Over emphasis on instrumentals.

[mandozilla]

At Gigs
The thread about favorite Monroe tunes got me to thinking. All you folks who are, or have been, in bands, what do you think a typical/ideal ratio of vocals to instrumentals for a typical 45-50 minute set should be?

I know you need to be flexible, and I know it depends a lot on region, venue, audience type, and what not but in general I believe it should be about 25% instrumentals and 75% vocals and that's about what it's typically been in my experience.

AND

It's kind of funny at Jams
One of the jams I attend a couple of times a month generally breaks down into 2 groups;

1.) One that does mostly (90%) instrumentals with an occasional vocal thrown in to break things up a bit and is a mix of kind of Bluegrass, Swing (sort of) and Old Timey.

2.) One that is pretty much hard core Bluegrass, mostly vocals, with an occasional instrumental thrown in for variety. That seems to work out to the ratio 25%:75% I mentioned earlier. That is until a couple of the folks from the first jam group shows up and unbalances the ratio in our group.

Sound familiar?

The group I jam with, group #2, welcomes all skill levels...but the most skilled tend to be in this group as well...Many years ago most jams I participated in were like #2 but it seems these day, at least in Socal, there'as a much heavier emphasis on instrumentals over vocals.

I love instrumentals as much as the next guy but my first love is bluegrass sangin' and to me that's the meat and taters of bluegrass music....Just rambling thoughts...pardon me & good night.

[JeffD]

Now I am just the opposite. I love lots of instrumentals. The more the better. I love to hear folks play, and the occational song is good too.

I get tired of songs quickly. Seems they are too easy to understand. Too literal. Not as capable of being differently experienced the second or third time. At least for me. Seems like a song can only be abut one thing.

While I could listen to some tunes over and over and over without getting tired of them. It can be "about" something new each time. I can hear something interesting in it the 7th time through that I missed the other six.

I prefer vocals that emphasize the musicality of the voice, rather than the wittiness of the words. And I prefer songs where the tune carries the vocals, rather than the reverse where the vocals predominate and the tune is boring.

In a jam I much prefer the former type, 90% or more instrumentals, while inviting a song every now and then.

I haven't noticed that instrumental type jams or singing song type jams are very different in how inclusive they are to all skill levels, most jams of all kinds are very welcoming, some perhaps less so.

Everyone is different in this, I know. I have lots of friends in both camps.

And the fact, (easily verified), that I cannot sing, well that has nothing to do with it.

[AlanN]

Good thread.

I find that the more trad grass crowd prefers the (90% vocals, 10% tunes) thing. Play mostly songs, throw in an instrumental for variety/to break it up. This also corresponds with age: older, more trad - not exclusively, of course, but generally-speaking. And the instrumentals with this crowd tend to be in the 'classic' vein - Farewell Blues, Shuckin' The Corn, Daybreak in Dixie, etc.

The younger set likes to pick more tunes. I can dig both (depending on the pickers) but with grass, the '1 break and you're done' thing can be a bit muzzling.

[MikeEdgerton]

If you're looking to clear out a venue play an all instrumental set.

[56 Gibson Hoss]

In a typical set of 45 minutes--13-14 songs, we have 2 Gospel songs, and 2 instrumentals, and the rest are vocals, mostly up tempo. Our vocals are 3 part and of traditional vein. Of those songs, 1 is slower, and the rest are up to mid tempo. We do not do bars or clubs, so we can sing alot more Gospel songs, as our banjo picker is aformer preacher/minister.

[mandozilla]

Now I am just the opposite. I love lots of instrumentals. The more the better. I love to hear folks play, and the occational song is good too.

You know Jeff I guess I'm the way I am with the vocal to instrumental mix because I played rhythm guitar and sang bluegrass for 12 or 13 years before I even picked up a mandolin...I love singing, lead or tenor, I just can never get enough bluegrass harmony singing.

I find that the more trad grass crowd prefers the (90% vocals, 10% tunes) thing. Play mostly songs, throw in an instrumental for variety/to break it up.

Alan I probably prefer a bit more instrumental action, the 75% (vocals):25% (instrumentals) that I mentioned, 'cause I'm from/in California...I think Californians are less vocalcentric than elsewhere.

If you're looking to clear out a venue play an all instrumental set.

HaHa Mike you're right! It might as well be Bluegrassmuzak! Mike I get a real kick out of your way of thinking.

In a typical set of 45 minutes--13-14 songs, we have 2 Gospel songs, and 2 instrumentals, and the rest are vocals, mostly up tempo.

Yeah Tom, that's pretty much my preference, perhaps 3 instrumentals though. After all, this is SoCal!

Hey everybody thanks for the good feedback!

[Ted Eschliman]

I always thought lyrics were what you did to kill time between solos.

[OldDirtyTurtle]

+1 for instrumentals!

They never really get old to me. May just be me.

[Tobin]

Originally Posted by OldDirtyTurtle

+1 for instrumentals!

They never really get old to me. May just be me.

Me too. I'm not a fan of lyrics. They get in the way of good music.

[Denny Gies]

My experience agrees with the roughly 75-25 split between vocals and instrumentals. This is from a history of mostly bluegrass bands with a hard core, '50's country stint thrown in.

[CES]

Depends on who's singing and who's playing!!

My wife would argue for 100% vocals with some breaks to give the singers time for a sip of water (or insert other beverage of choice)...I'm listening to Tone Poems right now and am REALLY glad there's no singing to cover up that pickin, but then it's Dawg and Tony, which is A LOT different that me and someone else.

Of course, I can't sing either...

In a concert I think 75-85 vocals and the balance instrumentals is OK, but I've noticed that the instrumentals is where non-pickers always head for the bathrooms...

[sgarrity]

Me and Jim-in-Virginia got together last night with a banjo pickin' buddy and had out first band practice. Just me on guitar, Jim on mandolin, and the banjo. We're planning on doing all instrumentals with the possibility of a vocal tune or two. So we definitely lean more in the direction being an old-time band than true bluegrass. It's gonna be fun!

[mandozilla]

Me and Jim-in-Virginia got together last night with a banjo pickin' buddy and had out first band practice

.

Hey Shaun, that's great...I hope you guys prosper, sound great and knock 'em dead, and have fun too!

Good Luck and Happy Pickin'!

But you know what? You need to get a VOCALIST!

So we definitely lean more in the direction being an old-time band than true bluegrass.

Absolutely, cause it ain't bluegrass without the sangin'...just a square dance band!

[lgc]

I think there is a reason why there are almost no nonsinging mega stars(like Del or Skaggs) in any popular or folk genre. Obviously there are some but peoples likes singing because they can relate. Are any of the top bands in acoustic music purely instrumental? Sure any of them could but would they sell many records or tickets? From my limited experience the refusal to subjugate the instrumental to the vocal is a sure fire way to not get gigs as a side man or to run a successful band.

I agree with 2-3 out of 13-14. Most people get bored with pickin quickly.

[mandozilla]

I agree with 2-3 out of 13-14. Most people get bored with pickin quickly.

Except other pickers! But then again, who ever plays for an audience of pickers except at workshops?

[sgarrity]

Jim and Lyle, our banjo player, are already in a "real bluegrass" band so this'll be something different. Think of the Travellers recording with the addition of tasteful 5-string banjo. And we're in VA so old time is somewhat common. And we'd be happy to play a square dance!

Hhmmm........non-singing mega stars.....David Grisman comes to mind, although he does a little singing. But in the DGQ, it's all instrumental. Mike Marshall....can't recall him singing. Mark O'Connor, David Grier, Stuart Duncan, Andy Statman. I think all of those guys are superstars, although in a different way than Del, Ricky, Doyle, etc... There are plenty of all instrumental recording out there too.

[AlanN]

Yep.

Was always surprised that the Bluegrass1995/YY/YY...series went as far as it did. Clearly, the interested buyers of those recordings were pickers only.

[sgarrity]

I guess it all depends on what the concert is billed as too. If I'm goin' to see Russell Moore and IIIrd Tyme Out, then I expect to hear lots of great singing and a few hot instrumentals. If I'm going to see one of the guys in my previous post, I'd expect a largely instrumental show.

[JeffD]

Originally Posted by lgc

From my limited experience the refusal to subjugate the instrumental to the vocal is a sure fire way to not get gigs as a side man or to run a successful band.
.

There are a lot of things you have to do to be a successful band that take the fun out of it. For some of us this is just one more of those things.

[swampy]

Vocals! Vocals! Vocals!

I think about some of my favorite Tony Rice Albums, or Johnson Mtn Boys, a nice mix of around 75/25 in favor of vocals.

[JeffD]

That's not to say I don't like vocals. Depends on the performer.


I go to a Gillian Welch concert, I love the vocals. The pickin is good too.

I go to a Thile concert and I love the pickin. The vocals? Eh. To me he sounds like he has taken what was said above to heart, and realizes he has to sing to make it, and so he does. But its not what makes the audiences jaw drop.

[Mike Bunting]

Originally Posted by sgarrity

Hhmmm........non-singing mega stars.....David Grisman comes to mind, although he does a little singing. But in the DGQ, it's all instrumental. Mike Marshall....can't recall him singing. Mark O'Connor, David Grier, Stuart Duncan, Andy Statman. I think all of those guys are superstars, although in a different way than Del, Ricky, Doyle, etc... There are plenty of all instrumental recording out there too.

I think we're talking bluegrass here, Grisman's bg band is pretty trad oriented from what I saw and sticks to the notion that bluegrass is basically (or traditionally) a vocal music with the odd instrumental to feature the players in the band, while the DGQ is not a bluegrass band at all and was put together for Grisman to explore wider musical concepts.

[sgarrity]

I agree 100% that traditional bluegrass is a predominately vocal music and the instruments are there to support the vocals. And I'd agree with about a 75/25 or 80/20 split of vocals/instrumentals. If I went to see Del and the Boys I'd be disappointed if all they did was pick. Actually, on second thought............

I guess the only point I was trying to make was that there are a lot of folks that do enjoy purely instrumental music. And a lot of that music is very closely related to bluegrass and has some of the same audience.

[Bill Snyder]

Originally Posted by sgarrity

...Hhmmm........non-singing mega stars.....David Grisman comes to mind, although he does a little singing. But in the DGQ, it's all instrumental. Mike Marshall....can't recall him singing. Mark O'Connor, David Grier, Stuart Duncan, Andy Statman. I think all of those guys are superstars, although in a different way than Del, Ricky, Doyle, etc... There are plenty of all instrumental recording out there too.

Define mega star. Until I started frequenting this website I had never heard of anybody mentioned in the above paragraph except Ricky skaggs and maybe Doyle Lawson. But then again I could only name a hand full of bluegrass artists.

[lgc]

"Mark O'Connor, David Grier, Stuart Duncan, Andy Statman" and Grisman.

None of them are really ever on the BG charts unless as side men. I'm not putting them down or suggesting that sales are the measure of worth. However, if you want to connect with people who are not BG dorks or musicians, and most people aren't, then it is important to focus on singing. Looking at who has commercial success is a good measure of where most people place value. Since we rarely control who is watching I feel it is best to err on the side of accepted knowledge.

Anyone can play anything they want anytime. If you want to have a better chance of being well received and invited back after a 2 hour show-I'd sing a bunch. Also within the the BG paradigm singing is the primary focus.

Plus I like singing a lot.