tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7211910878271447535.post7632408147058978175..comments2024-03-22T01:04:20.640-04:00Comments on Ted Lehmann's Film, Books, Music & Commentary: What's “New”? - EssayTed Lehmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12948477139450253563noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7211910878271447535.post-24999984846883962352012-01-12T18:02:24.111-05:002012-01-12T18:02:24.111-05:00For those who don't know him, Al Hawkes is a N...For those who don't know him, Al Hawkes is a New England institution, a national treasure. He's been performing bluegrass for longer than many of us have lived, and he has one of the largest collections anywhere. Thanks so much for your comments, Al. You never need to apologize for your writing. It's your thinking that counts. - TedTed Lehmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12948477139450253563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7211910878271447535.post-46759676428442680702012-01-12T17:23:07.841-05:002012-01-12T17:23:07.841-05:00Ted, I'm not a scholar person and probably pro...Ted, I'm not a scholar person and probably produce poor grammar and spelling but here goes.This "What's New" essay you posted is simply great. I just came back to read it again,looked at the interesting comments and printed a copy. At 81 years old I can say I've been thru the pre Bluegrass period starting in the early 1940s listing to hillbilly, mountain music and early "honky tonk" country music coming way up here in Northern New England via Southern radio stations like WWVA, WCKY, WBT, etc. I liked it all and when I heard Bill Monroe in 1947 on WSM it blew me away and infected me immediately. I continued being infected by Stanley Brother and others utilizing the 5st. banjo in thier recordings. Alton and I as a vocal duo with guitar and mandolin on radio in the late 1940s & early 50s (now considered the first interracial preBluegrass act) played many of the early music we heard and loved. But even then we listened to all kinds of music - blues, jazz, pop tunes - if we liked it and could play it and thought our listeners would like it - we added to our mix. Over the years I have sang and played on guitar and mandolin many different tunes and put out my recordings that have shown the different influences I've accepted. I have alienated some who said I abandon them and Bluegrass music but that is not true...I love Bluegrass music and continue to perform it. I also, continue to enjoy other acoustic music and try to keep an open mind so I can pick up new material and ideas for my shows. I think the dicussions are great but I do hope that as they say "the whole ball of wax" does not get to negative and that we can all come away from this period with a positive attitude and realize that everyone wishes to have fun and joy with Bluegrass music - even the professionals by making money at their trade. Keep smiling and play Bluegrass. Al HawkesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7211910878271447535.post-87863295709625570662012-01-12T12:47:43.519-05:002012-01-12T12:47:43.519-05:00Many thanks to you, Ted, for continuously encourag...Many thanks to you, Ted, for continuously encouraging discussion in our community of bluegrass music lovers. Bluegrass is a “muscians music” and the fact that jamming is one of the fans favorite past times simply shows that there is going to be constant creation, constant change, constant “new” sounds. So a question you could have posted would have been “Are you one of those people who constantly wants to play music, write music, or listen to music? Constantly (re)create?” The answer from most of your readers would have been yes. To an artist this is a well understood need- the urge to create is more than somewhat akin to the need for “new”- and aren’t all of the great bluegrass musicians artists? <br />The idea of a need for “new” and the conflict that you see between neophiles and neophobes posits an interesting question about the way in which people enjoy and listen to bluegrass- as either a cultural and communal experience, or as an art form- as really good music. This idea of “new” music causing a “current uproar” is completely unavoidable because in the end bluegrass is music, music is art, and everyone has an aesthetic opinion. Luckily I have not been in company with the rejecting, mocking “neophobic traditionalists” you describe, but this tension that you write of often, undoubtedly stems from larger, more complex issues. I would assume the roots of this tension are far from the heart of creativity and bluegrass as music and the artists need to create something “new.” I would assume they lie in personal agendas and preferences. <br />The genre you write about and your readers enjoy has developed in less than seventy years- change is not gradual in bluegrass; change is constant, a definitive of the genre. Even with this constant change, there are many wonderful groups “performing the traditional sources” as you pinned it, keeping the traditional sound safe from being dissolved. With so much change I understand your constant questions and research on the direction of bluegrass. That is a relevant concern and point of interest. <br />But where I do differ in understanding with you, is in your statement, “…but it is all music, and comes from the influence of bluegrass music.” Some of the difficulty in understanding new sounds in the genre to many listeners is that the changes you hear are precisely NOT from the influence of bluegrass music. Yes, the changes must take place from within the genre by individuals who understand the domain of bluegrass music, but the changes that will “catch” are changes made by creative people; people who can combine domains (domain being the genre/style). Music does not arise out of one genre- the creation of bluegrass explains that. Music comes from a much deeper wellspring. Like all bluegrass legends, the younger and new performers are open to merging jazz, rock, gospel, even elements of hip hop, blues, singer songwriter, and punk sounds with the “high lonesome” sound that defines bluegrass’ boundaries. The conflict arises when people try to define those boundaries without understanding the depth of the creativity found in all genres.<br /><br />Hopefully discussions (like yours and the others held in barbershops, university lecture halls, and back porches across the country) will allow for not only a better understanding of change and resistance, but a deeper understanding of the community that surrounds our beloved genre. It is a shame that so much time is spent “struggling” in conflict over something as beautiful as music and as natural to the artistic process as innovation and reaction. <br />Hope to see you around the festivals grounds this year,<br />Jordan LaneyJordannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7211910878271447535.post-17930155771972036432012-01-12T12:47:09.417-05:002012-01-12T12:47:09.417-05:00Many thanks to you, Ted, for continuously encourag...Many thanks to you, Ted, for continuously encouraging discussion in our community of bluegrass music lovers. Bluegrass is a “muscians music” and the fact that jamming is one of the fans favorite past times simply shows that there is going to be constant creation, constant change, constant “new” sounds. So a question you could have posted would have been “Are you one of those people who constantly wants to play music, write music, or listen to music? Constantly (re)create?” The answer from most of your readers would have been yes. To an artist this is a well understood need- the urge to create is more than somewhat akin to the need for “new”- and aren’t all of the great bluegrass musicians artists? <br />The idea of a need for “new” and the conflict that you see between neophiles and neophobes posits an interesting question about the way in which people enjoy and listen to bluegrass- as either a cultural and communal experience, or as an art form- as really good music. This idea of “new” music causing a “current uproar” is completely unavoidable because in the end bluegrass is music, music is art, and everyone has an aesthetic opinion. Luckily I have not been in company with the rejecting, mocking “neophobic traditionalists” you describe, but this tension that you write of often, undoubtedly stems from larger, more complex issues. I would assume the roots of this tension are far from the heart of creativity and bluegrass as music and the artists need to create something “new.” I would assume they lie in personal agendas and preferences. <br />The genre you write about and your readers enjoy has developed in less than seventy years- change is not gradual in bluegrass; change is constant, a definitive of the genre. Even with this constant change, there are many wonderful groups “performing the traditional sources” as you pinned it, keeping the traditional sound safe from being dissolved. With so much change I understand your constant questions and research on the direction of bluegrass. That is a relevant concern and point of interest. <br />But where I do differ in understanding with you, is in your statement, “…but it is all music, and comes from the influence of bluegrass music.” Some of the difficulty in understanding new sounds in the genre to many listeners is that the changes you hear are precisely NOT from the influence of bluegrass music. Yes, the changes must take place from within the genre by individuals who understand the domain of bluegrass music, but the changes that will “catch” are changes made by creative people; people who can combine domains (domain being the genre/style). Music does not arise out of one genre- the creation of bluegrass explains that. Music comes from a much deeper wellspring. Like all bluegrass legends, the younger and new performers are open to merging jazz, rock, gospel, even elements of hip hop, blues, singer songwriter, and punk sounds with the “high lonesome” sound that defines bluegrass’ boundaries. The conflict arises when people try to define those boundaries without understanding the depth of the creativity found in all genres.<br /><br />Hopefully discussions (like yours and the others held in barbershops, university lecture halls, and back porches across the country) will allow for not only a better understanding of change and resistance, but a deeper understanding of the community that surrounds our beloved genre. It is a shame that so much time is spent “struggling” in conflict over something as beautiful as music and as natural to the artistic process as innovation and reaction. <br />Hope to see you around the festivals grounds this year,<br />Jordan LaneyJordannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7211910878271447535.post-55234786755593409172012-01-12T12:35:08.442-05:002012-01-12T12:35:08.442-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.JordanLeAnneLearnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07930227823942494992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7211910878271447535.post-50578494722179019142012-01-11T18:24:14.460-05:002012-01-11T18:24:14.460-05:00Part III of Jim Hurst's comments:
Sounds like...Part III of Jim Hurst's comments:<br /><br />Sounds like an off-subject comment to some of you? It's not, but it begins to illuminate why I am posting. When we, the collective we, begin to micro-manage the ins and outs we lose musical artistic perspective. I find it funny that I have trouble getting any attention at Bluegrass festivals because I am not a Bluegrass band but other bands have been booked that are further away from Bluegrass than I. Yep, festivals and events need to make money, I get it... so do I. But don't tell me that I am not close enough to Bluegrass and then book a pop band.<br /><br />Whatever you want to call Bluegrass (or not), or what era is the most important era, or whether it was Monroe's invention or that Flatt & Scruggs saved it, I don't care... until you begin dividing the masses with rhetoric and banter that really doesn't help the ART.<br /><br />I echo Jerry Cherryholmes' comment to Kyle Cantrell (in loose quote here) "Bluegrass is in danger of becoming a caricature of itself", when responding to Kyle's question about their CD which was mostly if not all original material. I read - with disdain - a scathing review of Blue Highway's all original CD "Still Climbing Mountains", and the reviewer trounced it, and partly because it was 'all original'. Really? Wonder what Bill Monroe or Jimmy Martin, or Loretta Lynn, or Willie Nelson, Dolly Parton would say about that?<br /><br />How exactly does that help anyone? We have crazies all over the place (argumentatively I am one too), but the point is made.<br /><br />In closing, while I think it's good to discuss these things and I applaud all of you for taking the time to do just that, and for IBMA and Nancy Cardwell and others for providing this forum, I request one thing. "Do no harm".<br /><br />The idea is to further Bluegrass musical ART, not personal opinions and ulterior motives, not that any of that is being handled here. The listener wants what they want. Most of them are here because of the honesty and integrity of the ART of Bluegrass music, the rest are here because they hate what's happened to country music.<br /><br />Best to you all.<br />Jim<br />"I am happier than I've ever been!"Ted Lehmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12948477139450253563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7211910878271447535.post-54761112350306616422012-01-11T18:23:53.629-05:002012-01-11T18:23:53.629-05:00Part II of Jim Hurst's comments:
As an artist...Part II of Jim Hurst's comments:<br /><br />As an artist (recording, touring, forward thinking, 'needing-to-be-successful' entity), I think a little differently, but not too much. Maybe that's why I am not as much of a recognized name as others, but I don't know. I don't want fame nor fortune. I want work, and I need a 'name' in order to get booked on stages around this country and elsewhere. I realize that sales and success in achieving what I want comes with some needs and requirements. I am not good at most of these. Why? Because I do it as a side to my craft as it is a perceived necessity. I understand that, just don't have the skill set to handle it, nor the time. A musical artist should be a performer of musical ART, not a product on the shelves, to me - a self-titled idealist, anyway. But there are obvious reasons why this is important. And that can get super ridiculous, such as coming up with a 3 word moniker of the music (which I think is now down to 2 words). Try that with any of the legends and see how hard it is.<br /><br />So, within that, I find myself questioning my time management needs and I don't know about all of you, but if I spend all my time trying to write descriptions and bios, and find bookings, and travel plans, and more... not to mention household and family needs, I run out of time for my craft. I hear it all the time from successful folks, and they have teams of folks doing exactly that.<br /><br />My point? Well, the ART of Bluegrass is why we are on this list. It is why we are members of IBMA. It is why there is Bluegrass to begin with. Mr. Monroe wanted the world to know his musical ART as did Flatt & Scruggs and New Grass Revival, et al. But having a bunch of thinkers to start changing the appearance or the opportunity of the appearance of this same musical art to make bloggers, critics, reviewers, businesses, and others of all kinds happy was not the idea.<br /><br />We can think it through and discuss all we want, but I ask you to consider one thing at every opportunity. Does it really matter to the art? Does taking the instrumental categories and acceptance speeches of the IBMA award show off the radio help the ART? Does putting the award show on TV help the ART? Or does it help the bottom line of many businesses? You betcha it does. Is that only a bad thing? No. But the ART of Bluegrass should ALWAYS be the measuring stick.<br /><br />Part III followsTed Lehmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12948477139450253563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7211910878271447535.post-2782527139709695032012-01-11T18:22:50.736-05:002012-01-11T18:22:50.736-05:00Noted guitarist (twice IBMA Guitar Player of the Y...Noted guitarist (twice IBMA Guitar Player of the Year) Jim Hurst posted the following comment on the IBMA-Members mailing list. I thought it would be worth sharing here:<br /><br />OK folks, I'd like to chime in here, my first post since accepting the invite to join the new Google list (I had previously unsubscribed because of a few things, but maybe this is one), so I beg your patience, I ask that any and all opposing views be stated only as such, and I hope no one will ask me again to entertain the idea of finding a new career.<br /><br />As a musician/artist who loves Bluegrass (enough even to capitalize the genre name) and grew up listening to much of it, I have a couple perspectives/opinions that might help open some thoughts here. Two perspectives from the life of a struggling musician/artist<br /><br />As a musician first: I really don't care one bit about what any music is called, how to describe it or how to market it or sell it. I rarely listen to any popular music as it is commercialized and made for profit, not for any critical music furthering medium. I can't stand to listen to 'new country' or most of the main stream radio play music sources as it almost makes me sick to hear it. (I could go on an on about this, but wont for the list's sake). I didn't like, and grow to love, Bluegrass because it was popular then, or now. I came to love it because it means something, and the artists that have played it, and most that do play it now, do so because of the same reason. It is ART, not a commercial medium for related businesses to make a profit. Sure, everyone who plays Bluegrass wants to make money so as to pay their bills and living expenses, and most if not all would like to have health insurance and life insurance and maybe some sort of nest egg for retirement. But the musicians want to play music. The artists want to be heard. The MUSIC is the most important thing. I don't care about fame, but I know that it happens with the greats. I dislike when they start believing that they really are something more that they are, because they become harder to deal with, and I truly feel the musical art begins to falter in some if not most cases.<br />part II follows:Ted Lehmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12948477139450253563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7211910878271447535.post-260675084027840852012-01-11T15:30:55.135-05:002012-01-11T15:30:55.135-05:00Ted,
Like Art, I thank you for your active role,...Ted,<br /><br /> Like Art, I thank you for your active role, research and thoughts on<br /> Bluegrass.<br /><br /> While being a neophobic neophile myself, I do have a wide variety of<br /> musical genre in my daily player. I would like to think that Bluegrass<br /> has something unique about its sound. I have and do listen to the new<br /> style music many call Bluegrass. It strikes me odd that I can go out to<br /> watch "XYZ Bluegrass Band" and not hear any Bluegrass music. If a group<br /> plays acoustic fiddles, mandolins, guitars and bass, and, claim they are<br /> fans of Bluegrass are the only requirements to be considered a Bluegrass<br /> band then I need to revamp my belief of what Bluegrass music is.<br /><br /> If Rob Zombie trades the drums and synthesizer for banjo and mandolin,<br /> has everyone play acoustic instruments and claimed Bill Monroe is a<br /> great influence on his music does he then get consideration for the next<br /> Bluegrass grammy?<br /><br /> There are plenty of folks out there playing Bluegrass in the traditional<br /> style, many in between and a lot of string bands being considered<br /> Bluegrass. I like them all but grin when I hear string bands called<br /> Bluegrass bands simply because they play the same instruments and one or<br /> more of the band members may have played Bluegrass and consider<br /> Bluegrass an influence.<br /><br /> Back to the consideration of "new" and Bluegrass. While you reference<br /> Drew Emmett, YMSB and others as being ridiculed and mocked by the<br /> "relatively small but loud neophobic". Is it possible that the neophobes<br /> are calling the new music what it is, not Bluegrass but string band<br /> music? I cannot speak for everyone's music tastes, but for me, I like<br /> these new style bands. I buy their music and go to their shows but do<br /> not consider them Bluegrass. As I write this response, listening to Bill<br /> Monroe - Heavy Traffic Ahead, I am reminded that Bill Monroe and the<br /> Bluegrass Boy's sound is secure. There are so many great bands that<br /> followed and continue today. I'm definitely not an arbiter on the issue<br /> but I am clingy and desperate at times. So, if there is such a thing as<br /> Bill Monroe's vision for Bluegrass, I hope it includes a thumbs up for<br /> the new styles and recognition of his own band's sound and how it is<br /> unique not simply for the instruments played.<br /><br /> Now... where's my accordion? 8)<br /> chrisChrishttp://www.infinityluthiers.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7211910878271447535.post-55924131624595974902012-01-11T13:49:34.665-05:002012-01-11T13:49:34.665-05:00"The result became known as bluegrass music, ..."The result became known as bluegrass music, a variation on the country music of his day. It received immediate, and positive, responses from the audience at the Grand Old Opry when it was introduced in 1946."<br /><br />It was December 0f 1945! 1946 is not when Earl started with Monroe.Dannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7211910878271447535.post-37164700546070335892012-01-11T11:59:30.153-05:002012-01-11T11:59:30.153-05:00Ted, I don't mean to sound like a stick in the...Ted, I don't mean to sound like a stick in the mud but...I simply refer you to about 99% of the FM stations that call themselves country stations today. They have evolved into some kind of hybrid situation where country music now sound s like the soft rock that I remember from the seventies. The strongest elements of country music have simply vanished. Don't get me wrong; I do enjoy some of the young, fresh bluegrass bands out there. My fear is that the older, traditional style of bluegrass will be overwhelmed by the new sound. Bluegrass is all I have left after watching the utter destruction of traditional country music over the last decade or so. In the ideal world, the traditional will be allowed to thrive along with the new, but I fear that's not likely to happen.Sam https://www.blogger.com/profile/17448913705757509608noreply@blogger.com