Ny times column speaks to bluegrass

[Ted Lehmann]

Who would have thunk that a column in the NY Times by David Brooks would have any relevance to bluegrass? Check out Brooks' column here (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/opinion/20brooks.html?hp) to see what he has to say. I'm very interested to read and engage in the discussion that might grow from this column in terms of how bluegrassers think we might be effected. - Ted

[Andrew Lewis]

Very interesting article. I, for one, agree with the sentiments therein, and certainly see the relevance to Bluegrass. I think the good news, tbough, is that many of the new musicians who are derivative of bluegrass (You know - those we like to argue about how not bluegrass they are http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ) seem to be aware of the roots but are just trying to move forward and only be influenced by those roots. It seems that Bluegrass is just not as far down the road as rock in terms of losing connection with roots. Maybe in another 10-20 years, there will be grassers who don't know who Flatt and Scruggs are, but instead cite Yonder Mountain String band as an influence. (just threw that group out there of the top of my head - please don't get stuck on that one)
On the other hand, the biggest difference I see between Bluegrass and rock in the context of the NY Times article is the strong consciousness of tradition in the Bluegrass world. Sure, it's there in rock, too, but it's not nearly as pervasive in the rock genre. There is such a strong element of purists and traditionalists that disconnection with roots seems a lot farther down the road. Instead, the down-the-middle split between progressives and traditionalists seems of greater concern.

Just some of my thoughts off the top of my head. This should turn into an interesting discussion...

[Ted Lehmann]

My thoughts about losing touch with the old timers lay more along the line of what's happened to country music. When I started listening to it, moving away from Frank and Ella, there was great respect paid to the greats of the forties, fifties, and sixties. The performers spoke of them, the appeared on the awards show, and the music reflected their influence. Today, I doubt that Rascal Flatts or Big and Rich have the slightest idea who Hank William, Hank Snow, and Roy Acuff were, let along Tut Taylor. - Ted

[JEStanek]

How much do you think this is the industry vs. the acts themselves. Country radio drives sales-> promotes acts that sell. The homogenization of American popular music, Rock or Country, inevitably drives them towards a blandness to maximize sales that leaves me wanting.

Bluegrass acts or whatever you want to call them are going along a different evolution in my mind since they aren't driven by radio generated sales. There are very trad bands doing things the traditional way, and there are other bands doing new things within the string band idiom. Both are still out there.

I don't think the sky is falling on bluegrass music. You want to hear what I would consider rock n roll listen to indie and garage bands on college radio not commercial ones. Rock n Roll is about thumbing the nose to the establishment.

I think when we take a middle aged NeoConservative's lament over the state of Rock n Roll too seriously then we really are in trouble. He's part of the establishment Rock n Roll is supposed to try and take down. There's still an anti-establishment war going on. It's just likely we're too out of touch to even see the soldiers fighting it. I fight it by not consuming the Rock and NeoCountry they try and feed me.

Pop and modern country music are about making the most money, not the music. For string band and bluegrass music it may be worthwhile to look at the parallels in Jazz where different schools came and went. Perhaps there is something similar with our music? Where would you rather drink, the main stream or a sheltered spring?

Jamie

[Andrew Lewis]

My thoughts about losing touch with the old timers lay more along the line of what's happened to country music.
Ah. I see this concern as well. I think Jamie has some nice points about the anti-establishment element of rock that does still thrive further away from the radar, and I think this spirit is popping up in country, too, but often takes the form of artists going back to earlier influences and sounds to thumb their nose at the mainstream. I think there is a growing population out there that views going backwards as hipper than the forward movement of the popular country scene.

Here in Texas, there is a thriving music scene filled with musicians who are more interested in sounding older and different from that "Nashville Sound." In fact, this is a huge part of how they market themselves! Now that's ironic, huh? It comes full circle. I play bass for a Texas Country band and we are far more interested in sounding like Lefty Frizzell than Tim McGraw or even George Strait.

As a bluegrass mandolin picker, I find myself even further out on the cutting edge of the social norm, and this fact alone gets me greeted with interest and a perception of hipness among many of the musicians I meet.

[Milan Christi]

Marshall McLuhan
"In a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium - that is, of any extension of ourselves - result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology."

It's interesting to me that on the eve of 2008 the prophetic words of McLuhan are still relevant. In my ever-so-humble opinion - bluegrass, or any musical genre for that matter, can't escape the effects of "the medium". Our culture will slice and dice whatever art form comes along.

A friend of mine just entered into a very lucrative music production venture - nice front money. As he was describing the marketing scheme he never mentioned the art form - only the money. I don't see a lot of point in arguing the 'good' or 'bad' of his venture or his participation - his goals are first focused on the quick, up-front gain. The medium he using is the internet and the songs he is producing will most likely be forgotten by next year - long after he's spent the cash.

Now back to my morning coffee.