to it and blends easily with vocals when those complex bluegrass harmonies are being showcased but again, it's a saw and just the site of it seems to make grassers shrink away. I don't know if they're fearfull I'll scratch their precious instruments (saws are the natural enemy of all wood products you know) but they all move away from me, or quickly change tempo beyond my capabilty to follow on the razor sharp handtool when they notice I've joined their jam. I can only play so fast with my saw before I start losing body parts. Fortunately, most do grow back. It's the ones that don't that I worry about. So, my point is, what's a saw bendin', washboard scubbin', harmonica huffin', bottleneck slidin' guy to do? Hmmmm, invent a new genre? |
|
20 Nov 04 - 11:20 AM (#1333591) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous No, try to do a solo act, I guess. |
|
20 Nov 04 - 12:35 PM (#1333668) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: HuwG Bluegrass is obviously not as common in Britain as on the other side of the Atlantic, but does have its devotees. I have worked at venues which recently hosted events sponsored by the British Bluegrass Federation. The audience was obviously different from that at a folk event. They were generally older; they were hushed and reverential. The bands picked up this atmosphere, and while the music was excellent, it was rehearsed and unspontaneous. There was practically no communication between performers and audience, other than to say in response to polite applause, "Thank you. This next number is called, whatever", and then launch into it. The bar staff tiptoed around, but didn't have too strenuous an evening; the audience all seemed to make one or two pints last all night. Obviously, an event which didn't have this formal backing might be a little less restrained. Folk acts are generally marked by lots of banter between the performers and the audience (and among the performers themselves, sometimes reaching the level of "What key are we in ?"), vast quantities of drink being bought and consumed. Set lists are there as a rough guide only. Here again, this is one extreme end of the folk spectrum, which can approach comedy. I do agree that I have had to sit through too many performances of trad. dirges. Incidentally, one of the best bluegrass and C and W singer/songwriters has a musical background from ... Sheffield and Manchester, UK. I refer to Lorna Flowers. I have to admit I am very fond of this lady since a snog (all right, a polite peck) and a free CD, last year. |
|
21 Nov 04 - 12:44 PM (#1334507) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Ron Davies Reggie-- Most bluegrass people are even more friendly than "Martin Gibson", hard as that might be to imagine. A couple of possibilities: With your washboard, I would think you could do any number of railroad songs--it would fit pretty well. In the groups I've played with, I'll tell you we would have liked it. And the saw would be good on waltzes (of course your key would have to be good for other instrumentalists also). |
|
21 Nov 04 - 01:41 PM (#1334537) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous Reggie I am not an unfriendly person at all and am willing to share my knowledge and experience with anyone. There was nothing at all intentioned to be mean spirited about my short and simple response to your post. Ron Davies just has a problem with many things in his life, that's allthat I can imagine. It was uncalled for by him to single me out and shows very little class on his part taking his vendetta into the music threads. PM me about it if you want to. |
|
21 Nov 04 - 03:12 PM (#1334604) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Ron Davies It was short and not really so friendly, Martin. People who want to get into bluegrass deserve encouragement. Think before you post. |
|
21 Nov 04 - 07:56 PM (#1334781) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous You, as usual, miss the point, Ron and are a very troubled person. Please get help and stop right now ruining the music posts with your inuendos and your anger. Your lectures are for the birds, Ron. |
|
21 Nov 04 - 08:01 PM (#1334784) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Peace Question for all you bluegrass guys and gals (and it's a serious question). Is it considered a 'good' thing in bluegrass to do the song the same way everytime? Let me explain. In some Inuit art (sculpting), it is considered the sign of a good artist if he/she can exactly duplicate the work of an older, more accomplished artist. I guess I'm asking this: Would it be considered a good performance to exactly do a song as an older, respected group did it? Am I making any sense to anyone? |
|
21 Nov 04 - 08:07 PM (#1334793) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous Brucie, I don't think so. Too many here don't realize that bluegrass offers just as much improvisation as jazz does. There is plenty of room for extended breaks, and downright jamming in live performances of songs. I don't know how many times I have heard a lead player be encouraged to "do it again" or a chorus to be refrained "one more time." The people here who criticize bluegrass I don't believe have seen many concerts or done any much serious jamming with accomplished musicians. |
|
21 Nov 04 - 08:13 PM (#1334799) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Peace Thanks, Martin. You have answered the question for me. I guess it may have been prompted by watching up-an-comin' bluegrass (mandolin, banjo, guitar players) working hard to duplicate the licks of people they heard on records. That may have just been me seeing the learning process in progress. One of the better nights I had on stage was with a mandolin player from a bluegrass/countryish group who came on stage with a bunch of us and introduced us to rock mandolin. It was cool. What I do know is that he was one helluva musician who just preferred bluegrass and country to anything else. Good musicians? You bet, buddy. |
|
21 Nov 04 - 08:22 PM (#1334805) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous Brucie, I have read many comparisons of bluegrass to rock music when it comes to energy level. One word that I don't believe that has come up when it comes to playing bluegrass in a group is discipline. The discipline that is needed by each musician to make a bluegrass group sound successful (and in the best sense of the word, differentiated) is what I consider makes so many exceptional bluegrass players the vituosos that they are. |
|
21 Nov 04 - 08:41 PM (#1334819) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Peace I think that could be said of any really tight, good group, but I will admit that the country/bluegrass guys want to get to business right away more often than not. They seem to take it very seriously, until they heva it down, then it's party time on stage. Darn thing is, some of those folks have their fingers moving so fast they have to know it cold. Mistakes in professional bluegrass or country don't happen all that often. Kinda like string quartets or solid studio musicians. Mistakes are a waste of time and money, so they just don't make them. |
|
21 Nov 04 - 08:42 PM (#1334820) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous ...............and that's what separates the men from the boys. |
|
21 Nov 04 - 09:17 PM (#1334848) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Jerry Rasmussen I'll add something about vocals. Funny that you could probably get 200 posts about bluegrass and there be next to no comment on vocals. The same discipline that applies to the instrumental prowess of bluegrass musicians apply to the vocals. Vocals in bluegrass sound as tightly scripted as the instrumental breaks and choreography. The looser harmonies of an old-time band, or a non-bluegrass gospel group may not be music to the ears of a bluegrass musician because as Martin says, discipline is so important to the music. a get together of folk musicians can surely drive a bluegrass musician nuts because it can be pretty free-wheeling and loosey-goosey. I think you hit on the key, Martin. Discipline. Now you step into the realm of personal taste. Is discipline inherently superior to spontaniety? Or is spontaneity superior to discipline. I don't think there is a "superior" involved. It depends on what you like... with tons of exceptions. There are some bluegrass vocals that are tighter than a drum that I really like, because they are so meticuously realized. Other vocals in bluegrass I find too predictable, because there seems to be such a strong (rigid?, traditional?) structure for bluegrass vocals that they lose all individuality in my mind. I've heard old-time bands that were just plain sloppy, and some who were having a good time and taking chances, where the harmonies and phrasing weren't precision, but full of spirit. I don't think that bluegrass is better or inferior to old-time or folk music. Just different The rare thing to me is to meet people who truly enjoy (not just SAY they enjoy) both forms of music. When people say they like bluegrass AND folk music And old-time music, the criticisms of one or the other types of music usually seeps out. "I like bluegrass and folk music, but folk music doesn't have any energy or edge." Or, I like bluegrass and old-time string bands, but bluegrass music is too rigid." When is discipline "rigid?" When does expressive and free-wheeling become just plain old sloppy or lazy? Depends on case by case, night by night, song by song. But, you nailed it, Martin. For me, discipline is admirable and impressive, but it doesn't get me in the gut. For you it does. Good for you! Good for me! Jerry |
|
21 Nov 04 - 09:27 PM (#1334858) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Art Thieme "Sittin' On Top Of The World", as Walter Vinson of the Mississippi Shiks told me, was written by him---the man himself---Walter Vinson. He allowed me to tape record a jam between himself and Buffalo Bill Lucas and Bill Pierson in Chicago (about 1962) at the home of Bill Pierson on South Michigan Avenue. As the day drew on, and Walter drank more and more, he got more and more pissed off about that song. He saw very little, if any, cash from his song. Many others recorded it and copywrote it (or their arrangement of it)--including bluegrassers. Art Thieme |
|
21 Nov 04 - 09:47 PM (#1334870) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: The Fooles Troupe "Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk" I thought they were just cranky... |
|
22 Nov 04 - 11:43 AM (#1335321) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous Very astute, Jerry. |
|
22 Nov 04 - 01:32 PM (#1335442) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Steve-o "The rare thing to me is to meet people who truly enjoy (not just SAY they enjoy) both forms of music. When people say they like bluegrass AND folk music And old-time music, the criticisms of one or the other types of music usually seeps out." Jerry, How do you do? I love all three types, I sing and play all three, and they are what I plunk my money down at the CD stores for. No qualifications seeping out from my seams, although of course there is GOOD and BAD stuff that falls into all three categories. |
|
14 Dec 04 - 09:07 AM (#1356527) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Michigan Banjo Guy I accidentally came across this discussion...Barbara's last post nailed a lot of the bluegrasser's psychi. I came into this genre later in life (30s) and now play around 30 gigs a year in a traditional bluegrass band..."doing" the music is addictive (5 banjos here!). An earlier post that noted "the words don't mean a lot" really missed it. It is the very phrasing of words in the most traditional bluegrass songs that grabs me...listen to Red Allen. Many of the new CDs by bands probably more talented vocally and instrumentally just leave you flat...they have not engaged the "earthy life" adequately to phrase it. My 2 cents, Gary in Grand Rapids (gmeadors@cornerstone.edu) |
|
14 Dec 04 - 10:00 AM (#1356574) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,andrez The problem, if there is one at all, is in the ear of the beholder and certainly not in the music or the expression of it in terms of lyric, expressive style or instrumentation! Cheers, from West Australia. |
|
14 Dec 04 - 01:05 PM (#1356785) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive) Cheryl Wheeler is surely a folk singer by anyone's definition, no? Only if your definition of folk singer is someone who sings only songs they have written themselves and plays acoustic guitar. Cheryl Wheeler is a singer-songwriter, and a very good one. She is also a great and funny entertainer. I've paid to see her many times and will again whenever she's in the area. But she's not a folk singer. |
|
14 Dec 04 - 06:42 PM (#1357036) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: number 6 I agree with MG that it takes discipline to blay bluegrass. Bluegrass musicians are about the finest around. That is one reason I get together with some of these guys to play, to improve my guitar skills, timing and most importantly discipline. If your a bluegrass musician you can play just about anything. I say this with great respect. Though improvisation in bluegrass is equal to jazz, I find and I said previously they are not the most diverse musicians when bring in different ideas. But above all have one good time jamming with them. |
|
15 Dec 04 - 03:15 PM (#1357862) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Barbara Shaw Interesting idea, Alonzo M. Zilch, that singer/songwriters are not folk singers. It's also interesting that you think people who write and sing original songs (like all those old trad songs that were written by someone, sometime in their original form, and all the new ones written "in the tradition") are not folk singers. And players of acoustic guitar, and great and funny entertainers, etc. are likewise not folk singers? Cheryl Wheeler gets booked at the folk music coffeehouses in our area, and I consider her a folk singer. Maybe others don't. I appreciate your opinion. (I tried not to get sucked into this re-hash of "what is folk music" but failed). |
|
15 Dec 04 - 03:39 PM (#1357878) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Once Famous She sure doesn't sound like a folk singer to me, either. Just because she gets booked in a folk venue doesn't make her a folk singer. Just because she plays an acousting guitar and sings doesn't make her one either. I don't consider what she plays as being folk music. How about she's just a woman who writes songs and sings them while she accompanys herself on an acoustic guitar. Charo writes songs she writes and sings them with an acoustic guitar. Is she a folksinger? Number 6, I appreciate that you "get it." Really do. |
|
15 Dec 04 - 06:17 PM (#1358003) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Hootenanny Sorry Barbara, I also believe you are a little off-beam, Cheryl Crow is no more a folk singer than Bob Dylan, Paul Simon etc. She might be a very good singer writing very good songs and be very(?) popular with some people such as your self. Perhaps she also sings some songs out of the folk tradition (In my book songs/tunes that have existed for some considerable time on their own merit without the benefit of the modern music industry publicity machine and hype, and because people remember and enjoy them and sing them without being brain-washed) Nothing wrong with that at all but why do you want to give her the label Folksinger?? Second question; Which is the tradition that you claim she writes in? You say you didn't want to get sucked into this discussion, but you have failed and I would appreciate it if you could answer my two questions. Not because I'm looking for a lengthy time-wasting argument but to try and understand your claim. Thanks for your time. |
|
15 Dec 04 - 07:06 PM (#1358069) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: PoppaGator Bluegrass musicians are certainly excellent players, as a general rule, but I would take issue with the argument that they are at all comparable to jazz players when it comes to improvisation. Bluegrass songs, like blues or even trad-jazz numbers and most folk and popular music, have fixed harmonic structures (chord progressions). They might not all be as simple or predictable as the 12-bar blues, but a reasonably competent player should be able to play along, if not immediately, certainly after listening to one or two "go-rounds." This is not to say that a lot of inventive playing can't go on within the structure of these tunes -- just as seriously creative playing can also occur within the even-simpler structure of the blues. But it's not like modern "free-bag" jazz, where *everything*, even the chordal structure, is improvised. I can play with bluegrassers (not saying how well I can do it, but I can surely strum along pretty much error-free), but I *know* I can't even begin to play with real jazz players. |
|
15 Dec 04 - 07:36 PM (#1358098) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Allison One of my favorite musicians, Amy Martin, provides the best definition of "folk" I've ever heard. Check it out at http://www.ravenswingrecords.com/bio> |
|
15 Dec 04 - 08:20 PM (#1358134) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive) Interesting idea, Alonzo M. Zilch, that singer/songwriters are not folk singers. It's also interesting that you think people who write and sing original songs (like all those old trad songs that were written by someone, sometime in their original form, and all the new ones written "in the tradition") are not folk singers. And players of acoustic guitar, and great and funny entertainers, etc. are likewise not folk singers? Barbara, I did not say that singer-songwriters are not folksingers. There are many singer-songwriters who I have no trouble classifying as folksingers. Tom Paxton, Tom Russell, even Bob Dylan come to mind. Certainly Woody Guthrie, Jean Ritchie and Pete Seeger. What I'm driving at is that playing acoustic guitar and singing only your own songs does not make you a folksinger. The songwriters that I consider to be folksingers are ones whose music is part of a on-going and constantly developing tradition. Yes, Cheryl Wheeler plays at one we consider to be folk clubs. I've gone to see her myself on any number of occasions and I think she's great. I just happen to think that folk music is music of a people, not music of a particular person. |
|
15 Dec 04 - 08:46 PM (#1358159) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Barbara Shaw I don't think I've read any of the "what is folk music" threads, although I may have and might have even posted... don't remember. My definition of folksinger includes people who perform at folk music venues, whether they are singer/songwriters (many of whom I generally don't care for, although I like Cheryl Wheeler -not Crow-) or old rockers (Hilton Valentine of The Animals is now doing an acoustic skiffle act) or our late friend Rick Fielding (who covered many genres including original songs on many instruments) or my own bluegrass band ShoreGrass. My definition also includes singers on the back porch or in a song circle or jam. I vaguely remember hearing Charo sing and play her guitar and it seems to me it would not be American folk, but it might be folk from wherever she comes from. I guess my definition, if I have one, is more inclusive than that of people who say Cheryl Wheeler is definitely not folk in their book. To get back to the point of the thread, I love bluegrass and love (what I call) folk. Play both, in fact. Some of you already know without hearing me that what I do is definitely not your kind of folk, since I do many original songs accompanying myself on guitar. Others know it's not folk because we do bluegrass. And maybe some others feel as I do that there are some wonderful folk songs yet to be written by singer/songwriters playing acoustic guitar. But I understand why some "bluegrass musicians don't like folk" and have tried to explain. |
|
15 Dec 04 - 08:54 PM (#1358167) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: Barbara Shaw Alonzo, I understood your post to say: Only if your definition of folk singer is someone who sings only songs they have written themselves and plays acoustic guitar. That did not imply opinions about the content of the songs. In fact, isn't it possible that some personal observations are also so universal as to be songs of a people, not just a particular person? And are you saying that depending on the content, some songwriters may be folksingers on some songs, but not on others? |
|
15 Dec 04 - 09:23 PM (#1358182) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Mark Clark Allison, That is far and away the best definition of folk I've ever seen. Thanks. That is exactly what drew me to folk music in 1959 & '60. Rock & roll had lost it's creative energy and the airwaves were filled with plastic pap. It took the folk boom and the internationalization of pop culture to reinvigorate rock. I came to bluegrass as a natural progression from searching deeper into the roots of folk music. The first time I heard bluegrass I was blown away. But I never lost my love of the folk forms. I still love The Weavers, country blues, old-timey, Carter Family, Jimmie Rodgers, Jean Ritchie, a capella Appalachian ballads (Hazel Dickens just knocks me out). The words we're using here: folk, bluegrass, old-timey, etc., have all become polymorphic; each word has multiple valid and distinctly useful definitions. Most often we seem to be talking about the categorizations used commercially by the music industry to decide which shelf products should sit on. These definitions have far more to do with marketing than they do with musicology. Still, those concocted definitions help to define our thinking as intended. Bluegrass wasn't created as a new musical genre. The progenitors of bluegrass were simply competing for the attention of the marketplace with other country musicians whom they considered peers. They were just putting a new jazzy twist on commercial country music at a time when everything in American culture was getting a new jazzy twist. We're talking about the same general time period that gave birth to bebop, the atomic bomb, western swing, Chicago electric blues; the country was going nuts with creative energy. Yes, bluegrass required a much higher level of musicianship but so did the other new musical forms that were coming along. Early bluegrass musicians didn't call it that, the term was coined outside of the country music industry. Monroe, et al., applied their jazzy new approach to ninteenth century melodies with archaic themes. This was a conscious marketing decision on Monroe's part. He wanted to appeal to the rural southern consumer and he knew that they, like he and his band, were also listening to the modern sounds on their radios. With the advent of rock 'n' roll, bluegrass nearly died. Rock 'n' roll drew freely from bluegrass—Monroe is in the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame; Elvis recorded Monroe tunes—but even bluegrass couldn't compete with the energy of rock 'n' roll. Bluegrass was rescued in part when agents and producers decided it might appeal to folk music fans of the great folk boom. Many articles were written to support the thesis that bluegrass was somehow folk music and, eventually, the strategy paid off and bluegrass had a brand new and growing audience. But to compare bluegrass to folk or to old-timey is like comparing bebop to the music of the New Orleans marching bands of a hundred years ago. They might be playing the same title but they aren't playing the same music. The reasons why today's bluegrass musicians (I think we're talking amateurs here, not pros) might not like what the music industry calls folk are as varied as the musicians themselves. Of course many bluegrassers, probably the majority, like folk music quite a lot. Some bluegrass pickers probably don't care for the liberal themes of today's folk music. Some may not successfully bridge the cultural gap between the two groups. But I think the most common reason that bluegrass musicians don't want the folkies around is that, too often, they can't friggin play. Play bluegrass that is. Folk musicians often see bluegrass as a folk idiom and it may in fact be on its way to becoming a folk idiom but that's for future musicologists to decide. Today, and historically, bluegrass is commercial country music and commercial music has expectations that folk forms often do not have. Bluegrass is paying a price for hitching its wagon to the folk star forty years ago. - Mark |
|
16 Dec 04 - 12:34 AM (#1358297) Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk From: GUEST,Art Thieme Amy Martin's definition is a good one. I like it. It's vagueness and also it's poetic precision are compatible opposites that make me really want to hear her music. It's a keeper definition that I want to write down and look at just because I like the way it makes me feel when I read it. It rings true !! I jumped out of bed in the middle of the night last night---and wrote down what turned out to be my own final proclamation of what, for me, this folk music of ours IS. Michael Cooney and I have been e-mailing about what I put down last night. I'm going to bed now---but tomorrow I may get it together to post it here. This seems to be a decent place to put it. Good thoughts from just about all you folks. As with many threads Jerry starts, this one is the first actually respectful "what is folk" kind of discussion to wind up in this forum. That is nice to see. Art Thieme |