Comments on: Is Bluegrass old enough to be traditional?

By: nashphil

nashphil — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:03:35 +0000

Not this argument AGAIN!

Have no fear…….
Bill Monroe’s traditional 5-string Earl Scruggs style Bluegrass is alive and well, and it ain’t changin’.
No one would ever let it.

I agree with Thile here, too many people get hung up over labeling music of all genres. Who cares? Good music is good music, no matter how you make it, where it came from, or how many or what kind of instruments are in it.
None of that matters.

There will always be people making traditional bluegrass, just as there will always be people trying to preserve it, just as there will always be people trying to improve it, expand it, dissect it, and bring to a new audience. There is room in this world of ours to do all of the above, and most importantly enjoy it!

Cheers, Phil

By: courtney903

courtney903 — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:05:17 +0000

I just got Chris’s new album a little less than a week ago and it is ALL that I have listened to. I love every bit of it, from the more traditional sounding songs to the cover of The White Stripes’ “Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground.” I listen to this knowing that it is “progressive” bluegrass, and not traditional. I love traditional bluegrass too–Del McCoury is of course a must have, and Rhonda Vincent is pretty much my hero. Still, any art form ceases to be art when it is forced to remain stagnant. It becomes a big group of people copy-catting everybody else, and it all begins to sound the same. There will always be traditionalists and there will always be those who push the limits of what bluegrass can and should be. I think as long as we can remember our bluegrass roots and maintain a balance between the two, we can all enjoy every spectrum of what Bluegrass and its younger generation has and will have to offer us.

By: Lynyrd Banjovy

Lynyrd Banjovy — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:13:13 +0000

I think that there is plenty of room for expansion and experimentation in bluegrass but, if the music is going to retain it’s identity, there has to be a 5-string banjo, played in the style popularized by Earl Scruggs, which gives the music it’s “drive”. There have been attempts at defining bluegrass and, at least to me, this “5-string banjo, played in the style popularized by Earl Scruggs” is the common denominator that makes bluegrass, “bluegrass”. Without it, the music becomes something akin to bluegrass but still too different to be defined as bluegrass. There are people who would argue that defining “bluegrass” is useless and they stretch the term to include every kind of music from old-time stringband to jazz and rock. I believe that the word “bluegrass” does have meaning and when it is used to describe all this other music, it not only dilutes the definition but it also misleads people as to what kind of music they are actually hearing. But, whenever someone hears the sound of the 5-string banjo, played in the style popularized by Earl Scruggs, there is no doubt what type of music they are hearing!

By: VirginiaDave

VirginiaDave — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:42:31 +0000

I don’t think that traditional bluegrass is at risk at all. Sure, there are lots of young pickers out there bringing new influences into the genre. All one needs to do, though, is to head out to the hills to get a good dose of traditional picking. I teach in SWVa and have taught middle schoolers well steeped in traditional grass. They often raised an eyebrow when I threw some newgrass or jamgrass on to my CD player, even going as far to tell me that “That stuff isn’t bluegrass.”

Tradtional grass is alive and well! Fear not!

By: Brance

Brance — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:31:40 +0000

I found another link that might be of interest. This one is in the Roanoke Times this morning. In this story Chris

scoffs at the talk that he has gone back to his bluegrass roots

saying he doesn't really have any. Interesting... Here's the link.