I've never had a guest blogger before, but I want to introduce my readers to Dustin Ogdin, who blogs at ear-tyme music as well as posting as a featured blogger at No Depression, the on line music magazine. Dustin explains how we got together below and then develops a strong argument with excellent examples of why bluegrass music needs to be allowed to grow by its adherents. WARNING: the clip from Gangstagrass contains language that my be offensive to some people. If you like this guest effort, let me know, and I'll keep my eye out for other guest posts. - Ted
Bluegrass: Tweets, Tradition and Tangents
Don't get me wrong... I get it. In many ways it's the very fact that bluegrass is a traditional art form which honors its history that appeals to many fans. However, there is a difference between having reverence for tradition and casting those traditions in amber, preserved in unyielding, static form for the ages. There is nothing wrong with having a healthy dose of musicians playing a traditional form of any music. When that traditional form becomes the sole defining characteristic, however, I think a music stops growing almost by definition. Imagine if rock and roll never progressed past Chuck Berry, jazz never moved forward from Jelly Roll Morton, or hip-hop never altered from the Sugar Hill Gang. Does anyone argue that the Rolling Stones aren't a "real" rock and roll band or that Miles Davis wasn't a "true" jazz musician? Of course not; these are/were quintessential practitioners of their genres even though their defining sounds were a dramatic departure from the music's origins. The same does not apply to bluegrass. If an artist strays too far from the original Bill Monroe template in style, instrumentation, vocal delivery, etc., they are not considered bluegrass artists by many in the community. One might describe them as influenced by the genre, but many are quick to draw a box around the music with only staunch traditionalists deserving the title of "bluegrass musician." Such a narrow definition of an entire genre of music is a recipe for eventual cultural irrelevance if you ask me. At the bare minimum, such stringent codes of "purity" present a huge stumbling block towards a music's growth.
Even in the 70's and 80's as artists like Sam Bush, John Hartford, Bela Fleck, and Jerry Douglas began to take the music in new directions, the term "newgrass" was employed. I don't think this was necessarily just a term to distinguish their music from that of their elders. I think it was also a way of saying "these guys might be playing bluegrass instruments, but this isn't the real thing."
Of course, the creativity and ingenuity of artists will always prevail, and there are a wealth of musicians fusing bluegrass traditions with other genres in sublime ways today just like the aforementioned "newgrass" musicians did decades ago (and continue to do today.) Bands that spring to mind are Crooked Still
, the Punch Brothers
, Trampled By Turtles
, Cahalen Morrison & Eli West
, Sarah Jarosz
, Andy Statman
, Danny Barnes
, and Matt Flinner
to name but a few. I doubt these artists care how one wants to classify their music (and likely find labels annoying more than anything), but it is bluegrass organizations and advocates who lose out if they don't welcome innovative, creative artists into the fold with open arms. Good musicians will always find an audience, but rigid cultural gatekeepers will not always find new members for their organizations, subscribers to their magazines, devotees to their record labels, or attendees for their festivals. That said, festival organizers seem to do a decent job of having an inclusive spirit, but I wonder if organizations devoted to promoting the genre are as enthusiastic about those artists pushing boundaries and incorporating other influences. I know from spending time on online forums and websites that many fans and musicians persist with that "purity test" in deciding who is or isn't worthy of the label. This is a shame, because everybody loses if bluegrass doesn't adopt a big tent philosophy.Traditional bluegrass acts might have a hard time being exposed to new audiences if they're not willing to tour and cross-promote with less traditional acts. Perhaps the best example of a traditional artist who understands that taking chances is a wise move from both a creative and market standpoint is Del McCoury. I personally have a number of friends who probably never owned a bluegrass album before McCoury's 1999 collaboration with Steve Earle, The Mountain. I am
certain this was a gateway album for many fans who went on to learn more about the genre and become fans of other bands. Continuing in that spirit, McCoury is currently working on a collaboration with the Preservation Hall Jazz Band (probably the album I'm currently most anticipating.) Now, no one would say Del isn't a "real" bluegrass artist; he's even got a Bluegrass Boy pedigree from Mr. Monroe himself. However, I wonder why more traditional artists aren't looking for collaborative opportunities with unexpected artists or, at least, creative touring partnerships with diverse artists. The Del/Preservation Hall collaboration also points to another awkward issue. There are few American musical genres so racially segregated as bluegrass. That's just a simple fact, but it doesn't have to be so.With the exception of some Taj Mahal collaborations with Doc Watson there hasn't been much cross-pollination between traditional bluegrass musicians and musicians of color, at least with respect to collaborative recordings and concerts. Sure, the Carolina Chocolate Drops have gained much deserved popularity for their string band music, but, 1) they are a lonely anomaly of sorts, and 2) they aren't bluegrass musicians even by my own wishes for an expansive definition of the genre (although they have gotten a great deal of press and praise from the bluegrass community, which is heartening.) Another interesting collaboration is Gangstagrass
, a fusion of Brooklyn-based rappers rhyming atop beautifully produced samples and loops of bluegrass and roots music. I hope these guys are getting some festival invitations if for no other reason than to shake things up a little bit. There are other methods to enliven the community as well. If I were the head of any bluegrass association, my first order of business would be developing strategies for cultural diversity within both the bluegrass audience and the playing community. I would have a symposium at every conference figuring out how to welcome minorities and others into the fold. I think a great place to start would be outreach programs within minority schools. Perhaps these conversations are happening at conferences or similar programs exist. If so, I'd love to hear about them from any readers out there.Let me return to my larger point about the narrow definition of bluegrass in closing. I mentioned above that this whole conversation began with posts exchanged between bloggers Jon Goldmann (The Session Spot) and Ted Lehmann (Ted Lehmann's Bluegrass, Books, and Brainstorms.) Within that conversation, I think Ted Lehmann hit the nail on the head regarding ideas of exclusivity about what is or isn't bluegrass. He put it like this:
Given Monroe's strong, prickly personality and the highly possessive attitude he had towards "his" music, I'd say Lehmann's observation is pretty astute. Monroe often said that his creation of the genre stemmed as much from what he kept out of the music as it did from what he kept in. Well, that may be so, but bluegrass has to move forward and have a life of its own, just as a son or daughter can't live a healthy life if their only goal is to succumb to their parents' wishes. Monroe is gone, and I think the best way to respect his legacy is to emulate the ethos of his restless musical spirit rather than adhere to any rigid dogma.
"The specter of Bill Monroe both spreads and closes the borders of the bluegrass world. Since a specific date in 1946 can be shown as the beginning of bluegrass music and Monroe has only been dead a few years, his shadow is large and powerful. Many players still active remember him and revere his contributions, wishing to keep the music true to his vision and often forgetting he was a true revolutionary who took the music of his time and melded it with his background to create a new genre. Many are happy to continue to sing and play the standards and eager to avoid change of any kind."
Ted - thanks for exposing us to Dustin’s blog. He is thoughtful and articulate, like you. Clearly this is not a new topic you’re tackling here; I see and hear it all of the time. I commented on one of your earlier posts about the economics of bluegrass. I really believe supply and demand drives it, but I rarely hear any mention of this reality in the discussion.
ReplyDeleteWe can fuss at the musicians and festival promoters all day long, but in the end, the customers have the biggest say so. How many albums will Gangstagrass sell? If Dennis Jones played some Ganstagrass on WNCW’s “Going Across The Mountain,” how would his listeners (i.e. Supporters and financial donors) react? On the topic of Del McCoury and Steve Earle, there is no mention of their parting ways. Word on the street is that Del didn’t appreciate some of Earle’s onstage shenanigans. On some level, this ties back to the economic impact - Del was concerned about disappointing his best customers, the family audience.
Offline, you and I discussed this tagline that I had used for my music - “Acoustic, Bluegrassy Music.” Initially, I was excited about the line because it indicated that I have bluegrass influence, but gave me wiggle room to go beyond the defined boundaries. Along the way, I’ve found approval from some pretty staunch traditionalist, but that tagline alone nearly squashed my chance of getting their attention to begin with.
Some of the music I hear sounds like an artist being different just for the sake of being different. Others sound different because their creative energy has taken them there. How can you tell? Well, who cares, really? If you listen to the music, and you like - then buy it and tell all of your friends to check it out. I listen to Dennis Jones each week, support WNCW, and tell all of my friends about it because I love the music they play. I’ve purchased a dozen CDs from Nora Jane Struthers and passed them out to friends because I love her music. You can call it Bluegrass or Americana or whatever you want - it’s great music, and there is demand for it.
Thanks much, Shayne. I thought long and hard trying to decide whether to take the Gangstagrass clip off, leave it without comment, or post the warning. I decided on the warning, because I think Dustin effectively demonstrated the limits to which some people can take "bluegrass" sounds. I hear lots of music at festivals that's either not to my taste and some that's just plain unacceptable to me, perhaps for reasons different from what others might choose. No matter. I can always be sure that something I really like will be coming soon.
ReplyDeleteAny chance you'll be in Conway on March 19 for the RBS concert?
Ted, it's a real privilege to have my writing re-posting here. Thank you again!
ReplyDeleteShane, you bring up some great points about both supply and demand and the "values" of many in the bluegrass community. Bluegrass events are often a place where one feels they can bring the entire family with no worry of potentially offensive language or lewd behavior by the artists on stage. As someone who doesn't have kids and admittedly has a high tolerance for profanity and the like, this is something that probably doesn't occur to me enough. You're also correct to point out the split between Earle and Del due in part to Earle's language on stage as I've heard the rumor. Thanks for your comments and insight. Well said.
I see these kinds of appeals to "allow bluegrass to grow" all the time, but as far as I know there is nothing preventing anyone from making any kind of music they want with any innovations they want.
ReplyDeleteI think the real point of these kinds of appeals is to try to get people to change their preferred tastes in music consumption.
I was attracted to bluegrass because of the sound and the kind of emotional tie it had to my state of mind. Perhaps that will change in the future, but I have been a fan of many genres of music over the years, and I prefer the traditional bluegrass sound while enjoying many other sounds.
If anyone should want to expand the boundaries of bluegrass, fine. Have fun. It may change the world. Just call it something other than "bluegrass" to avoid confusion, and understand that labeling something as "not bluegrass" is not a pejorative, but an identifier on the musical spectrum.
Changing something isn't growing it, it's changing it. If you are tired of playing a style of music, then play something else. Don't tell a loyal, clambering for more Bluegrass audience the the music they love is...tired, boring, stale, needs to change and is no longer relevant. You change and stop trying to change the audience. Believe me there are plenty of "Traditional" ticket/CD buyers/listeners out there. Are you ready to abandon them as an audience in hopes of "growing" another? The "Americana" market is flooded with people trying to be all things at one time. It's creating some pretty bland and not too good projects. Someone imitating someone...who's imitating someone, who's imitating someone who actually was the root or was using the root of a style of any music is where a big problem is. Do you think someone who is listening to "The Punch Brothers" and starts a band playing like them grows Bluegrass? How could it? At times it's so far from Bluegrass it's unrecognizable. How about "Old Crow Medicine Show"? I don't think they play a single song with a Bluegrass rhythm and drive. Are they a good representation of the "New" Bluegrass. Music genres are for the most part defined by structure. The rhythm, timing, vocal stacking, instrumentation, "drive"...being able to be creative with those elements inside of a style is what keeps it fresh and alive. I've seen some of the "New", "Change" Bluegrass bands fall by the wayside pretty quick.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to play something different, do it. Don't try to tell people this is "whatever", when you know good and well it isn't.
If the vision is to make big money then the advice of the best business schools might be in order. Country Music has certainly shown it works. But isn't it a double edged sword?
ReplyDeleteTo me, after following it for the last 40 years, Bluegrass is a well defined art form as laid down by Monroe, Flatt and Scruggs and the other pioneers. It is what it is, just as a sodium atom is what it is, like it or not.
Modern jazz and jazz fusion were clearly labeled, perhaps the practitioners of this new stuff might be so kind as telling us what they call it.
My opinion is that if the community only embraces those within the Monroe, Flatt & Scruggs, Stanley template, then it is the traditional artists themselves that suffer. Whatever you think of the Punch Brothers, for instance, they've had a lot of success commercially and critically. Does that make them better or more relevant? No, but it allows them to keep earning a living and make their music. It exposes audiences to bluegrass forms and bluegrass instruments as well.
ReplyDeleteAgain, there's nothing wrong with artists sticking to tradition, but if the community excludes those veering from tradition and traditional bands only play with other traditional bands, they have less opportunity to grow their audience and generate the income needed to continue making their art. I don't think that's good for anyone. Who would argue that Miles Davis' classic album, Kind of Blue, is not jazz despite the fact that it sounds nothing like Jelly Roll Morton or even Louis Armstrong. If all jazz were never to stray past the Armstrong model, it would likely just be a tiny little piece of novel American musical history rather than a vibrant art celebrated the world over.
As I see it, you can still honor tradition without excluding innovation. Innovators will find an audience when the talent is there. The question is whether the traditionalists that we all love will have the opportunity for exposure to new audiences that innovators can provide.
Changing something is not growing it, it's changing it. Whatever you want to do...do it. Don't try to tell people it's something it's not. If you are running an Apple Stand, clearly marked as APPLE STAND, and then only have peaches on the table...and tell people they are apples...is that growing your business? Does that help the Apple Farmer?
ReplyDeleteMy friend Dr. Tom Bibey put in his two cents worth on this topic at his blog Dr. Tom Bibey: Stories of the Bluegrass World (http://drtombibey.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/think-free/) Dr. B has his own unique take on the world, which is worth dipping into on a regular basis. He's also the author of the novel "The Mandolin Case." Here's the first couple of paragraphs of his post: Uncle Ted Lehmann wrote a recent post on social media and bluegrass I enjoyed. Here’s the link to his blog: www.tedlehmann.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteIt set me to thinking about why I write and why I love bluegrass music and the community that surrounds it. It’s because it gives me hope we can still think free. Perhaps I should say this is a dream or a prayer, but I hold it close with what last few betz cells I have not yet whitewashed by mainstream media pablum.
Don’t believe me? When gifted, honest vocalists have trouble making a living and multimillion dollars news is an awards show singer’s arrival to the gala in a giant egg; a kid whose pitch can’t be saved by ProTools, well, I won’t go on….
Go to Dr. B's site to read the rest. - Ted
Thanks, Ted and Dustin! I've been talking about bluegrass and social media (in particular, Twitter) on the resoguit-l google list, but your conversation has inspired me to put that on my blog at: http://geoclark.com/2011/03/07/bluegrass-twitter-and-a-little-bit-of-dobro/ .
ReplyDeleteThis kind of discussion's never ending I guess. It happens all the time about "old time fiddling" as well - and, as mentioned, in Jazz.
ReplyDeleteIt really all boils down to a question of how we name things. I like the "Bluegrass" label because when I buy tickets, I've got pretty good idea about what I'm going to hear.
That said, I do think musicians ought to play what they like and expand their fan base if they like.
I'm a native Southerner, so I like "traditional" Bluegrass and/or "Monroe Style" Bluegrass, but I can certainly understand why other people would want to hear something more "progressive" or "up to date".
Back in the 70's the term "New Grass" was used and it worked pretty well for Sam Bush and David Grisman.
Even in Jazz, we have different names - DixielLand, Traditional, Bop, Unstructured, etc.
The whole problem as I see it is that you can't just run everything under the same name because it confuses and frustrates prospective fans and ticket buyers. So what's wrong with having separate names. Maybe something like.
"Traditional Bluegrass" or "Monroe Style Bluegrass", then "New Grass" or "Progressive Bluegrass". I suppose we could even have "HipHop Grass" or some such if we needed to.
I don't really care what labels we attach to various styles of playing music on the typical array of acoustic insruments used in traditional Bluegrass.
But I don't think we can just call everything Bluegrass because then I don't know whether or not to buy the tickets.
--OTJ
This kind of discussion's never ending I guess. It happens all the time about "old time fiddling" as well - and, as mentioned, in Jazz.
ReplyDeleteIt really all boils down to a question of how we name things. I like the "Bluegrass" label because when I buy tickets, I've got pretty good idea about what I'm going to hear.
That said, I do think musicians ought to play what they like and expand their fan base if they like.
I'm a native Southerner, so I like "traditional" Bluegrass and/or "Monroe Style" Bluegrass, but I can certainly understand why other people would want to hear something more "progressive" or "up to date".
Back in the 70's the term "New Grass" was used and it worked pretty well for Sam Bush and David Grisman.
Even in Jazz, we have different names - DixielLand, Traditional, Bop, Unstructured, etc.
The whole problem as I see it is that you can't just run everything under the same name because it confuses and frustrates prospective fans and ticket buyers. So what's wrong with having separate names. Maybe something like.
"Traditional Bluegrass" or "Monroe Style Bluegrass", then "New Grass" or "Progressive Bluegrass". I suppose we could even have "HipHop Grass" or some such if we needed to.
I don't really care what labels we attach to various styles of playing music on the typical array of acoustic insruments used in traditional Bluegrass.
But I don't think we can just call everything Bluegrass because then I don't know whether or not to buy the tickets.
--OTJ
Thanks for your post, Paul. I'm inclined toward Music festivals that have an eclectic mix of (mostly) acoustic music. I like bluegrass a lot, but a whole day of unrelieved homages to the sounds of Monroe, Flatt & Scruggs, Jim & Jessie, and Jimmy Martin just makes my eyes glaze over. The range of material you suggest sounds about right to me for a good festival. Thanks again. - Ted
ReplyDeleteI don't get why this topic keeps coming up. The narrow definition of Bluegrass Music is just fine - it gives audiences a clear idea of what to expect. If someone likes Bluegrass, they can seek it out. On the other hand, I can avoid it when I'm in the mood to listen to musicians that are more creative.
ReplyDeleteAnother way that the narrow definition of Bluegrass is useful: low-level jamming. For less-skilled musicians, it is helpful to limit the rhythms, chord changes, and song structures to the Bluegrass idiom.
Perhaps the discussion should be on festival lineups. The most vibrant and fun festivals are not limited to Bluegrass on stage, even while the amateur, off-stage jams are.
Jim - I think your point is very well taken. I don't much care what people want to play in the field, but I think it's quite important that festivals present a range of material that may be bluegrass derived, but not necessarily pure traditional bluegrass. People wishing to avoid the music deviating from their idea of purity can always return to their rigs and jam anything they wish.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this wonderful music.please keep me posted.thanks and regards.
ReplyDelete