jamgrass bands

[Mike Bunting]

Banjer?...

Delusions of banjer.

[Bernie Daniel]

Delusions of banjer.

Good one!

[mandolirius]

...and for those "tradionalists" out there, don't worry, you will still know real bluegrass when you hear it.

That's the main fear, based on the traditionalists I've spoken with. They're not concerned about recognizing it but afraid there won't be any of it to recognize. They're worried that it simply won't be economical to put on a bluegrass festival with only the traditional type of bluegrass band and there won't be many places to hear that style of bluegrass music.

BTW, I have a question. Do fans of Jamgrass bands refer to them that way themselves? Is that what they call the style?

[Laird]

BTW, I have a question. Do fans of Jamgrass bands refer to them that way themselves? Is that what they call the style?

Yoobetcha! At least that's what I tell people I listen to, and what I prefer to play (though most of my chances to play out these days are with a more traditional personnel).

We've got a social group on here--Jamgrass Nation--if you're interested.

[mandolirius]

We don't even know what "bluegrass" is and any attempt at defining it is anathema. Someone please tell me what a band like Yonder Mt. has in common with a hard core grass band.

There is no specific definition. Pandolfi went over that ground pretty thoroughly in his address and appeared to recieve general agreement from the audience. But "bluegrass" is a word that some of us have to deal with, definition or not.

If you play in a band, you have to decide if you're going to call yourselves a bluegrass band or not. If you do, what will you tell someone (maybe someone who could book you) what bluegrass is, should they ask? Even just telling someone you can't do whatever on Tuesday nights because that's when you go to the jam at the local bluegrass club could get you into a discussion about it. I think everyone who's seriously involved in bluegrass makes up some kind of definition at some point. I don't see how it could be avoided.

As for the second question, I don't know. I suppose it would differ from person to person. I don't know the band's music or instrumentation but I gather they have a banjo. But that's what I'm saying. Who cares how tenuous the link is? I say let anyone who wants to call themselves bluegrass do it. It doesn't mean anything anyway, right?

[Bernie Daniel]

I thought we had been calling it trad BG...or at least I had been--since mandolin mick advocated such in his thread about 6 or 8 or 10 months ago

Why not? We already have "Irish trad" and everyone seems OK with that. I know what you mean!

BTW I loved those Missoula dancers -- I especially like the part at around 0.08 where one of them seemed to lecturing the ants and then near the end the one dancer was doing a great job of "shaking that thing".

[CES]

Face it. The bg face is changing, already has. My daughter (22) likes 'bluegrass'. Not the Monroe, F&S stuff, but the newer faces of it - Avett Brothers, Trampled By Turtles, YMSB. Even the bands which do and did the different - Beatle Country, CG, Del and Boys, etc. hold little interest. She and her friends don't sit there in rapt attention at festivals catching licks, vocal arrangements, checking out stage manner. They dance, party and have a good time. They hardly care if a solo is good or not, doesn't matter.

For the most part, I can't hack the jam bands. I'm old, too.

Alan, it may not make you feel better about this whole deal, but the Avett Brothers will pretty quickly tell you they're not BG...even said it in Fretboard Journal. I actually really enjoy their music, and have a bunch of friends who grew up with them, which is cool, but, in my opinion, they're closer to the Beatles and Dylan than Flatt and Scruggs. Their live shows are outstanding, they're very personal songwriters, and they're genuinely good guys, but, they ain't bluegrass, and they mAke no claims to be. (Not saying they're either Dylan or the Beatles, but listen to enough of their music and you'll get what I'm trying to say...)

Cat, I think, made a great point earlier...a lot of the appeal of jam bands is the live setting...when you're in that mix it can be infectious, mind alterations in place or not...

I personally love well done jam music live, but can only take so much of it recorded. But, I tend to think all real music is better live...

Interesting thread, and, Justus, I appreciate your observations about the current festival scene...interesting to a Southern Boy to see so much dedication to the traditional form from a clarinet playing "Yankee." You're welcome at my campfire anytime, with either clarinet or mandolin, btw...and your dad, too

[Mike Bunting]

It doesn't mean anything anyway, right?

That's for sure. I'm not sure how discussion is possible when everyone has their own definition, it's like five blind men discussing an elephant. It's like the old cliche about pornography, "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it."

[Justus True Waldron]

Justus, I appreciate your observations about the current festival scene...interesting to a Southern Boy to see so much dedication to the traditional form from a clarinet playing "Yankee." You're welcome at my campfire anytime, with either clarinet or mandolin, btw...and your dad, too

Why thank you! I'd like to think it has something to do with growing up in the hills, even if it was the foothills of the Adirondacks rather than the Blue Ridge Mountains... I may be a yankee but if you ever make it up this way my front porch is open for picking, and I'll make up some sweet tea too!

As for the "what is bluegrass" question I seem to remember a Chris Jones article on Bluegrass Today where in jest he sets the definition so strict as to say that Bill Monroe only played bluegrass a couple years in the late 40s, Flatt & Scruggs played it for a short time and Reno & Smiley played it for one day in 1959. Ah I found the article, it's HERE. Interesting, he mentions Pandolfi as well. Although that was a comedy article, my personal feelings are actually that very few people today are REALLY playing bluegrass, but lots of people are playing "Bluegrass-esque" or "Bluegrass Inspired" music. Being raised on a variety of music growing up that is fine with me, and I enjoy a lot of what I consider non-bluegrass acoustic music... but I try not to call it bluegrass either. According to my opinions, even my band - a 5 piece that does mostly gospel and fiddle tunes (though without a fiddle player at the moment!) around one microphone, and dresses up in Sunday clothes for gigs - does not always play bluegrass. I would say we play a lot of bluegrass songs, but we have some blues and a few "progressive" originals as well. The funny thing to me is that even those "out there" songs by my definition are somewhat closer to real bluegrass than some of the "jamgrass" tunes referenced here. But that's all just my opinion, not sure there is ever going to be some sort of agreement on this! I'm just glad we have real bluegrass, and all the offshoots it has given us, to enjoy.

[mandolirius]

That's for sure. I'm not sure how discussion is possible when everyone has their own definition, it's like five blind men discussing an elephant. It's like the old cliche about pornography, "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it."

And yet we live with the word and muddle through as best we can. What else can you do?

[Mike Bunting]

And yet we live with the word and muddle through as best we can. What else can you do?

Work on The Land of Lincoln ?

[mandolirius]

Work on The Land of Lincoln ?

Good idea! It's on the list. Recent ones I've spent time with include Dusty Miller (my current fave), Brown County Breakdown, Road To Columbus and Watson's Blues.

[Mike Bunting]

Good idea! It's on the list. Recent ones I've spent time with include Dusty Miller (my current fave), Brown County Breakdown, Road To Columbus and Watson's Blues.

I've been playing Dusty Miller a lot lately too. There's a lot of "stuff" in that tune, I've been playing My Father's Footsteps too.

[AlanN]

Dusty Miller is cool because it can be done the old time way and more modern, also has the multiple parts to consider. Ray Legere recorded it on his Common Denominator (where he plays all the instruments). He gets this triplet thingy over 2 measures which just blows my mind. Not fair, not at all.

[Bernie Daniel]

Originally Posted by AlanN:
Face it. The bg face is changing, already has. My daughter (22) likes 'bluegrass'. Not the Monroe, F&S stuff, but the newer faces of it - Avett Brothers, Trampled By Turtles, YMSB. Even the bands which do and did the different - Beatle Country, CG, Del and Boys, etc. hold little interest. She and her friends don't sit there in rapt attention at festivals catching licks, vocal arrangements, checking out stage manner. They dance, party and have a good time. They hardly care if a solo is good or not, doesn't matter. For the most part, I can't hack the jam bands. I'm old, too.

Alan, it may not make you feel better about this whole deal, but the Avett Brothers will pretty quickly tell you they're not BG...even said it in Fretboard Journal. I actually really enjoy their music, and have a bunch of friends who grew up with them, which is cool, but, in my opinion, they're closer to the Beatles and Dylan than Flatt and Scruggs. Their live shows are outstanding, they're very personal songwriters, and they're genuinely good guys, but, they ain't bluegrass, and they mAke no claims to be. (Not saying they're either Dylan or the Beatles, but listen to enough of their music and you'll get what I'm trying to say...)

Cat, I think, made a great point earlier...a lot of the appeal of jam bands is the live setting...when you're in that mix it can be infectious, mind alterations in place or not...

I personally love well done jam music live, but can only take so much of it recorded. But, I tend to think all real music is better live...

Interesting thread, and, Justus, I appreciate your observations about the current festival scene...interesting to a Southern Boy to see so much dedication to the traditional form from a clarinet playing "Yankee." You're welcome at my campfire anytime, with either clarinet or mandolin, btw...and your dad, too

I pretty much agree with Allen's point -- I've seen this as well -- son and daughter-in-law mentioned a great new bluegrass band for my attention -- Rascal Flatts. Went to one of their concerts in Columbus a few years ago -- there was mandolin in one song and you wouldn't see a thing in if you sat in your seat, crowd screaming constantly right through the music. RF are three talented musicians but most of their fans are not just there to see them -- they just want to party -- or so it seemed. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

But all this begs the question. What is the use of a young musician becoming an accomplished young musician then?

Once we (the "older generation" of BG fanatics) all die off it won't matter too much what they do on stage? Have a beat and play a pleasing riff is all you gotta do. Because their peers --this generation -- only want to dance and party at the concert, they don't care too about the music (i.e., knowing the history and the personalities behind the music) and don't care if the breaks are good or bad as long as they are loud? The example of the banjo player was already mentioned.

[AlanN]

I'm not up enough with the current scene to know if these bands call themselves bg or not. Seems The Avett boys do not call themselves that, my bad to lump them into the crowd. There is not one of those bands I would care to see live or listen to their music, chacun a son gout and all that.

I did check out that video of Raleigh and Spencer, for 20 seconds.

[Paul Merlo]

But all this begs the question. What is the use of a young musician becoming an accomplished young musician then?

Once we (the "older generation" of BG fanatics) all die off it won't matter too much what they do on stage? Have a beat and play a pleasing riff is all you gotta do. Because their peers --this generation -- only want to dance and party at the concert, they don't care too about the music (i.e., knowing the history and the personalities behind the music) and don't care if the breaks are good or bad as long as they are loud? The example of the banjo player was already mentioned.

I think you're worried about 2 different things here. There will always be youngsters that become accomplished musicians simply because they want to, and they're probably not in it for the fame and fortune. I'm confident that there are enough nerds still out there and they'll carry the proverbial torch and they'll find a way onstage.

And then there will be youngsters that become "bluegrass" (but really "pop") stars with an acoustic instrument in their hands because they want the fame and fortune (or at least their manager does). They might be good pickers, or they might not. But they will be well marketed and promoted and there will be lots of people that want to party with them.

It's almost the same debate as whether pop musics sucks or not. It's always sucked, and that's inherently what makes it pop music. THis is getting away from whether Jamgrass sucks or not, but the correlations are there.

I've been a fan of the "jamband" scene for a couple decades now, and it's really a great place because of it's diversity. (Granted the label of "Jamband" really describes the fanbase mindset more than it defines the music style) Sure, lots of people are there just to party, but there are lots more people drawn to it because the music (whether played by virtuosos or not) at least comes from a genuine intent. And many of those fans want to play the music too.

[tree]

I first saw the Avett Bros in 2004, at the Sylvia Theater in York, SC, when they opened for Jack Lawrence and Doc (honestly - it really happened). The media has labeled them bluegrass because their main instruments are acoustic bass, banjo, and guitar, and because you can't really pidgeonhole the type of music they write. We enjoyed what they did in part due to their committment and energy, the novelty of it, but also because they write some catchy melodies, hooks and lyrics. My boys were 9 at the time, and were entertained by the Avetts but slept through Jack and Doc's 2nd set. What cha gonna do?

The next time we saw them, outdoors at the Art Museum in Raleigh in 2010, they had a HUGE following and the thing that amazed me about their show was that every single person in the audience (except me, it seemed) knew and sang all the words to every song. Beatlesque, indeed.

I don't think what they do is anywhere near jamgrass, though - they're not about getting people to dance and party as they are getting people to hear the actual music and sing along (and party). Whatever it is that they do, "grass" has no place in the nomenclature. IMO, of course.

[Steve Ostrander]

Duffey's pants seem pretty subdued in that clip.

[Bernie Daniel]

I think you're worried about 2 different things here. There will always be youngsters that become accomplished musicians simply because they want to, and they're probably not in it for the fame and fortune. I'm confident that there are enough nerds still out there and they'll carry the proverbial torch and they'll find a way onstage.

And then there will be youngsters that become "bluegrass" (but really "pop") stars with an acoustic instrument in their hands because they want the fame and fortune (or at least their manager does). They might be good pickers, or they might not. But they will be well marketed and promoted and there will be lots of people that want to party with them....

It's almost the same debate as whether pop musics sucks or not. It's always sucked, and that's inherently what makes it pop music. THis is getting away from whether Jamgrass sucks or not, but the correlations are there.

I've been a fan of the "jamband" scene for a couple decades now, and it's really a great place because of it's diversity. (Granted the label of "Jamband" really describes the fanbase mindset more than it defines the music style) Sure, lots of people are there just to party, but there are lots more people drawn to it because the music (whether played by virtuosos or not) at least comes from a genuine intent. And many of those fans want to play the music too.

Actually, I'm not worried about anything!

But yes certainly it's true there will always be musically talented young people who aspire to greatness at the violin, piano, mandolin, guitar or whatever. I would not challenge that assumption.

For those choosing to make their mark in classical music not much will change I suppose. The concert scene there is "stable".

But those choosing bluegrass will have to, as you point out, play to the jamgrass crowd -- a group who largely is not too much interested in them or their music (just as long as they can groove to it) and who mostly want to party. Of course you can party to a recording too I guess?

I'm all for people doing what they want to do.

If standing partially (or more) intoxicated on whatever moves you, elbow to elbow in a crowd dancing and singing/yelling/screaming to the music is your thing then do it.

But what about those "...lots more people drawn to it because the music" as you say? Are they going to enjoy the show sitting behind the wall of screaming and dancing party makers? I know I did not enjoy the Rascal Flatts concert because I could see most of it and couldn't hear a good part either.

If that is the current formula the way of the future someone else can have my share of it!

[Paul Merlo]

If standing partially (or more) intoxicated on whatever moves you, elbow to elbow in a crowd dancing and singing/yelling/screaming to the music is your thing then do it.

Call me old (i'm not even over the hill YET!) but I really don't enjoy that kind of environment anymore either.

But what about those "...lots more people drawn to it because the music" as you say? Are they going to enjoy the show sitting behind the wall of screaming and dancing party makers? I know I did not enjoy the Rascal Flatts concert because I could see most of it and couldn't hear a good part either.

If that is the current formula the way of the future someone else can have my share of it!

No, you're right. I think I missed your point a little. People don't like to sit in back behind a crowd like that.

I think this brings us back under the "Big Tent" Festival setting issue. That's just the nature of the festival beast anymore, I guess. Take your favorite traditional bluegrass band, put them onstage in a concert hall, and those crowds will tame right quick and usually behave accordingly. It's funny because die-hard fans of (whatever band) will always lament the festival gig because of the non-attentive, chatty, and raucous crowds that show up. I've seen lots of 'real fans' shushing others for talking too loud even at full-on amplified electric rock shows. Those are the fans there 'for the music' I'm talking about.

I dunno, I guess we should villainize the concert promoters for booking dissimilar bands (and their crowds) on the same stage? They might be the same people that decide which college football teams play in whatever bowl games ;-) I mean really, isn't this all about whether the bottom line has a black or red dollar sign next to it?

[catmandu2]

Once we (the "older generation" of BG fanatics) all die off it won't matter too much what they do on stage? Have a beat and play a pleasing riff is all you gotta do. Because their peers --this generation -- only want to dance and party at the concert, they don't care too about the music (i.e., knowing the history and the personalities behind the music) and don't care if the breaks are good or bad as long as they are loud? The example of the banjo player was already mentioned.

As a phenomenologist, I'm usually defending the perspective of even those who seem totally clueless (the masses, most youths, others...)

But as an aesthetician, I'm really critical (a jazz snob, often)

It may in fact come to pass that "trad" bluegrass (TBG?) will die off. Things do. We got a good dump last week so I was out at the sledding hill all weekend with my kids; while the kids have all manner of implement and device--saucers, bobs, runners, tubes, boards, scooters--I go up and down the hill on my tele skis. Some of the kids looked in amazement, and asked, "what are those?"

Hopefully, it won't...I'm fully sympathetic to the keepers of the flame



(I have no particular fish to fry in this debate...but in defense of that clip of the YMSB banjo player: that banjo was really, really bad in the mix--or at least the recording--emphasizing/de-emphasizing certain notes and making it seem that his rolls were way off...I suspect that he is fully capable of rhythmic precision...harmonic imagination, I cant say...but rhythm, at least--otherwise, they wouldn't want him playing with them, I'm sure...a banjo player without rhythmic precision is like a drummer without rhythmic precision...he simply cannot be as bad as that clip sounded)

[CES]

I'm not up enough with the current scene to know if these bands call themselves bg or not. Seems The Avett boys do not call themselves that, my bad to lump them into the crowd. There is not one of those bands I would care to see live or listen to their music, chacun a son gout and all that.

I did check out that video of Raleigh and Spencer, for 20 seconds.

Alan,
No worries, they get lumped into the crowd a lot because of their instrumentation (which now includes drums, keyboard, and cello, btw...they really need a mandolin!). I just wanted to point out that they're not trying to bill themselves as something they're clearly not.

As for concert crowds, I don't mind getting into it a little, as long as you can still appreciate the music. One of the most diverse crowds I've ever been in was at a Willie Nelson concert a few years ago. Ages ranged from early teens to 80s. There were at least 3 fights I can remember, and I was close enough to two of them to hear that they occurred because younger crowd members wouldn't sit so that someone's grandma could see...it really was entertaining, and Willie put on a great show!

Justus, thanks!

[Schlegel]

I pretty much agree with Allen's point -- I've seen this as well -- son and daughter-in-law mentioned a great new bluegrass band for my attention -- Rascal Flatts.

This seems like another situation of listener confusion- because if Rascall Flatts actually call themselves Bluegrass I'll eat my hat.

Mistaken genre labeling by casual fans is only loosely related to the issue of genre labeling by the musicians themselves, and it's the latter which is more germane to the question, IMO. I think the comparatively high percentage of BG fans who are also players is part of why debates like this rage so hotly. I mean, I don't know (in off-line life) any rock fans who still play an instrument, and I know only one BG fan personally who doesn't...

[catmandu2]

I don't know (in off-line life) any rock fans who still play an instrument, and I know only one BG fan personally who doesn't...

This is surprising Schlegel...it seems like you can't throw a rock without hitting a guy who chops away on an electric guitar (hell, even an A/E 12-string these days since "Hotel California"...but "blues" too)-drums-bass ... and is wholely devoted to the rock milieu

Even in Missoula--where the percentage of mandolin players and BG devotees per capita has got to be right up there with Boulder et al ... the masses are actually more involved with rock (/pop) than anything ... they sell the gear at Walmart...it's right up there with football for iconographic popular interest/meaning/involvement (this IS the USA...but even offshore...rock inspires masses like few other phenomena)

But I know what you mean--about BG enthusiasts often being specialists, of a kind (not unlike jazz aficionados or other type of "special" music devotee...the "early music" crowd thinks everyone's nuts ; )...and I might concur-- probably slightly more inclined to be informed and discerning musically (at least) than a garden-variety, pop/rock-consuming (borderline karoke-singer) plebian ; )