The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #22511   Message #776250
Posted By: Mark Clark
03-Sep-02 - 12:51 PM
Thread Name: Genealogy of Bluegrass
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass
That drawing of me was by my then six-year-old granddaughter—she's now ten. She worked hard while I modeled and was so pleased with the result she couldn't part with it. When I told her how much I'd love to have it, she sat down and drew me a copy of the original. I posted it partly because it's really quite a good likeness.

The reason I said a duet can't be a bluegrass band is because bluegrass is fundamentally ensemble music. Two people can't produce enough different musical parts to constitute bluegrass. If one holds down the rhythm the other is left to be both lead and backup. Of course there are always exceptions to every rule. The Stanley Brothers seem to have recorded quite a lot of material using only a guitar (Bill Napier/George Shuffler) as instrumentation.

Monroe seemed to think that “his music” was more about rhythm, timing and phrasing than about specific instruments. To him it was also about feeling. The high lonesome sound and the emotion evoked by the interplay of the various elements, both instrumental and vocal. I can easily imagine the timing and feeling that are critical to bluegrass being produced with a fairly wide range of instruments.

Many people seem to believe that the five-string banjo played in the style of Earl Scruggs/Bill Keith/Bob Black is the defining sound of bluegrass. As much as I admire those musicians, I take issue with the idea that they primarily define the bluegrass sound. Surely one would miss the scintillating sound of the banjo if it was absent but, by itself, bluegrass banjo can quickly become boring to the average listener. It's only a component of the total sound and, like other instruments in the ensemble, doesn't really stand on its own.

Many years ago, a close friend of mine auditioned with Monroe for a job as banjo player. Monroe invited him into the bus to play with other members of the band. Kenny Baker was playing guitar for the audition and Monroe was stepping him through his paces. During one instrumental break of which my friend was especially proud, Monroe suddenly reached out and grabbed the neck of his banjo cutting off all sound. My friend was terrified, not sure what was going to happen next. It turned out that Monroe was unhappy with timing of Baker's guitar backup. Monroe grabbed the guitar to play rhythm himself and they started again. My friend said there was a difference you could feel between what Baker had been playing and the way Bill did it. Now anyone who has ever heard Kenny Baker play guitar knows that he is surely one of the finest guitarists alive. Still there was some important difference in feel and timing between the way Baker played and the rhythm Monroe laid down for my friend's audition. I think something of that difference is important in a real definition of bluegrass, I just don't know how to describe it.

It's perfectly possible to assemble the traditional complement of acoustic stringed instruments and harmony voices and still play nothing that sounds like bluegrass. By the same token, one can deviate considerably from the canonical form while preserving the essence of the bluegrass sound. Bluegrass isn't just notes, it's an approach to music as well. It seems to be able to tolerate differences in component makeup as long as the approach and feel are consistent with the tradition.

      - Mark