Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 07:56 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Peace
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:01 PM

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?

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:07 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Peace
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:13 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:22 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Peace
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:41 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:42 PM

...............and that's what separates the men from the boys.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 09:17 PM

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

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 09:27 PM

"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

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 09:47 PM

"Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk"

I thought they were just cranky...

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 11:43 AM

Very astute, Jerry.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Steve-o
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 01:32 PM

"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.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: GUEST,Michigan Banjo Guy
Date: 14 Dec 04 - 09:07 AM

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 ([e-mail])

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: GUEST,andrez
Date: 14 Dec 04 - 10:00 AM

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.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive)
Date: 14 Dec 04 - 01:05 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: number 6
Date: 14 Dec 04 - 06:42 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Barbara Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 03:15 PM

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).

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 03:39 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 06:17 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: PoppaGator
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 07:06 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: GUEST,Allison
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 07:36 PM

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>

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive)
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 08:20 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Barbara Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 08:46 PM

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.

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: Barbara Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 08:54 PM

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?

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: GUEST,Mark Clark
Date: 15 Dec 04 - 09:23 PM

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

Subject: RE: Why Bluegrass musicians don't like folk
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 16 Dec 04 - 12:34 AM

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