Thunderstruck by Mike Compton's Words on Monroe and Tremelo

[GRW3]

Ever just get thunderstruck by a simple revelation? That happened to me today when I read Bill Graham's article "A Monroe Protege Spreads the Style". In a few short word where Mike Compton discusses how tremelo is the heart of the Monroe style I had a revelation on Moroe's style.

Maybe I'm just dense coming from the guitar world but I just never put two and two together. I guess it's obvious to most of you but my mind was putting his techinque to many, many individual notes when really it's a single technique moved over a musical pattern. (That's probably as clear as mud but it's how I'm thinking of it now.)

I have always seen tremelo as destination or landing effect not a continuous application of tone effect. Wow! I really have something new to play with.

:mandosmiley:

[mandozilla]

Those who write off WSM's style as simplistic, sloppy and unpolished are crazy! There's so much more to Monroes style than meets the eye...er, ear...uh, eye! :mad:

That was a good Monroe/Compton content article...thanks Bill G. :grin:

:mandosmiley:

[Tim Saxton]

It's kind of like a musical fractal :mandosmiley:

Tim

[Ivan Kelsall]

If anyone thinks that the Monroe style is an easy get-out ( i doubt if there ARE that many),just try it on for size. Some of his stuff,especially the tunes that rely heavily on lots of 'down strokes' is hellishly hard to play. One of my favourite players,Herschel Sizemore,on his tuition DVD,states that the Monroe 'downstroke' style was just too hard for him to do,so he developed the 'other' Monroe style,the 'fiddle' style of playing. I've tried a few of the downstroke style tunes & after a few minutes,my wrist just gives up the ghost - it's darned hard to do for any length of time,
Saska ~:>

[mandolirius]

<I've tried a few of the downstroke style tunes & after a few minutes,my wrist just gives up the ghost - it's darned hard to do for any length of time>

Ain't that the truth. I've found that I instinctively use more elbow for downstrokes, I guess in an attempt to give my wrist a break. It's harder to control but easier (physically) to do for longer periods of time.

[Tim F Thornton]

Definitely thought you were referring to the ACDC song. Bowing out now.

[Fretbear]

Some of WSM's tastiest solos have a bit of each of his trademark licks in them; tremolo, downstrokes, straight up and down connecting licks and blues slurs.....he really just played what he felt at the time....

[Man of Wax]

Those who write off WSM's style as simplistic, sloppy and unpolished are crazy!

Sloppy and unpolished doesn't necessitate simplistic. Compared to contemporary greats, it is definitely sloppy, but that doesn't mean it isn't tasteful, interesting, fun, and even moving.

[fredfrank]

Thing is, I never really understood what Bill was trying to do until I heard Mike Compton doing it.

I find the down stroke style is easier for me if I put an upstroke in between each down stroke!

[earthsave]

Some say Monroe was a fiddler at heart. Makes sense with his Uncle Pen being a big influence on him as a child and teenager. He was trying to recreate the bowing of the fiddle sound on the mandolin. The tremelo and ringing open strings sustain do that best.

Blues was also a big influence. Arnold Schultz would have been a big influence for that.

[EricL]

I had a similar "aha" moment, or several last weekend. I was also fortunate enough to attend the Mike Compton workshop Scot mentioned in another thread. I had never spent as much time listening to Mike's teaching and commentary on Monroe. It felt like a graduate school course on the man and his music. The Bill Graham article was a confirmation of that experience.

I know there are varying opinions on Monroe here on the Cafe. I've long been a fan of his music but I didn't always know why, if that makes any sense. After spending several hours with Mike it's clearer now why I found so much to admire and appreciate. It's deceptively simple yet complex and incredibly difficult to duplicate. Hats off to Mike Compton for his ability to present it so well.

To me the comparisons between Monroe and "modern" mandolin styling are kind of like comparing athletes from different eras. Both are great in their own way but now I understand better the intentional way Monroe used styles and techniques. I'd absolutely recommend anyone interested in learning about the Monroe style to attend one of Mike's sessions.

[allenhopkins]

Some say Monroe was a fiddler at heart.

Lots of truth in that IMHO. Those of us who come to mandolin from guitar have a different heritage. We don't recognize that Monroe often was "bowing" the mandolin in a sense.

[Santiago]

I think Butch knew this too, just listen to Waltz for Bill Monroe.

[Michael Gowell]

For me the power of WSM's music - aside from imagining what must have been a stunned reaction circa 1946 at hearing a true original - comes from his authenticity. It's like good mountain music - pretty isn't as important as heart. For the second, third, and fourth wave of mandolinists that have followed Monroe some have surpassed him in smoothness, speed, tone, etc. but their technical abilities - again, IMHO - are modest achievements compared to his. Most of us are just repainting his car.

[Fretbear]

Alan Bibey is a good example; he will sometimes play a Monroe solo almost note for note, explaining that you "can't improve on perfection..."
Then you will hear him break free of earth's atmosphere with one of his "triplet style" solos and realize that there is really nothing that he can't do on the mandolin. All just tools in the chest.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Bill Monroe changed his style so many times during his career,that he ended up with a mountain of Mandolin licks he could throw in the pot at any time.That's why to me,listening to the music that he recorded over the years is an 'adventure in Mandolin stylistics'. To paraphrase Forrest Gump
(wasn't that a great film !!) "Bill Monroe's style is like a box of chocolates,you never know what you're going to get",
Saska ;)

[Rob Powell]

I agree, Compton's description defined and clarified something that had been puzzling me when I see transcriptions of Monroe's work or even dvd instruction of people playing it. I watch WSM play it, then I see someone else pretty much play it note for note but their right hand movements look different. As Compton points out, the "phantom" strokes are important. I think it's much like negative space in a painting.

[John McGann]

Those who write off WSM's style as simplistic, sloppy and unpolished are crazy! There's so much more to Monroes style than meets the eye...er, ear...uh, eye! :mad:

That was a good Monroe/Compton content article...thanks Bill G. :grin:

:mandosmiley:

Mr. Monroe had a very long and varied career, so that anything you might say as being true in one era isn't necessarily true for every era (or ear!)

Simplistic? No. You will find a LOT of revelation by using the chop chord as a source position, however.

Sloppy? Some of the slop of certain eras has to do with the fact that his string height was 6.9" off the fingerboard during the post-Gibson fiasco! :cool:

Unpolished? I think certain recordings have a ton of polish, if polish means clean and lickety split...some are rough and ready...

I like polished and clean playing, I also like playing that has some garlic in it...

When I was 21, I didn't quite 'get it' with the Monroe style, but once I hit my 30's, the emotional content of the music had more resonance, and I wasn't judgmental about the clean/rough thing.

A lot of my students don't 'get it' either, but something tells me once they get out there and live, get their hearts and noses broke a few times, etc. that the blues/soul element will have a little more meaning :mandosmiley:

This is not something isolated to Monroe vs. Modern- the same arguments are made in jazz, classical, rock and roll, you name it...it usually devolves into "soul vs. technique" arguments, which are the ultimate red herring (read: BS) IMHO.

[pickinpete]

Whenever I hear compton, I hear someone familiar with monroe's playing style....but I dont hear monroe. That is, I've never heard compton play a monroe tune just like bill did it. But then again Sam Bush did an entire video where he breaks down what bill played on video....but when he says "here's what bill does"...it aint what bill played on the video. I guess what I'm trying to say is...everyone who has studied bills playing seems to be hearing something different, a few clear licks, but thats all. It seems like everybody is teaching "Their Version" of monroe. When someone plays "scruggs style" banjo, alot of times they have no trouble sounding just like earl scruggs, but when someone plays "monroe style" mandolin, there is still something that seems to remain elusive. I know part of the missing ingredient is Bill himself, But I have yet to hear anyone just nail it. Wakefield probly came close, hard for me tell since his wierdness turns me off, I dont listen to him alot. McCoury probly could have gotton there if he had pursued that goal, but definatly followed his own path. Compton is probly the best Monroe deciple I can think of, but still only his style, not his actual playing.

[grassrootphilosopher]

pickinpete Re: Thunderstruck by Mike Compton's Words on Monroe and Tremelo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whenever I hear compton, I hear someone familiar with monroe's playing style....but I dont hear monroe. That is, I've never heard compton play a monroe tune just like bill did it. But then again Sam Bush did an entire video where he breaks down what bill played on video....but when he says "here's what bill does"...it aint what bill played on the video. I guess what I'm trying to say is...everyone who has studied bills playing seems to be hearing something different, a few clear licks, but thats all. It seems like everybody is teaching "Their Version" of monroe. When someone plays "scruggs style" banjo, alot of times they have no trouble sounding just like earl scruggs, but when someone plays "monroe style" mandolin, there is still something that seems to remain elusive. I know part of the missing ingredient is Bill himself, But I have yet to hear anyone just nail it. Wakefield probly came close, hard for me tell since his wierdness turns me off, I dont listen to him alot. McCoury probly could have gotton there if he had pursued that goal, but definatly followed his own path. Compton is probly the best Monroe deciple I can think of, but still only his style, not his actual playing.

Pickinpete, your point is quite interesting as far as the simple truth, that copying the picker makes you as best get only as proficient as the picker you copy. This is true with Bill Monroe and applies to other greats like Earl Scruggs, Clarence White, Doc Watson, Tony Rice...

Concerning Bill Monroes technique - the topic starter, this is probably the best demonstration of Bill Monroe technique (apart from the Smithonian Video/DVD from 1991 Bill Monroe/Sam Bush):



Needless to say it´s from Mike Compton and demonstrates the "Oh Brother" thingy. But the technique is uniquely Monroesque.

If you go classic you´ll find the same discussion among Bach afficionados and cello players like Pablo Casals, Pierre Furnier and Paul Tortelier. Bach is considered clockwork music (i.e. technically challenging, highly intelectual but basically heartless). The mentioned musicians make the music their own and demonstrate the fact that seemingly technically flawed playing puts the heart into the music. Go and listen to their takes of the Bach cello concerts. Then go back to Bill Monroe.

Syncopation has its part in Monroe playing too. And sometimes Bill Monroe shifts the melody, so that he takes the melodic idea into the next rythmical segment (bar or whatever) where originaly a new part of the melody would start. Oh,... Bill Monroe´s playing....! It has a wealth of musical ideas aplicable for all sorts of playing styles.

[John McGann]

If you go classic you´ll find the same discussion among Bach afficionados and cello players like Pablo Casals, Pierre Furnier and Paul Tortelier. Bach is considered clockwork music (i.e. technically challenging, highly intelectual but basically heartless). The mentioned musicians make the music their own and demonstrate the fact that seemingly technically flawed playing puts the heart into the music. Go and listen to their takes of the Bach cello concerts. Then go back to Bill Monroe.



Calling Bach's music heartless is like calling Ray Charles' music soulless. :disbelief: It can be PLAYED mechanically; so can bluegrass or anything else...but "technical flaws" and "heart" should not be equated. It depends on the player, the particular performance, and the bias of the listener.

Having said that, I'll take Julian Bream's Bach, "technically imperfect" by today's standards, over most other versions, as he plays with extraordinary color that brings out the individual voices in a three (or more) part composition, and plays with a wonderful feeling and drive (sound familiar?) :mandosmiley:

The big question is does the music get across? The answer is going to be subjective, again based on the tastes and experiences of the listener, who can be informed about things to greater or lesser degrees...

[grassrootphilosopher]

Calling Bach's music heartless is like calling Ray Charles' music soulless.

Just my point John McGann! And adding Julian Bream to the list of Casals, Fournier and Tortelier rounds it out. Also heartfelt playing like that of Glenn Gould...

And that was the reason of my comparison. By many people the standard Bach is to be played mechanical, like a typewriter, a clockwork and the likes. And that essentially takes the heart out of the music.

If you take some of the available modern bluegrass. It is so slick that you can hardly relate to the music, even though it may contain beautiful ideas. But give it a little twist, put your heart into your playing, dare a little more and the music will come alive.

[Steve Cantrell]

I'm a student of Mike's, and from my perspective Compton plays Compton. He knows his Monroe note for note, but Mike also has a TON more blues sounds in his picking than Monroe did and is certainly the best at what he does by a considerable margin.

As far as Monroe goes, comparing him to the aforementioned super-pickers of today is a comparison of apples and oranges. Monroe didn't being the same musical upbringing to the instrument that people do today. There was no Chris Thile for a stylistic comparison--Monroe was pulling the style right out of his hat. Today's prevailing wisdom seems to be that if something is old it automatically lacks sophistication or polish, but Monroe's picking on the "Essentials" with Flatt and Scruggs will blow your hair back, and is so nuanced that you could take a lifetime to sort out what is happening there and not because of the technicality of it. The modern style of most of today's pickers lacks the emotional content of Monroe's playing. Monroe has anger, attitude and swagger and real depth of feeling as the situation calls for it, and is not just an exercise in licks or scales. The modern style of mandolin feels less like an invitation to join in and more like some kind of exhibition. It needlessly puts a divider between the audience and the players and changes the social nature of music, and THAT is not a BS argument. The music does get across, but it's no longer inclusive and seems more designed to make people say, "Oooooooooooohhhhh" than to actually stir some kind of feeling. That's just my opinion on it.

[Dan Johnson]

lately i've been thinking (after reading an NY times article about SXSW, which decried the internet as a bubble and burst phenomena which ruins musicians before they hit their stride) that some of my favorite musicians (and Big Mon would epitomize this) came up long and slow, rather than fast and big... and how that sound took a long slow percolate to develop....

as a musician it can be frustrating to feel the walls: limited style, limited technique, limited time (get a metronome!), limited power... sometimes i feel isolated from the mainstream... but i try to remember that my favorite musicians came up in a sort of obscurity that gave them room to grow... maybe i'm speculating a bit much...

saturday on the wrpi bluegrass show they played John Hartford's "Good Old Boys"... and there's so much of that good feeling in that song... it's easy to get away from that feeling and into a quasi-competitive mentality... but then, I've heard Mon had a bit of a competitive streak, too...

so, if you're like my professors, you'll have a serious problem with this entry because it "lacks coherence," and the ideas are "underdeveloped," but... the point is, style is a function of time... in a lot of different ways! and oh yeah.... nobody has any recordings of Bach himself... :mandosmiley: maybe he could rip it up!

[JeffD]

I think Butch knew this too, just listen to Waltz for Bill Monroe.

Isn't that a great little tune. I played that cut on the CD so much I am sure I left a groove.

[JeffD]

Most of us are just repainting his car.

Isn't that the truth.

[JimRichter]

All of Mike's stuff is a load of bunk. What does that man know about Monroe style? He doesn't even know how to dress himself properly. And, where's the Stetson? Thunderstruck? Nonsense.

[fishdawg40]

The modern style of mandolin feels less like an invitation to join in and more like some kind of exhibition. It needlessly puts a divider between the audience and the players and changes the social nature of music, and THAT is not a BS argument. The music does get across, but it's no longer inclusive and seems more designed to make people say, "Oooooooooooohhhhh" than to actually stir some kind of feeling. That's just my opinion on it.


Although I like what you have to say to some degree, I don't think it's correct. First off it's a major generalization. I'd like to hear some examples of that statement. Can you name some players that are putting up a divider? I don't know much bluegrass in general so maybe you are right. I just don't see how you can equate modern players as being show offs with no soul or heart in their music. And just because stuff is old doesn't mean it's better. And believe me I LOVE old stuff. But there are so many great players today and they don't deserve to be written off as robot showman, imho.

Steve, please don't misinterpret my post. I don't like show offs and I love the romantic notion of the performer and audience connecting on higher emotional levels. You may be right. Perhaps the times create the atmosphere that you see. Everyone's "connected" these days but are they really connected?

That old argument of playing with soul/no soul is unarguable I think. How can I question what another musician is doing? There are cases in the mainstream music world that may be easier to argue the soul/no soul, but even that is tricky. I'd like to say a few players have no soul but I don't think that is my place or anyone's for that matter.

[Steve Cantrell]

I wouldn't name names, Joe, just because it seems crass. Those players could read the board and I try as much as I can to be civil. I can explain my point a bit more, though.

Monroe came from a tradition and time where music wasn't almost purely a spectator sport. When you were done working for the day, you didn't come strolling in and read the Mandolin Cafe or watch whatever on the tube, you socialized with one another, and music could play an important part of that...especially so for people in rural areas, it seems. My grandmother and her brothers and sisters were a family jug band in the evenings. That was just the sort of thing you did. The music had to be flexible so people could contribute. That doesn't imply that is was simple--it just means that there was room to get in there and contribute if you wanted. I think that the music acting as a means to communicate with one another adds a level of complexity that doesn't require a ton of scorching arpeggios or scales. Just like in any other form of communication, it's all about the subtle stuff. Does that mean I think that Monroe was some sort of tortured artist? No, not really. The guy did what he did as a living. However, he did come from that tradition and brought it with him when he became a professional.

Music is big business now. People sit on one side of a radio, iPod or TV and are passive when it comes to participating. Most people's involvement with music is nothing more than the purchase of a CD, or just being a fan. It doesn't occur to them that you don't have to play "Eruption" or "Ode to a Butterfly" to still be able to contribute. The music doesn't have to be accessible anymore because there's no intention for it to be anything more than an exhibition, and the more complicated, mind-boggling and fast the better.

I wouldn't have the same old technical/soul argument either, but there's more to that disagreement than there seems.

Edit--sorry for the preachy business, but I've thought about this for awhile.

[Ken_P]

I think it's sad that we have to keep having this discussion. I've said it before and I'll say it again: anybody with the talent and dedication to be a professional musician plays with "soul". I can't imagine spending that much time on something and not feeling it very deeply. It just may not be what the listener recognizes based on his or her own experience with music.

There's so much great music out there that I can't understand why people spend so much time pointing why music they don't like can't possibly be valid. Just listen to what you like, try new things occasionally, and respect other people if they happen to disagree with you. Is that so hard?

One final thing: if Bach is heartless, then I think the whole concept of "heart" in music is highly overrated. I'd take the heartless, mechanical perfection of Bach over just about anything else ever written, regardless of how much feeling it's played with.

[Steve Cantrell]

Oh, I don't think anyone was saying anything about whether or X or Y is invalid. Maybe you're reading too closely. I think there was a discussion about music from different traditions, and personal tastes, but that's about all.

[Ken_P]

Monroe came from a tradition and time where music wasn't almost purely a spectator sport. When you were done working for the day, you didn't come strolling in and read the Mandolin Cafe or watch whatever on the tube, you socialized with one another, and music could play an important part of that...especially so for people in rural areas, it seems.

While you make an excellent point about the social nature of music in ages past (and I agree that it's something that could stand to be revived), it leaves several big questions in my mind. Why does it only have to be one way? Isn't there room for both simplicity and complexity? Shouldn't the world of music embrace both active participation and detached listening? I think there are wonderful elements of both approaches that you really can't get if you focus on one exclusively. I love going to jams and playing songs that everybody can participate in, but it's very hard to find the depth and complexity that I like in that situation. Similarly, I love listening to classical music alone while following along with a score, so that I can appreciate fully the beauty and subtlety of master composers, but of course it means that it lacks the joy and spontaneity of informal gatherings.

I guess my point is that just because some modern players like to make fast and complicated music doesn't mean they're simply showing off. That they're trying to express something that doesn't fit within the boundaries of whatever tradition they come from doesn't mean it's not just as important. I think different views and approaches should be encouraged, regardless of weather I happen to like the resulting music. Simple or complex, formal or informal, improvised or tightly arranged, it's all necessary at different times, and should all be equally welcome.

[Alex Orr]

Monroe is the reason I wanted to learn how to play the mandolin. I honestly don't have many "favorite" mando players - I came to the instrument from guitar and I have far more "favorites" in the world of guitarists. Monroe, Tim O'Brien, and Dawg. That's basically my pantheon. I like what I've heard from Compton, but I've only heard him on one album. I like a lot of Sam Bush stuff (basically if he's a side man) but I don't really care for most of the original stuff I've heard from him.

I grew up a fan of punk and indie stuff. Some of my favorite bands were (and still are) The Clash, Sonic Youth, Pavement, Superchunk...loud, noisy, melodic, messy and expressive. I think that influence may have led me to really "get" Monroe fromt he beginning. The first time I heard a Monroe album (a year or two after college) it blew me away. It seemed to have some of the same messy beauty of great punk rock. That may be a stretch, but I've always felt like there was something similar.

The Compton piece really impressed me as well. The way he talked about WSM's right hand being something that had to be viewed in terms of the time period was a real eye opener. It immediately made me realize that the way I approach learning a Monroe tune is philosophically out of step with the mind set that led Monroe to play like he did.

[Capt. E]

SXSW had a large number of performers who are "coming up fast" and also a large number who have emerged "long and slow". There are great experiences to be found with both. The thing many people don't get is that the majority of the top musicians came up long and slow. They slogged along for many years until the world "discovered" them.
But, some do it a bit faster than others. Take 14 year old (now 15?) Ruby Jane Smith.
www.mississippifiddler.com/

She is nearing the edge of international stardom, but who knows exactly when it will happen. Willie Nelson and Ray Benson certainly know already and everyone who saw her for the first time at SXSW also know.

[sgarrity]

Hhhmmmm......this discussion has made me realize why I like the music I like. I'm a die hard Monroe, Compton, traditional-style, old-time fan. When I listen to their music I feel like I'm listening to a group of pickers playing on a sunny afternoon. I feel like I could make that music.

When I listen to Marshall, Thile, even Steffey to a degree (and lots of others), I feel like I'm listening to the symphony all dressed up on a Saturday night. I feel like their music is never intended to be played around a camp fire. I enjoy the symphony on occassion and know that classical players (as well as "modern" style mandolin players) have the ability to play with great emotion. But you are there to see and hear them and not necessarily reproduce what youe hear.

It's kinda like the difference between fingerstyle guitar players and flatpickers. Fingerstyle players play for each other where flatpickers jam together. I do enjoy some fingerstyle guitar. Robin Bullock, Leo Koetke (sp??), Stephen Bennet, Wayne Henderson (but I'd consider him an honary flatpicker!) just to name a few. But the majority of the time I listen to musicians that communicate in a language I can understand and speak......and that's traditional manalin playin' and flatpickin' guitar! :mandosmiley:

[Dan Johnson]

oops! didn't mean to get down on SXSW! just mad I couldn't go!

and I got to see Ruby at Willie and the Whell and she was awesome...

[Capt. E]

I didn't think you were "down' at all. I wasn't able to see Ruby this time, but I've had the pleasure several times before. She also plays the mandolin, though don't know if there are any videos.

My best SXSW experience this year was on Friday at the Blue Moon SW Louisiana showcase featuring "The Figs" and then "The Pine Leaf Boys" in their first trip to Austin. Don't ever say Cajun music can't be high energy until you see the PLB. I also managed to get in and see Joe Ely with Joel Guzman at the Lubbock showcase at Momo's on Wednesday night.

[Alex Orr]

Hhhmmmm......this discussion has made me realize why I like the music I like. I'm a die hard Monroe, Compton, traditional-style, old-time fan. When I listen to their music I feel like I'm listening to a group of pickers playing on a sunny afternoon. I feel like I could make that music.

When I listen to Marshall, Thile, even Steffey to a degree (and lots of others), I feel like I'm listening to the symphony all dressed up on a Saturday night. I feel like their music is never intended to be played around a camp fire.
Yeah, same for me. Heck, I also love Pee Wee Lambert, who played mando for the Stanley Brothers on a bunch of their old Mercury records. He was a total Monroe disciple, even though he was also a Monroe contemporary. Comparatively speaking I would think some might consider his playing to be too simplistic, but I'll take one of his basic lead breaks over every note I've ever heard from Chris Thile (just my own personal, subjective taste and opinion folks...I have no intention of starting a war about Thile v. WSM) :)

[Capt. E]

I've been trying to do a tremelo movement and only hit a string on the downstroke...impossible to do with speed -- for me at least. Trying to do that alone opens a window into Monroe's incredible technical aritistry.

[mandozilla]

If you take some of the available modern bluegrass. It is so slick that you can hardly relate to the music...


The modern style of most of today's pickers lacks the emotional content of Monroe's playing. Monroe has anger, attitude and swagger and real depth of feeling as the situation calls for it, and is not just an exercise in licks or scales.

I heartily concur. That's not to take away from the devotion to the music or the technical prowess of some of today's pickers. I just think it's kinda sad that this seems like what most young pickers are drawn to...I can only hope that, like Jim McGann said, lifes bruises and heartbreaks will instill some life and emotion into their playing. :crying: :disbelief: :mad:


How can I question what another musician is doing?

By using my ears. :))


I have no intention of starting a war about Thile v. WSM

If there were no WSM there probably wouldn't be a Thile...I'm just sayin'...

:mandosmiley:

[EricL]

All of Mike's stuff is a load of bunk. What does that man know about Monroe style? He doesn't even know how to dress himself properly. And, where's the Stetson? Thunderstruck? Nonsense.

:))

[Mike Bunting]

The first time I heard a Monroe album (a year or two after college) it blew me away. It seemed to have some of the same messy beauty of great punk rock. That may be a stretch, but I've always felt like there was something similar

Totally! I like the comparison, I've often thought of it like that. I have a copy of a Monroe workshop at the Gaslight cafe in 1966 and I swear that there had to be sparks coming off the strings on his playing on Get Up John, powerful triple stop downstrokes at breakneck speed!

[fishdawg40]

Good stuff Steve, I can dig that for the most part. First my disagreements; I see what your saying regarding mainstream music, but in the "roots" music world I don't think it's so, or at least as much. I'm going to a festival (Suwannee Springfest) on Thursday. The one thing I'm so excited about is the accessibility of the music. Everyone there is excited and happy and grooving with the music. Kids listening to their Ipods and people listening to roots music is a totally different argument, I think.

I agree with you on the idea that people think they have to be insanely gifted or start playing music when they're really young in order for it to be valid. I used to think that too, up till recently. That is not the case at all and if you don't put such pressure on your playing you should get good. Or you'll have fun and that's the point, right. Mainstream music projects that. I still don't believe much roots music does though. Though my bubble is very small but I've seen lots of positive things occur.

[45ACP-GDLF5]

Definitely thought you were referring to the ACDC song. Bowing out now.


I did too, mandognome! I tell you though, "Thunderstruck" would definitely be worth listening to on a mandolin! Picking it would be a challenge.

[John McGann]

Io...I can only hope that, like Jim McGann said...

Who's this Jim McGann? :))

[manwithnoname]

I'm a drummer in a prior life, and I forget who said this, but it was in an issue of Modern Drummer years ago and applies here, I think. One of the old guard jazz drummers (maybe Roy Haynes- I'm not sure) made a comment that jazz was a whole lot cooler and more fun back when it was being played in juke joints and bordellos than nowadays, where hearing live jazz is like going to the museum. Partially due to the venues, but also in no small part due to the way the music has changed from something for people to groove to, to more of something to analyze.

A friend of mine termed the difference choclicity vs. vanillicity.

[Steve Cantrell]

I like those terms Manwithnoname. That sums it up pretty well. There's just something about that old style that moves you.

[allenhopkins]

Music is big business now. People sit on one side of a radio, iPod or TV and are passive when it comes to participating. Most people's involvement with music is nothing more than the purchase of a CD, or just being a fan. It doesn't occur to them that you don't have to play "Eruption" or "Ode to a Butterfly" to still be able to contribute. The music doesn't have to be accessible anymore because there's no intention for it to be anything more than an exhibition, and the more complicated, mind-boggling and fast the better. I wouldn't have the same old technical/soul argument either, but there's more to that disagreement than there seems.

Several times I've quoted Pete Seeger from the Summary section of his book How To Play the 5-String Banjo, first printed in 1948 and still useful:

What I am aiming at saying is, that it is better to know a few things well than attempt something flashy which sounds sloppy or grating. The tenor banjo was ruined, really, by exhibitionists who made an athletic exhibition out of each performance; after the piece was over the audience was amazed, of course, as at the circus, but it was not music which moved or delighted one.

Virtuoso playing can, of course, move and delight us, but virtuosity for its own sake doesn't communicate the way a simpler but heartfelt style can. Some of the most passionately involving music I've ever heard, has been the simplest. The true test is when it's the music, rather than the musicianship, that we notice.

[manwithnoname]

That's probably true of all types of art- not just music.

I think it has alot to to with the growth of the artist, as well as their own personal maturity. It seems that some artists egos grow as their technical abilities do. Then they mellow and are better able to subjugate their egos to whatever story they're trying to tell, as they get older.

However there are some who seem to get that from day one, so who knows?

[lgc]

"My best SXSW experience this year was on Friday at the Blue Moon SW Louisiana showcase featuring "The Figs" and then "The Pine Leaf Boys" in their first trip to Austin."

I totally agree. They were awesome.

When I hear a 14 year old super picker I often wonder what they are saying. Music, for me an the expression of a person's life experiences. What does a 14 year old have to say generally. I like the story Monroe told through his music. To me he tells of a less decadent time when one form of culture referenced all others-food, architecture, vernacular, occupation, social conditions, literature, etc.

Nobody can tell me there wasn't some spicy craw fish in the Pine Leaf Boy set.

[Michael Gowell]

lgc - I agree completely. I love Sierra Hull, but I don't think I could accept seriously a 'tears in my beers' song from her until she's at least out of High School. I've seen a young boy urged to sing adult songs by an abitious stage dad & it seems grotesque to me.

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread...

[mandozilla]

Who's this Jim McGann?

Oops! Sorry John :redface:...I had a senior moment...I'm allowed to now that I'm 55. :))

But how come I can't get no dang senior discount at Denny's? :mad:


I've seen a young boy urged to sing adult songs by an abitious stage dad & it seems grotesque to me.

How about a 9 year old Ricky Skraggs singing Ruby with F & S on the Martha White show way back when? :confused:



:mandosmiley:

[Bigd18]

I tend to be more of a reader on this site than a poster but I would like to take a stab at this topic. While I would not know Bach if it hit me in the face what does make me pay close attention is music with feeling. Like others above have stated if I can't detect that you "feel" for what your playing then to me it tends to be more like listening to a Top 40 radio station. So much music is now commercial and not individual. I think this is what led me to grunge music in the 90's and now to bluegrass and people like Monroe. I grew up in the middle of bluegrass country surrounded so many great bands and musicians but I never felt the music in my earlier years. My dads favorite, doyle lawson, has never really made me stand back and just listen. I've listened to him who knows how many times but he doesn't make me "listen". I think this is where the singer/songwriter comes into play for me. Whether it is Monroe, Lightnin' Hopkins, G Love, Nirvana, or even Taylor Swift (i know). I feel as though they are telling me something personal whether its in the lyrics or in the music itself. Some artist like Skaggs can portray this feeling when they perform while others, no matter what insane musical ability the possess, just can't make that connection. I'll stop now since I'm long-winded.:whistling:

[evanreilly]

Well, I guess I need toss in my $.0125 here.
I got to play with Bill Monroe a number of times.
I have played with Mike Compton a number of times.
I sat in and played with Bill at a couple of his 'Workshops'.
I have listened to Mike at his workshops, where he expounds on his theories of WSM and the Mandolin.
Here is my take:
Bill Monroe is my favorite mandolin player. Mike Compton is my favorite living mandolin player.
Mike is not a note-for-note 'clone' of Bill; he just gets it, though! The blues, the tremolo, the power downstrokes. The spaces between the notes; pulling the melody out of the air.
And listen to the words of 'Jim' McGann; he found Bill Monroe after wandering around the barn a bit.

[Capt. E]

Off topic again: In case anyone is interested, The Figs (http://www.thefigsband.com/photos.html ) include a uke player. Great "girl" band (is that politically correct anymore). Heck, a great band period. Through their set, I was thinking they needed the sound of a mandolin to fill out the high register.

J