 sj |
||
|
||
Genealogy of Bluegrass
|
|
|
Subject: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: mactheturk Date: 18 Jun 00 - 10:47 AM We can work backwards from Bill Monroe to the Carter Family and back to Jimmie Rodgers. From there we can go to Riley Puckett and the Tenneva Ramblers but where do we go beyond that? Do we eventually end up in a Dublin kitchen, a Glasgow pub or with fellow pagans 'round a fire? MP |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Noreen Date: 18 Jun 00 - 12:08 PM For those such as me who don't know these names, what sort of dates would they take you back to? That might help to link up with other areas of knowledge. --Noreen |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Rick Fielding Date: 18 Jun 00 - 12:25 PM The Bluegrass geneology gets a bit tricky. We can certainly trace the Carter Family approach back to the traditional British isles ballads, but if you believe (as I do) that what "we" call Bluegrass started that day that Earl Scruggs joined Bill Monroe, Lester Flatt, Chubby Wise, and Cedric Rainwater on the stage of the "Opry", you have to deal with the origins of 3 finger banjo. That's turn of the century "classical" style, which obviously influenced some country folks in the 20s and led to Snuffy and Hoke Jenkins and eventually Scruggs and Don Reno. I think the lyric content of the music (which had been around for many years was much less important than the instrumental style....and that meant Monroe's keys and tempo, and Earl Scruggs style. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Mark Clark Date: 18 Jun 00 - 04:26 PM I think Rick put his finger right on it. Monroe often traced his own roots back to Scotland but the musical influences that created bluegrass music are varied and complex. Monroe always said his notion of the music started with a particular shuffle that his uncle Pen played on the fiddle. Since I've never heard Scottish or Irish music with that kind of shuffle, I think it's likely that the rhythmic basis for the music is African. The blues were well liked throughout the South so you hear the Carter Family doing covers of Ma Rainey's music and Jimmie Rodgers incorporating blues into his music. The origins of the banjo itself have been traced to Africa so it seems likely that most early banjo rhythms were African and heavily influenced the development of the banjo repertoire. It was natural for bluegrass fiddle players to adapt the well known square dance tunes to the bluegrass style and many of those tunes are celtic in origin. Banjo players such as Scruggs and Reno on the other hand often adapted their instrumental pieces from popular or jazz music of the time. Some bluegrass lyrics seem archaic to us now but, like all popular songs, they were written to appear contemporary in their day. Sometimes they express complex emotions in a wonderfully quaint way and sometimes they may seem maudlin or mawkish by modern standards. It seems to me that, among those cultures to influence bluegrass, the Irish may be the people most given to express themselves in that openly emotional way. I'm not enough of a music historian to know the origin of the bluegrass vocal harmonies in which the tenor part is put on top, a fifth above the melody. I've thought that it may be a natural outgrowth of listening to fiddle tunes played in the key of A with the E string playing a drone harmony but scholarly historians will probably have some other explanation. Good thread, MP. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST,Pete Peterson Date: 19 Jun 00 - 08:56 AM Rick, I think I mostly agree with you. You can certainly hear the roots of Bluegrass in the string bands of the 20s and 30s but the combination of fiddle, mandolin and banjo take turns playing breaks instead of the contrapuntal style of old-time music banjo is played in a driving three-finger style and not clawhammer tunes are pitched higher, Bflat and B instead of G didn't all come together until Monroe's first postwar band. Where did it COME from? Like most other good things, it's a synthesis: African blues and banjo, Celtic fiddle styles, some Teutonic regularity. . . so any attempt fans out Before Monroe, and fans out After Monroe. |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Mark Clark Date: 19 Jun 00 - 09:36 AM For reference, there is a parallel discussion taking place in a thread called Celtic Roots of Bluegrass sought. The discussion isn't exactly identical but calls on much of the same information. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Mark Clark Date: 19 Jun 00 - 10:43 AM Pete, you referred to the "contrapuntal style of old-time music." What did you mean by that? Most of the old-time music I hear consists of everyone playing the melody all the time at the same time with the possible exception of the guitar. Sounds like I'm on the verge of learning something here. It's true that in bluegrass the instrumental break features a single instrument at a time but the other instruments are playing usually complex and complementary backup lines behind the lead instrument creating a combination I believe John Lomax referred to as "symphonic" in nature. The fiddle and the banjo especially will often play backup parts that are as imaginative and complex as the instrumental lead. Bluegrass makes a concious effort to sound controlled and "slick." My point is that bluegrass includes strong influences from professional commercial music arrangements and cannot be thought of as simply an extension of folk forms. The musicians that created bluegrass were seasoned professionals. Bill Monroe had been a member of the Grand Ole Opry for four years providing a nationwide audience for the Blue Grass Boys and of course the Monroe Brothers had been a big success on the country charts for several years before that. This was a time of great innovation in music everywhere. Bebop, swing, big bands and, thanks to radio and the phonograph, this inovation was not lost on professional country musicians. The challenge, I think, for the Blue Grass Boys of 1945 was how to make their brand of commercial country music exciting and innovative and still not, as Lester Flatt used to say, "get above your raisin'." Clearly they drew on many more sources than their own cultural roots might suggest. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Frankham Date: 19 Jun 00 - 01:32 PM The one source for this style of playing should be mentioned. From North Carolina, Obray Ramsay. 3 finger style banjo picking has bee around for a long time. Van Epps and other famous classical style banjo players employed the 3 finger technique in rags and "Characterisic" music. The celtic aspects of bluegrass might emanate from the fiddle styles from Ireland and Scotland. They certainly were transferred to Eck Robertson, Clayton McMichen and Fiddlin' John Carson even though the styles were adapted to American blues patterns as well as Celtic. The transfer to bluegrass came about when the early string band music became "listener" oriented rather than dance oriented. The Blue Sky Boys, the Delmore Brothers, the Baile Brothers as well as the Carter Family had a lot to do with it's development. Early Carter Family as well as others show the use of Hawaiian influences in the playing style of guitarists. It may be that the style that developed into dobro came from African-American blues musicians who developed the style of "teasing" the guitar strings with jackknives and broken whiskey bottle necks. There is a controversey as to whether this style was endemic to African-Ammerican blues musicians or came from Hawaiian sources. I think the key to bluegrass is the fiddle because this is the instrument that induced breakneck speeds at the hoe-sowns and set-runnings in the mountains. Frank
|
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Mark Clark Date: 19 Jun 00 - 03:36 PM Frank, thanks for your post. I look forward to seeing them as I always something new. As long as you're here, can you enlighten me on the origins of the high male tenor soaring over the baratone melody? I hear that in some African music but European music seems to have kept the melody in the soprano range with alto and tenor underneath. Thanks, - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: catspaw49 Date: 19 Jun 00 - 05:36 PM I know my opinion isn't worth the 2 cents I'm giving it, but Rick has this one nailed. Everything that influenced Bill Monroe can be catalogued as can the roots of Scruggs style, but we have what seems to me, a relative rarity here. This is one genre that has its origin at one particular moment in time and place. What came before and after adds to the history and development perhaps, but the mating of the sound and style of Bill Monroe's music with the machine gun staccato of Earl Scruggs is the genesis of Bluegrass, the exact moment of its creation as a genre. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST,Pete Peterson Date: 20 Jun 00 - 10:07 AM The "contrapuntal" style of old-time music is the one best exemplified by Charlie Poole. At its best, you have Roy Harvey playing runs and chords on the guitar which are countermelodies to the ones Poole is doing on the banjo-- and Posey or Lonnie is not just playing the melody on fiddle but is putting in ornamentation and swing notes. . . much harder to describe than it is to listen to! this is my favorite kind of old-time music. The "every instrument plays the melody" approach which seems to have taken over, I think, arose from the 'Galax sound' of a very tight fiddle and banjo (think Jarrell and Cockerham, County 701??) and the idea that you could have LOTS of instruments doing the same thing. I don't like it as much, but YMMV. Anyway, neither of these is a direct ancestor of Bluegrass but each is in a Class by Itself. Mark-- I agree with you that modern Bluegrass features the complex backup that you describe, but the early Bluegrass (listen, for instance to 1940s Monroe, Flatt & Scruggs, and Stanleys) did not; the banjo just "chunked" during fiddle or mandolin breaks, and vice versa. Country music changed drastically in 1945 when Monroe put that wonderful band together that Rick described above. Just as there is a consensus that the first true rock and roll record was Bill Haley's Rock around the Clock. |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Rick Fielding Date: 20 Jun 00 - 10:48 AM Mmmmm, I LOVE these discussions! Frank, you mentioned one of my all time favourite musicians, Obray Ramsey, but I don't think he would be considered a "source". He was a guitar player primarily and (oddly enough) it was Alan Lomax who encouraged him to start playing THREE finger banjo on recordings. Prior to that he picked in the two finger style. He was certainly influenced strongly by Scruggs' recordings even though he was several years older than Earl. He was perhaps the only singer who ACCOMPANIED himself in Scruggs style. I think when we talk about stuff like this, often the fascination is wondering did ONE PERSON have SO much influence, tunnel vision, and pure orneriness that we can lay the style right at their feet. In Monroe's case, I think we wouldn't be far off. Had he not sung so high, what would we have had? Fast stringband music maybe? Had he not INSISTED that the fiddlers learn to play in B, and E, it would have sounded quite different. Most importantly...had he not finally bowed to Ralph Rinzler's persistence and opened up a little bit, Lomax's take (Flatt and Scruggs were IT!) would probably have been the ultimately prevailing theory. Monroe would have been a footnote, in the same way that Snuffy, The Delmores, and the Morris Brothers have become. IMPORTANT footnotes, but not the prime focus. Almost everyone says that Charlie Christian was THE first modern jazz guitarist, but isn't that due mostly to his exposure (and recordings) with Benny? Had he remained obscure and in Oklahoma, he might also be a footnote (Like Zeke Morris, who many oldimers say was the FIRST bluegrass guitarist) So my belated vote goes to Ralph Rinzler for gettin' the "word" out. Mike Seeger too, of course. Just remember that Monroe NEVER called it "Bluegrass" til long after everyone else did. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: catspaw49 Date: 20 Jun 00 - 11:11 AM That idea of a "point in time/place/people" is fascinating to me from the "what if" standpoint. I watched an A&E "Biography" series program on Sam Phillips the other night and the point was made there too regarding Elvis. There probably wasn't another studio anywhere at that time who would have recorded him at all, let alone the manner in which Phillips did. How would this have changed the path of rock and would Elvis have been even a footnote smaller than Carl Perkins? I'm not an Elvis fan, just found it food for thought. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Whistle Stop Date: 20 Jun 00 - 11:38 AM Spaw, I agree with you. The transcendent moment is crucial, in my opinion, and sometimes it has actually been captured on tape. It was in Memphis when Elvis and Sam Phillips worked their magic on a fairly obscure Arthur Crudup tune, and in Chicago when Muddy Waters recorded Hoochie Coochie Man (the definitive modern blues record, in my opinion). It happened in 1963 when the Beatles recorded the gloriously imperfect Please Please Me, and in '65 when Dylan teamed up with Al Kooper and Mike Bloomfield to record Like A Rolling Stone. I didn't catch the whole program on Sam Phillips the other night, but what I saw was well done. If anyone's interested, Peter Guralnick has written a two-volume biography of Elvis which puts his life, times and achievements in clear perspective. I've only read the first volume, Mystery Train, which ends around the time of Elvis' induction into the Army in 1958. The second volume, Careless Love, is also out in paperpback, and I expect it is as well-done as the first (although I'm more interested in the early days). If these aren't on the shelf, anything by Guralnick is worth reading. |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Rick Fielding Date: 20 Jun 00 - 11:25 PM Interesting that Phillips (like Monroe) started re-writing history outrageously when he finally got noticed by the mainstream. Anyone going to a Bluegrass festival in the late 70s to early 80s could easily have gotten the impression that Monroe had been a kindly mentor to hundreds of pickers...first training them and then sending them out into the world with a hearty "good luck"! The vendettas and threats of lawsuits among ALL the pioneering Bluegrass groups made for a colourful history. Phillips even made his "sale" of Elvis into a benevolent positive carreer move. Too bad Elvis DIDN'T stay with Sun for a year or two more. His output of total crap for the mainstream started shortly after he got to RCA. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Jun 00 - 12:03 AM True Rick, true. Say, not to get off the subject totally here, but anybody who DID see the Sam Phillips bio.......What the hell did the wrestler have to do with it? "Sputnik" Somebody.......Showing Sam as a great guy even though he dropped every black artist or what? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Mark Clark Date: 21 Jun 00 - 08:20 AM Rick, shame on you for suggesting that these great cultural icons may have attempted to rewrite history. That would have been a bad thing and produced negative vibrations. In our present state of enlightenment we refer to that sort of "information" as spin and regularly report it as news. **VBG** - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Whistle Stop Date: 21 Jun 00 - 09:06 AM Sam Phillips' self-promotion is nothing new. For years he has been trying to convince anyone who would listen that the synergy he caught on tape when Elvis recorded his first few songs in Memphis was the product of Sam's obsessive vision of racial harmony through music. Dion got it wrong -- he should have called his song "Abraham, Martin and Sam". Still, there's some truth to it all. This was a crucial moment in time, when all of the essential elements of rock and roll were truly combined for the first time -- the music of poor southern blacks was combined with the music of poor southern whites, by a young man who just oozed charisma and sex appeal, and the foundation was laid for the tremendous changes that followed. Elvis' recordings for Sun Records may have been the result of careful calculation (or maybe not -- that's another long-standing debate), but they sounded refreshingly, startlingly free and spontaneous. And the energy and good humor in the music was incredibly infectious; there was really something there to get excited about. Moreover, the conscious or unconscious decision to combine elements that were generally viewed as polar opposites -- white and black, "good boys" and "bad boys", etc. -- heralded a new freedom of expression and racial integration through music that had impacts far beyond the music. Sure, other people played critical roles as well -- Ike Turner recorded "Rocket 88," Bill Haley recorded "Rock Around the Clock," Chuck Berry combined black and white musics from the other side of the racial divide with "Maybelline". But there's no doubt in my mind that the day Elvis recorded "That's All Right Mama" was THE pivotal moment in rock and roll history. And rock and roll is responsible for more social change than a lot of folks would like to admit. Sam's egotism and self-promotion make it tempting to discount all that. But facts are facts: notwithstanding their outrageous egos, Douglas MacArthur really was a great general, Muhammed Ali really was a great boxer, and Sam Phillips was the delivery room doctor when rock and roll was born. Give the man his due. |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Rick Fielding Date: 21 Jun 00 - 12:26 PM Spot on Whistle. Sam gets his due from me (Monroe too) despite the spins. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: mactheturk Date: 21 Jun 00 - 11:58 PM Yeah, I'm walkin' in Memphis(Richard Greene, Jimmy Martin, Del McCoury, Kenny Baker) Walkin' with my feet ten feet off Beale(Byron Berline, Cedric Rainwater, Sonny Osborne, Roland White) Yes I'm walkin' in Memphis(Vassar Clements, Chubby Wise, Hubert Davis, Tommy Jackson) And do you really know the way I feel(Bill Monroe, Lester Flatt, Mac Wiseman, Earle Scruggs) MP |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Mark Clark Date: 31 Aug 02 - 11:11 PM I don't know why I didn't take issue with Pete before now but according to the timeline on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame site... March 1951 –Anyway it gave me a good excuse to refresh this thread. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST,Richie Date: 01 Sep 02 - 02:35 PM I guess someone needs to come up with a good definition of "Bluegrass". We all know that the original word came from Monroe's Blue Grass Boys but I think that the word bluegrass means more than that now. I think it encompasses new groups like Nickle Creek and also Gid Tanner and the Skillet Lickers. I think to define it only by Bill Monroe is wrong. Is Doc Watson Bluegrass? How about Bob Dylan? How many different types of groups are at "bluegrass festivals"? The roots of can be traced back much like folk songs. -Richie |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 01 Sep 02 - 03:09 PM "Country music, played on unamplified stringed instruments (as banjo, fiddle, guitar and mandolin) and characterized by free improvisation and close usu. high-pitched harmony." This is the definition in Webster's Collegiate Dictioary. Does this fit the bill? Or are changes needed? |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Mark Clark Date: 01 Sep 02 - 05:05 PM GUEST,Richie, There's no special reason you would know this but there are hundreds of posts on various threads here arguing for broader or narrower definitions of “bluegrass.” This is a subject that has attracted both popular and scholarly attention and, although there may not be agreement among fans, the scholars seem to agree that bluegrass is a specific genre with a fairly narrow definition. I don't think Doc Watson would tell you he is a bluegrass musician and I'm sure Bob Dylan wouldn't. Dylan is a bluegrass musician in the same sense that Pat Boone is a rhythm and blues musician. Keep in mind that Monroe did not name his music “bluegrass.” That appellation was applied much later by scholars and the music industry. Gid Tanner and the Skillet Lickers were certainly a fine old-time string band but no stretch of the imagination could label them as bluegrass. As for your question about the types of groups at bluegrass festivals, I've seen both kinds... with Dobro and without. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST,Richie Date: 01 Sep 02 - 05:17 PM Dicho-That's a good basic definition but I think more is needed. Doc Watson and Clarence Ashley have done some great unaccompanied hymn tunes like "Daniel Prayed" which is a bluegrass gospel standard. Since they didn't used instruments does it mean that Doc's version wasn't bluegrass? Going back to the high harmony part mentioned earlier in this thread. All the shape note books from William Walker's "Southern Harmony" in the early 1800's (1835) have melody sung below the high part called the counter part. I feel that these early hymn book are one source for the high tenor part in bluegrass. It has been sung this way for almost 200 years. Perhaps the Bluegrass style of singing really isn't anything new. Since electric bass is still allowed in most bluegrass bands and competitions doesn't that go against webster's definition? Or is it the music itself that is bluegrass? Flatt and Scruggs and others have done alot of cross-over stuff. There's even a bluegrass group that does covers of AC/DC. Comments anyone?
|
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST,Richie Date: 01 Sep 02 - 05:33 PM Mark- So if Bob Dylan does a version of "Froggie" or "Shady Grove" with a banjo player, bass, mandolin (same as any bluegrass group) he's not playing bluegrass? I don't get it? Or since Travis Tritt played with Earl on "Foggy" is Travis bluegrass? -Richie |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: beachcomber Date: 01 Sep 02 - 05:34 PM Do I correctly gather from these , amazingly interesting ,postings , that the form of bluegrass singing is as rigid that it must reflect that of Bill Monroe. Would Bill then have , constantly, recruited singers (and musicians) who could "fit" a pattern that he had instituted??. I seem to remember no less a worthy than Eric Weisberg, at a workshop session, some years ago, pronounce that , in bluegrass, the lead is always accompanied by either two voices above or two below, did I remember correctly? I am finding this thread fascinating to say the least and it reminds me of the reasons that I joined "Mudcat" some time ago now. beachcomber |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Steve Latimer Date: 01 Sep 02 - 05:51 PM Mark, I have to disagree about Dylan. Sure, he doesn't do Bluegass exclusively, but when he does he sure sticks with the tradition. Listen to his covers of Ralph Stanley's "I Am The Man, Thomas" and "Somebody Touched Me". He opened his recent Toronto show with a Bill Monroe song. His current band has some wonderful players who sure would fit in at any Bluegrass festival. Pat Boone was not an R&B artist because he eliminated the soul of the music whereas Bob is careful to preserve it.
|
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST,Richie Date: 01 Sep 02 - 05:51 PM I put Bill Monroe in the "Classic Bluegrass" period, but I put the Skillet Lickers in early bluegrass or the roots of bluegrass and that goes back before them. I do have Doc Watson as a bluegrass picker but not Dylan. Am I wrong? Richie |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Banjer Date: 01 Sep 02 - 06:44 PM How about another theory added to the mix...? Regional Bluegrass...what is considered and revered as bluegrass in one part of the country maynot be as readily accepted in other parts. Some of the 'newgrass' I have heard called Bluegrass here in Florida would probably never fly in say, Rosine, KY. In a generality it is all bluegrass in the sense that it derives from the same old time music that we know from the 20's and 30's but has taken different paths. I guess what I am trying to say here is the folk process is alive and well in the genre. |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 01 Sep 02 - 06:52 PM Go to bluegrass and read the article featured at this site. It covers this same ground. |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST,Richie Date: 02 Sep 02 - 12:12 AM Great article! By the way did you see what kind of guitar Dolly Parton was playing? I've played at and done workshops several years at Merlefest. It was a blast but now it's gotten so big. I remember driving up there in a van with Preston Reed and Martin Simpson and getting hit by a logging truck. Luckily, we made it through that. The point of the article is being inclusive, which is the right point. We had Cephus and Wiggins doing a workshop after ours, and what about groups like Leftover Salmon? By being inclusive you can go back and include other groups: I have Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie and Leadbelly among others in a related (folk branch) bluegrass group in my bluegrass categories. It also means that exploring the roots/genealogy of bluegrass is possible because the early groups that led to the "Classic Period" can be traced. Thanks Dicho Richie |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Sep 02 - 01:11 AM This thread seems to be trying to define bluegrass at the moment rather than looking at its roots. Another old thread, seeking roots (Celtic Roots of Bluegrass Sought, 22505) has been revived as well. Just glancing through it, one avenue suggested is to look at the music itself and its formation. Guest Banjo Johnny (18 June 00) said, "one of the sources of Bluegrass is our "mountain style", and it shows one unique feature with what we think of as Irish/Scottish music, that is, the "flatted Seven chord...." But if you pick up a volume on Negro spirituals, the following, or similar, is found (John W. Work, American Negro Songs and Spirituals, p. 27): "Of much interest are the scales of the Negro employed in the spirituals." ----- "But there were employed notes foreign to the conventional major and minor scales with such frequency as to justify their being regarded as distinct. The most common of these are the "flatted third" (the feature note of the blues) and the "flatted seventh." (The latter note prominent in "Roll, Jordan, Roll," etc. From this, I would guess that some of these features were developed independently by several cultures, and are not a reliable method of defining roots unless other factors are brought in. The alternative would be to accept that Irish/Scottish and Negro music have roots in common. Rather difficult to put a fence around bluegrass, isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST Date: 02 Sep 02 - 06:48 AM |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST,Richie Date: 02 Sep 02 - 07:09 AM Going back to the original question posted on this thread, which is "From there we can go to Riley Puckett and the Tenneva Ramblers but where do we go beyond that?" I think the next stop is the minstrel stage "Buffalo Gals" and related popular American music, "The Grandfather Clock" "Home Sweet Home." This period would be from 1830's to the early 1900's. When people think about bluegrass music or blues and jazz they, do they think about Europe? Asumming that bluegrass music is a sythesis of folk music, hillbilly music, and religious music, with blues and jazz seems to be the obvious choice. Sudying the music itself as Dicho has chosen, I think that bluegrass music is very diverse being both pentatonic and using modes like the mixolydian with flat seven degrees. Solos both vocal and instrumental use the flat 5, flat 7, flat 3 and ninth associated with jazz and blues. Richie |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Mark Clark Date: 02 Sep 02 - 03:54 PM Great discussion here. I didn't mean to imply that Doc Watson or Bob Dylan couldn't play bluegrass or even that they never had. I just meant that they aren't primarily regarded as bluegrass musicians and probably wouldn't prefer representing themselves as bluegrass musicians. I think they both might feel that the characterization is too limiting. Lots of musicians who might not choose to be classified as bluegrass musicians have or had the ability to play bluegrass music. Jerry Garcia comes to mind. He loved bluegrass music and the “Bluegrass Reunion” recordings he made with Red Allen are still among my favorite. Still, Garcia is not primarily regarded as a bluegrass musician. Peter, Paul and Mary are not regarded as bluegrass musicians and yet they loved the music and certainly had the ability to play it—something I believe they were wont to do after hours. At the risk of making this post way to long, I'd like to include an excerpt from Robert Cantwell's groundbreaking book, Bluegrass Breakdown. Cantwell is one of the first to apply real scholarship to a discussion of bluegrass music. Twenty years ago Alan Lomax called bluegrass music “folk music in overdrive,” lighting upon a metaphor perfectly suited to the spirit in which Monroe, who once compared playing to putting a motor together, approaches his music. Lomax's brief essay in Esquire magazine, which initiated the intellectual discussion of bluegrass music, is worth quoting at length. “Out of the torrent of folk music that is the backbone of the record business today,” he wrote in 1959, “the freshest sound comes from the so-called bluegrass band—a sort of mountain Dixieland combo in which the five-string banjo, America's only indigenous folk instrument, carries the lead like a hot clarinet.” Taking up the jazz analogy, he goes on:Cantwell goes on to catch Lomax's error in claiming the banjo is indigenous to America and then talks about Ralph Rinzler's role in showcasing Monroe's music. Many in this discussion probably already own or have read Cantwell's book but I thought it was worth the reference for those who may be new to the discussion.The mandolin plays bursts reminiscent of jazz trumpet choruses; a heavily bowed fiddle supplies trombone-like hoedown solos; while a framed guitar and slapped bass make up the rhythm section. Everything goes at top volume, with harmonized choruses behind a lead singer who hollers in the high, lonesome style beloved in the American backwoods. The result is folkmusic in overdrive with a silvery, rippling, pinging sound; the State Department should note that for virtuosity, fire and speed our best Bluegrass bands can match any Slavic folk orchestra.Lomax's brief dispatch from Greenwich Village, written to sophisticated readers at a time when the tiny, politically-inspired folksong revival of the fifties was swiftly growing into a national fad, was designed to secure a place for bluegrass music in the new movement by testifying to its authenticity, while defeating the prejudices against hillbilly music inevitable in the minds of a generation still digging Gerry Mulligan, Thelonius Monk, and Dave Brubeck. “While the aging voices along Tin Pan Alley grow every day more querulous,” he wrote, “and jazzmen wander through the harmonic jungles of Schoenberg and Stravinsky, grass-roots guitar and banjo-pickers are playing on the heartstrings of America.” Lomax spoke with impeccable authority and with memorable succinctness and imagination. “Entirely on its own,” he assured his readers, bluegrass was “turning back to the great heritage of older tunes that our ancestors brought into the mountains before the American Revolution”:A century of isolation in the lonesome hollows of the Appalachians gave them time to combine strains from Scottish and English folksongs and to produce a vigorous pioneer music of their own. The hot Negro square-dance fiddle went early up the creek-bed roads into the hills; then in the mid-nineteenth century came the five-string banjo; early in the twentieth century the guitar was absorbed into the developing tradition. By the time folksong collectors headed into the mountains looking for ancient ballads, they found a husky, hard-to-kill musical culture as well. Finally, railroads and highways snaked into the backwoods, and mountain folk moved out into urban, industrialized, shook-up America....Though its origins were in ancient folk traditions, bluegrass was nevertheless strikingly novel and as thoroughly professional as any modern music. “Bluegrass began in 1945,” Lomax observed, when Bill Monroe recruited a “brilliantly orchestrated” hillbilly quintet which contrasted sharply with the “originally crude” hillbilly orchestras that developed, Lomax suggests, in response to the presence of radio microphones. Monroe led the group with a mandolin and “a countertenor voice that hits high notes with the impact of a Louis Armstrong trumpet,” singing and playing the “old time mountain tunes” which in twenty years of professional music hillbilly musicians had largely abandoned. “By now,” Lomax concluded, “there has grown up a generation of hillbilly musicians who can play anything in any key,” with a revolutionary new music which is “the first clear-cut orchestral style to appear in the British-American folk tradition in five hundred years.” Dicho, I checked out the article and it, indeed, has a lot of substance. I must take issue, though, with the author's statement that bluegrass music preceded country music. Country music was in full commercial swing well before bluegrass came to be. - Mark
|
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Sep 02 - 04:21 PM Applying the bellows to the fire, I would say that both country music and bluegrass came into full swing at much the same time. Depends on definition, doesn't it? I don't really know or want to define country music. Must it alway be commercial or formally composed? Or can it simply be rural music? I hate the boxes. |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST,Richie Date: 02 Sep 02 - 09:30 PM Mark- Great post! Very well written and documented. If bluegrass means "everything" then certainly the word means nothing. I assume you take the very understandable position that bluegrass music started with the 1945 Bill Monroe band with Blue Grass Boys with Bill, Lester Flatt, Earl Scruggs, Chubby Wise, and Howard Watts. I was wondering if you had a definition of "bluegrass" and also country music. Do you also feel that there is a roots of bluegrass and when would that begin? -Richie |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Mark Clark Date: 03 Sep 02 - 01:03 AM Yes, the personnel and music of the Blue Grass Boys at the end of 1945 mark, for me as well as for scholars, the first introduction of what came to be called bluegrass music. There was never much debate about the definition or the origin of bluegrass music until it reached a level of popularity sufficient to attract the notice of major commercial interests. Marketing people of all stripes are always looking for a word or a phrase that can reliably be used to identify and sell product. They don't care whether the word or phrase can be accurately applied, they only care about whether its use will create branded product identity in the minds of prospective customers. Since a great deal of what passes for news or information is actually the output of marketing departments, their abuse of the language to create product identity often goes unnoticed by the average reader. This happens in every field, not just music. If calling someone's music bluegrass will help sell it, that's what they do. Many of us probably remember when the bluegrass musicians were sold as “folk” because that was what was hot in the early sixties. I don't think those of us with an academic (as well as aesthetic) interest have to abandon our vocabulary just because some company wants to sell records. I actually took the trouble once to post a series of MP3 files to help illustrate some of the development of bluegrass music. I put the files on a Web site somewhere and linked to them in another thread. As far as I know, the files are still there and the link still works. I'll hunt around for the thread... (much passing of time)... okay, I found it and here is the link to MP3 files tracing bluegrass development. As for a definition of bluegrass, that's a much tougher issue. I don't think in 1945 Monroe thought of himself as inventing a whole genre. He did invent it but he seems to have done it rather like Thomas Edison invented the incandescent light bulb... he just tried a lot of different things until he got it right. Even then, I think Monroe thought of it as his personal music. He was trying to find a sound to compete with the other commercial country performers of the day, something that would uniquely identify his sound. It quickly became clear that he didn't want to have other country performers immitating his sound. First of all, bluegrass is ensemble music. No single performer or simple duet can play bluegrass. They can perform music associated with bluegrass but lack the pieces needed to reproduce a bluegrass sound. Second, bluegrass music is primarily performed on acoustic stringed instruments. As I've said eleswhere, it isn't loose; the music is intended as polished commercial music in which each member is playing a much needed role. I don't think bluegrass is limited to certain chords and progressions necessarily but I do think the tempos and rhythmic structures are important to the definition. - Mark
|
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST,Richie Date: 03 Sep 02 - 09:21 AM Mark- Visited your site; good MP3 selections, nice drawing of you too. I'm not sure about your definition of bluegrass. If two people (a duet) can't play bluegrass how many does it take? Would that be the Guitar, Bass, Banjo, Mandolin and Fiddle (I know Monroe didn't really include the dobro)? And what if a member of the 'big five' is missing? If our bass player misses a gig are we a "bluegrass band" anymore? Since the electric bass is used frequently does that eliminate the acoustic music part of the definition of bluegrass. I personally define the "Classic 1945 period" of bluegrass by the development of three-finger style banjo playing, not necessarily by Monroe himself. I think if we get a good definition, we can go forward and backward from there. -Richie |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Mark Clark Date: 03 Sep 02 - 12:51 PM 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
|
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST,Richie Date: 03 Sep 02 - 10:30 PM Mark- I know exactly what you are talking about with regards to the rhythm that Monroe played. Monroe pushes the beat without speeding up the tempo. Quite an illusion- he makes the music sound faster that it really is! Technically what he does is play just ever so slightly ahead of the beat. You can really hear it when he plays the duets with Doc Watson. It's just him playing back-up and he really creates a drive. I guess what I wanted from you or anyone else on this thread is a working definition of what bluegrass is. The rhythmic drive of and speed are definitely components of bluegrass. What about instruments? What are the essential instruments? Does the repertoire matter? Can you do AC/DC like Hayseed Deseed does? Or Stairway to Heaven? Are there limits? If the banjo isn't essential does that mean that clawhammer or frailing styles are fine? I'd like to get some feedback from anyone on this. I will post a definition in a couple days. Richie |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Steve Latimer Date: 03 Sep 02 - 10:48 PM Well I've heard Ralph Stanley frail a couple and it sure sounds like Bluegrass to me. I guess the same could be said for Grandpa Jones. I would say that the original Dueling Banjos, or Feudin Banjos as it was called (Arthur Smith & Don Reno?) wasn't bluegrass. Any thoughts? |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST,Richie Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:01 AM Steve- Are you saying that because Duelin' Banjos was composed by Smith that it's not bluegrass? Would that also be true for "Rocky Top," a country song composed to sound like a bluegrass song? Does that also mean that you think 3-finger style banjo playing isn't necessarily a defining component of "bluegrass"? If any style banjo pickin' is OK then when did "bluegrass" start? I mean how many mudcatters does it take to define bluegrass? (Three- one to give an opinion and two to say that's not the way Earl did it.) -Richie
|
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Steve Latimer Date: 04 Sep 02 - 08:01 AM Richie, I think that there are variations allowed, one of them being that if Dr. Ralph wants to frail, he can frail. I don't think that Feudin Banjos sounded like Bluegrass, but Dueling banjos did. Rocky Top? Hmm, I guess I never really thought much about it. |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Rick Fielding Date: 04 Sep 02 - 09:09 AM Wow, good thread to revive. I'll still stick to my earlier points and definitions (made over two years ago!) about what Bluegrass is, but I think the REAL question becomes: What is the definition of the word 'Definition?' It can be used very narrowly, by folks who've spent so much of their lives immersed in something, that there's hardly any bit of minutiae that they've missed. The biggest problem for those folks is finding someone else equally as well-versed to discuss all the tiny points. I mean see how many 'general' old time music fans would stick around while two complete Bluegrass 'nerds' discuss whether Tommy Magness or Chubby Wise deserves to be called the "father of Bluegrass fiddle". Trust me, three hours worth of citing phrasing, timing, tempo, note selection, recording dates etc. would drive away all but the most dedicated Bluegrasser. Of course, the definition(s) can be broader and hence involve more folks and more theories, (as in this thread) heck, just the fact that Elvis re-arranged Bill Monroe's "Blue Moon of Kentucky" and then recorded it, would qualify him (by broader definition) as a Bluegrass performer. VERY shortly after that, Monroe himself, produced a Stanley Brothers recording of the same song with a distinct rock and roll approach (you gotta hear it...it's on The Mercury sessions) and so by broader definition, Monroe was an early rocker. By the way Richie, have you heard Dylan's guitar work on Acuff's "Freight Train Blues"? Damn close to Bluegrass! Cheers Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Mark Clark Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:49 AM I don't think clawhammer or frailing styles would be classified as bluegrass, Dr. Ralph's performances not withstanding. Just as Bob Dylan's occasional bluegrass number doesn't necessarily classify him as a bluegrass musician, Dr. Ralph's occasional departure from bluegrass doesn't disqualify him as one. The reason clawhammer banjo isn't bluegrass isn't because of the tonality or technique, it's because the resulting rhythm and timing of the music is no longer bluegrass. I think Dr. Ralph might agree with my opinion on this. When he used to perform those old clawhammer numbers, it was to add variety to his set and to share with his audience the sort of music he heard growing up. He wasn't trying to say that clawhammer style banjo is bluegrass. Of course clawhammer/frailing style banjo does, in my opinion, constitute a more complete style than bluegrass banjo which is why it is favored by single performers using the banjo for accompaniment. Bluegrass banjo is designed to work with an ensemble while clawhammer style comes from a time when a banjo and a fiddle were the whole band. You can see that I've been working pretty hard to avoid posting a formal definition for bluegrass. That isn't because I don't have an opinion or can't think of one, it's because any definition that will fit withing the confines of a single post, or the Mudcat site for that matter, will instantly have enough valid exceptions to bring its validity into serious question. Should such a definition actually become widely accepted, it would certainly serve to cut off any further development of the form. Perhaps it's more useful to discuss approaches by specific groups or treatment of particular numbers than it is to try to wrap up the entire genre in a neat little package. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:56 PM Search for the definitive definition somehow made me think of the song "Little Boxes" (on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky tacky. Little boxes, little boxes, little boxes all the same). And of dancing classes in my childhood, where every child had to do exactly the same step to the same beat and with identical arm weaves and dips and the mandatory frozen smile. "Should such a definition become widely accepted, it would certainly serve to cut off any further development of the form." That seems to be exactly what some are trying to do--- and cut off the roots as well. |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST,Richie Date: 04 Sep 02 - 11:13 PM It's hard to have a bluegrass genealogy if you can't come up with a general starting point. It's hard to talk about "bluegrass" if there is a general consensus of what it is. I think definitions don't have to be limiting. There are characteristics that can be attributed to 'bluegrass' music that are different than other kinds of music. That doesn't make it restrictive. In my "bluegrass group" we do black gospel, we do ragtime, we do oldtime. We even write our own songs. We have one song, "Shady Grove" that we play in two keys at the same time (if you want to hear the MP3 of Shady Grove in two keys: BluegrassMessengers@aol.com). We have two and sometimes three (Scruggs style) banjo players- that's the definition of atonal music! Dicho- you do some great research on the Mudcat. Remember, inside every box there's an infinitive amount of inner space. Here's what I think we come up with so far: Bluegrass as a music term can be applied from the 1945 Bill Monroe's Blue Grass Boys. Bluegrass is acoustic music played by an ensemble or group at a fast and rhythmic tempo. When did bluegrass start? -Richie |
|
Subject: RE: Genealogy of Bluegrass From: GUEST,Richie Date: 05 Sep 02 - 07:53 AM Just a note on my last post. The Shady Grove MP3 is not on my website. I'll get it put up there soon. Best to all, Richie |
| Share Thread: |