Bluegrass instruments

[CES]

How about a cello?! Skip to about 2:00 to hear the cello play forked deer, and skip that terrible hammered dulcimer thing .hammered dulcimer is not an instrument I would include in this thread, in fact i would not include it as an instrument

Had the pleasure of seeing these guys live about 2 years ago, and also got to hang out with them afterwards for a couple of hours. Got to play Josh's Red Diamond (tied for 1st with a Giacomel and a Loar for the best mandos I've played). That hammered dulcimer player is a freak in the best possible way, and would be welcome to take over whatever jam was happening at my campfire. May not be bluegrass, but he's a Hell of a musician...

[Mark Christensen]

Hey DataNick, I wasn't offended by your post in the least. I responded to you calling Red Allen and Frank Wakefield's Kitchen tapes Old Time Mtn Music which I disagree with. I think they're straight up Bluegrass practitioners. The rest of my post was in response to people on here that try to force their opinions on others and then are condescending when they're not agreed with and who continually bring up the same themes to make themselves feel important. I doubt I have to actually name them. It's tiring. No offense to you but if you would have read my other posts you probably would have got that. Oh by the way in your last post I didn't read most of it because I saw Bold face type and a lot of italicized words which I don't respond to. I think it's silly to express yourself over the internet angrily that way, we don't know each other so what's the point. Sorry you had to cramp your hand for nothing.

[CES]

And, Nat can play Cello-bass with me any time. He actually plays melody with his bow while simultaneously walking a plucked bass line. Son, I see why Sarah plays with him and Alex!! They may not be traditional bluegrass instruments, but, Willie, I would bet you would include them if they came by your campfire...they can play, son!

[Timbofood]

Have a fresh cocktail or cup of tea, Mark.
So sorry you have problems with people using reasonable typographically correct expression.

Willie, you may be a bit too "old school" for a lot here but, we are who we are, right. Pretty dull if all we played was "Old Joe Clark" and "Blue Ridge Mountain Home" too.
Style is one thing, material is something else.
I think I have had enough with this one, good night.

[DataNick]

Hey DataNick, I wasn't offended by your post in the least. I responded to you calling Red Allen and Frank Wakefield's Kitchen tapes Old Time Mtn Music which I disagree with. I think they're straight up Bluegrass practitioners. The rest of my post was in response to people on here that try to force their opinions on others and then are condescending when they're not agreed with and who continually bring up the same themes to make themselves feel important. I doubt I have to actually name them. It's tiring. No offense to you but if you would have read my other posts you probably would have got that. Oh by the way in your last post I didn't read most of it because I saw Bold face type and a lot of italicized words which I don't respond to. I think it's silly to express yourself over the internet angrily that way, we don't know each other so what's the point. Sorry you had to cramp your hand for nothing.

Mark,

No offense on my part. I did not know that boldface and italic font was for usage to convey emotion. I used it for emphasis, or to highlight the content of the post that I considered worth focusing on.

Here's the gist of what I said:

And to me the more interesting point of discussion is why is there such a variance in categorizing the genre of Bluegrass as opposed to the examples that I listed in my post. As I stated we would more than likely agree with the genre classifications that I used as examples, but why is there such nonagreement when it comes to Bluegrass? That is the subject matter that I find more fascinating about this whole subject. Why is it that we can agree that "Earth, Wind, & Fire" is R&B, or that "Chick Corea & Return To Forever" is "Fusion-Jazz" but we can't agree on Bluegrass genre classifications. I find that phenomena worthy of discussion from a social science perspective, and I have a hard time coming up with a comparable example in another musical genre-form.

And I'll close by saying again that discussing my bluegrass band/instrumentation list versus anyone else's is pointless. But why is it that we can agree about other genres but not bluegrass. That to me is a fascinating phenomena!

[dwc]

Mark,

Again let me say for the record, I'm really not interested in discussing what I consider to be bluegrass or bluegrass instrumentation versus what you believe.

I'm interested in discussing why consensus can be reached in genre classification with other musical styles but not bluegrass! That dichotomy is what I find interesting, and again I have no desire to debate my bluegrass list against yours.

Respectfully submitted in the right spirit and just trying to be accurate.

Sorry to snippet quote you; I hope I am not taking you totally out of context, but I respectfully submit that other musical genres have similar "disagreements" about classifications.

In jazz there are people who think jazz as a musical genre begins AND ends with Dixieland. These purists prune the tree of jazz so completely that nothing before, and certainly nothing after, is jazz to them. There are others within Jazz (including some very famous musicians and writers) that want to freeze the art form circa 1960, after Giant Steps and Kind of Blue, but before Sketches of Spain, and viewing Jazz fusion as an aberrant, abhorrent abomination. And in Jazz, at least, these "disagreements" play out not on online forums, but in conservatories and at the very highest levels of study and criticism.

Classical music is not without its genre purists, either. It is a little harder to see perhaps, but technically "classical music" refers to a very specific time period. What the public thinks of as "classical music" is really more like baroque, classical, romanticism and some modernism. Western musicologists will parse these "sub-genres" until your head spins, and you just can't care any more (which, I think, is what happens to the majority of the listening public, so it all gets lumped into classical).

Finally we move to rock. Want to start a bar fight? Walk into a metal club and start mouthing of about how the NWOBHM (Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, etc) were really just ripping off Deep Purple and The Sex Pistols.

I submit to you that every musical genre struggles mightily with classifications. I further submit that, when done in a scholarly fashion, this adds, rather than detracts, from the music. The problem is that there isn't much in the way of "Bluegrass Studies," and there aren't really very many good books devoted to the subject, so all we are really left with are our opinions.

[DataNick]

Great post dwc!

That is the kind of response I was looking for! I guess that in my mind and amongst my peers, there hasn't been that granularity of disagreement with respect to other genres, at least not in the examples I used; but I see your point.

Thank You, and I agree that this kind of inquiry does add to the music. Have you ever read Robert Cantwell's "Bluegrass Breakdown"?
That is one piece of musicology that I would hold up for Bluegrass; but you're right, I can't think of many.

I also think it's important to realize we're probably (the bluegrass community) never going to reach consensus on these matters in the fashion that other genres at least from my perspective, seem to have more agreement.

So though innocently intended as a matter of discussion as to what instruments make up bluegrass, etc; the resultant discussion is bound to turn into the my list versus your list argument.

[Mark Christensen]

I find it hilarious that someone named Timbofood is trying to be condescending towards me on a mandolin forum after everything that's been discussed and yes in my circles when someone uses bold face type that means they're angry. So why should I respond to that? I think my point's been made. DataNick I get what you're saying and your point and thanks for being clear about it.

[DataNick]

Mark,

You're Welcome! And it's all good Brotha!

[dwc]

To get back to the initial question for a moment (and I fully admit my culpability in pulling this thread of topic; I hope I can make up for that), what about a 12 string guitar? I have always been fascinated by the sound and the mystique of the 12 string. Any room at the table for a 12 string? I admit that I find it difficult to figure out precisely what sonic space it might fill, but I am interested in any experiences, observations or opinions.

[DataNick]

To get back to the initial question for a moment (and I fully admit my culpability in pulling this thread of topic; I hope I can make up for that), what about a 12 string guitar? I have always been fascinated by the sound and the mystique of the 12 string. Any room at the table for a 12 string? I admit that I find it difficult to figure out precisely what sonic space it might fill, but I am interested in any experiences, observations or opinions.

I think if you play the classic Lester Flatt "G-run pick n brush" style that it could work, because there's no heavy strumming with that style. Otherwise it could be too "cluttered" sound waves-wise if a picker does a folk or rock type strum. I'd like to hear somebody actually attempt it (Flatt style) on a 12-string. No reason in my mind as to why it couldn't work...

[Ivan Kelsall]

Hi Mark - My posts were much less about 'defending' my e-mail buddies than explaing my own thoughts on the matter. Several years ago,a very well known Bluegrass artist & his band came over to play at one of our main Bluegrass festivals. A lot of the stuff they were playing fell far short of Bluegrass & they were told that if they couldn't play 2 good Bluegrass spots each day,then they might as well leave. I can only speak for myself & make comments regarding what i experience,& what i experience here in the UK, is the fact that we're much less forgiving in our expectations. If an artist / band state that they're''Bluegrass'',then they'd better be. That does not mean to say that non-Bluegrass music at our Bluegrass festivals is off limits,far from it. Laurie Lewis & Tom Rozum came over some years ago on their own. They headlined at one of the best Bluegrass festivals we ever had over here.They did however state from the onset,that much of their songs etc. wouldn't be done with a full Bluegrass band. I was cheeky enough to offer my services on banjo for a few tunes,as i know a lot of Laurie & Tom's songs ,but my offer was politely declined - maybe for the best !. Their music over the full 3 day event was incredibly good. When they finished off their very last spot on the Sunday night with their latest song release - "Who Will Watch The Home Place",there wasn't a dry eye in the marquee.
From Mark - "... when someone uses bold face type that means they're angry. So why should I respond to that ? " . That's not the case with all people on here Mark. I use bold / Capital & Italic lettering to accentuate a remark or add stress to a word. If folk ever thought i was being angry in all my posts - i'd be propped up & shooted !,
Ivan

[Beanzy]

I find that phenomena worthy of discussion from a social science perspective, and I have a hard time coming up with a comparable example in another musical genre-form.

And I'll close by saying again that discussing my bluegrass band/instrumentation list versus anyone else's is pointless. But why is it that we can agree about other genres but not bluegrass. That to me is a fascinating phenomena!

I think you could look at baroque music for similarly polarised opinions with the whole 'period replica instruments only give the right sound' tiffs that kick off there. But as with the Dixieland example above, BG is only one corner in the great plains of american country music.

I think some of the reluctance to limit BG instruments may be due to the very social inclusiveness that surrounds the whole BG family. There may be a fear that if you want to move outside the genre you'd somehow be rejected from the fold.

But I think most people enjoy many styles of music and many of those also like to play across musical boundaries. I do a lot (borderline for being across too many styles to maintain the skills), but I really think it is important to be open to allowing people to rest easy in a style, or to limit their focus so they can zoom in and really maximise their enjoyment of playing that music in that way with those instruments. We don't have to force people to broaden their tastes or to allow stuff that's 'no part of nuthin' into their mix. It's not a negative thing to want certainty or to closely define the parameters so know where your working.
There's always another jam, or gig that can be set up to play the variations you like, even if you have to start it for yourself.
I think folks are right to say if you drift too far from the shore but feel the need to pretend it's still bluegrass don't be surprised if people don't always agree. The tide goes in and out at different times, but if you have to ask where the shore is you need a better compass and chart not more fog.

[Mandoplumb]

Bluegrass is a very emotional, clean music. By clean I mean uncluttered, not off color.Some even say simplistic which it is in one since of the word. Two many instruments doing too many things change that. The emotional part is even harder to define, that's why there will always be disagreement about what is bluegrass. I like any acoustic string music whatever you call it, but bluegrass is my first love. I know what is bluegrass in my mind as do each of us and that is all that matters. If the "kitchen tapes ain't bluegrass because it ain't got no banjer" it is still good music so why do we argue about it?

[JeffD]

I think that the efforts of many people to define bluegrass and to define more clearly what is not bluegrass - I think these efforts are important. Ultimately futile maybe, but I think the distinctions are important to keeping it a genre of its own. Without these efforts its not unlikely that bluegrass would long ago have been absorbed by country-pop as "country music with a banjo" and then "country music with a banjo-guitar" and then country music with banjo shaped objects.

I also think cool innovation and beauty comes from well defended borders and crisp definitions. You can't push the envelope if there is no envelope that anyone cares about. (As an example I submit today's country music.)

The original question is fascinating because of the border lines. What instruments could be included and yet keep the integrity of the original conception while giving it perhaps a new but not transgressive sound?

[Tom Smart]

... when the band came out onto the stage to a sold out crowd they played four songs and someone in the crowd yelled out, "That isn`t anything like bluegrass" and a lot of the crowd got up and left...Now I will tell you who the band was...And I am sure it will get denied by some of their long time fans...It was Ricky Skaggs and Ky Thunder.....They were playing songs that he has recorded on his country label records (CD`s)...So I am sure that if he can be told that what he was doing isn`t bluegrass then it could happen to you and a lot of others at a jam session...

I don't know what I'd call Ricky Skaggs and Kentucky Thunder when they're playing "country" songs, but I do know what I'd call the guy in the audience who yelled out, "That isn't anything like like bluegrass."

[Ivan Kelsall]

Tom - Read my last post about a 'certain' Bluegrass band !.
Defining 'the sound' of Bluegrass music is easy if we accept one thing. Back when Earl Scruggs joined Bill Monroe & the whole Bluegrass 'thing' kicked off big time - if we accept the fact that this band became known as the ''Original Bluegrass Band'',& also accept the fact that the whole 'band sound' that they produced came to define ''the sound of Bluegrass'',then we've got it. We must accept also,that the banjo is possibly the 'main ingredient' of that sound, & to remove the banjo creates a lesser sound. Removing any of the other instruments also creates a lesser sound,although if the banjo is still among the ingredients,it can still be called Bluegrass. I'm trying very hard not to be too darned pedantic in this,but,if Earl's arrival in Bill Monroe's band created the ''Original Bluegrass Band'' sound,then what do we call Bill's music before,& also the music of any band that doesn't have a banjo player ?. To me,it's not disimilar from any great recipe for a food dish. A recipe becomes a classic usually because the originator created something that has a wide appeal. If that recipe needs 5 ingredients,but somebody decides to add or remove an ingredient,then it's not the food dish that it's supposed to be !. Take an American classic (of which i'm rather too fond if i find it in the UK) 'Key Lime Pie' - remove the Lime from it & simply have a neutral filling,or,add bananas & you've now got 'something else' - it certainly isn't a Key Lime Pie. Adding to,or subtracting from the original line-up of instrumentation in a Bluegrass band creates a different sound. That's one reason why Bill Monroe wasn't too keen on the Dobro - it didn't fit in with his idea of the sound of 'his music'. Maybe he regarded it as a non-traditional instrument in a Bluegrass setting. Whatever, he wasn't keen.
My personal idea of what constitute a Bluegrass band 'proper' is the original line-up of instruments. Differ from that & i'm fine with it - as long as there's a banjo,i'd still think of it as Bluegrass,even with a Dobro added. Remove the banjo & i'm still fine with the music - but don't call it Bluegrass. Purely my personal opinion,
Ivan

[jaycat]

I find it hilarious that someone named Timbofood is trying to be condescending towards me on a mandolin forum after everything that's been discussed and yes in my circles when someone uses bold face type that means they're angry. So why should I respond to that? I think my point's been made. DataNick I get what you're saying and your point and thanks for being clear about it.

On a personal note, Tim is my Guild Guitar and Humphrey Bogart buddy and I must rise to his defense (not that he needs it) when I say he hasn't got a condescending bone in his body.

On a more pragmatic note, I worked as a typesetter for 25 years and I can assure you that bold face type is used to convey emphasis. It would be asking an awful lot of a typeface to express anger, love, fear, jealousy, ambition, joy or any other of the limitless gamut of human emotions.

"Was you ever bit by a dead bee?"

[J.Albert]

My thoughts and mine only.

I'm kind of "old skwel" on the subject, as I sense Willie is.

There's a lot of music out there that "sounds like" bluegrass, without actually being bluegrass.
This in itself doesn't mean I dislike such music, only that I recognize it for what it is.

Also...
Seems like I go to bluegrass festivals today, and my thoughts insofar as a lot of the bands are concerned is, "they're ok, but that's not bluegrass."
Again, this should not be construed to mean I didn't like them or their music.

It also seems like (at least in the Northeast) Sunday morning bluegrass gospel shows have all-but disappeared.

I liked the old days better.
But then again, I'm old.

[Mark Christensen]

For whatever reason I'm being chastised for expressing my opinion that bold faced type has angry connotations. I was referring to the content of the post I was responding to, not in general terms. I made the mistake of assuming that was obvious.
I also feel that it was none of Timbofools business to respond to me in that way as he was not part of the conversation I was having. If you want to defend him that's more of a reflection on you as far as I'm concerned. I also hold the opinion that people like Willie start these threads just to be controversial and nothing else as it's obvious he doesn't care about others opinions he just wants to defend his. I originally responded to Tom Colettis post #51 which I still agree with 100% and have the right to do so regardless of what you old schoolers may think.

[ralph johansson]

Not quite Tom, we have determined that spoons are not bluegrass instruments but suitable for chili consumption!
One of the best BG bands I ever heard had the distinct advantage of playing at pitch well before the advent of cheap peghead tuners. They had a harmonica player!

"Distinct advantage"? Before peghead tuners there were tuning forks. Do you really believe that harmonicas are more reliable?

[Timbofood]

Yes Ralph, I sure did back then, I don't know how things go at European festivals but, often when parking lot picking, tuning tends to wander, getting twenty people to use a fork to tune is virtually impossible, so, yes that was indeed a "distinct advantage" in 1976.
Mark, sorry to have cut you so deeply, I apologize.
Now as to your statement about not caring about others opinions, that is a grave falsehood. I appreciate opinions of others, I don't have to agree with them though. And that's Timbofood".
This is a forum so your "conversation" with Nick is public information, if you wanted it to be private, post to him with a PM, don't chew on me for voicing my opinion.
Willie, looks like the kettle is boiling over this subject for the umpety umpth time.

[drbluegrass]

My preferences in bluegrass lean toward the more traditional and neo-traditional styles in both instrumentation and music. However, I've heard bluegrass songs and artists that have used non-traditional instruments like autoharp, dulcimer, cello, and mandola that I really liked. I also like some of the new groups that bring heavily bluegrass influenced music to the bluegrass genre but they might not be considered a "true" bluegrass band. Balsam Range, Breaking Grass, and Flatt Lonesome are some that come to mind. I like these groups a lot.

As a traditionalist I love J.D. Crowe and the Osborne Brothers but I still have great difficulty with steel guitar in bluegrass. That's just my idiosyncrasy. I love steel guitar and country music. But I don't like steel guitar in bluegrass music. My main prerequisite for an instrument in bluegrass is it must be acoustic (except when an acoustic bass is not available). That's the main thing that drew me to bluegrass music. I'd played electric instruments (even steel guitar) for over 50 years and I was looking for something different. Don't know if that makes me the "bluegrass police" or not? If it does, then it does, I guess? OTOH, I often see people loosely sling that term around at people who simply disagree with them. Maybe that makes them the "bluegrass police - police"?

Anyway, bluegrass groups with traditional acoustic instrumentation (guitar, mandolin, banjo, acoustic bass, with or without resonator guitar) are what I like, especially if they don't stray too far from the boundaries of traditional bluegrass. But, as I said, there are new groups that might not be considered straight bluegrass that I still like very much. My 2 cents.


Tom

[allenhopkins]

Re: the necessity of a banjo in bluegrass --

Monroe and Flatt & Scruggs dropped out the banjo on gospel numbers; Scruggs in particular substituted a very expert finger-style guitar accompaniment.

I would say those songs qualified as "bluegrass" despite the missing banjo.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Yes,i'd totally agree Allen - but if the band hadn't had a banjo in the line up at all,would we have thought of it as Bluegrass then ?. It's definitely a fine line in that context. I think that we can accept a 'no banjo included' song/tune from a band that does have a banjo in it's line up, because we know that the band is a Bluegrass 'proper' band,but the same set of tunes from a band that doesn't have a banjo might not be perceived to be the same - weird or what ?. It all comes down to our individual perception of what is /isn't Bluegrass. Is a song or instrumental from the Bluegrass genre still Bluegrass if performed outside the context of a Bluegrass band ?. For me,it is - however the band / group (whatever) performing it, wouldn't qualify as a Bluegrass band / group / duo / trio / quartet - they'd simply be a band performing Bluegrass songs in a non-Bluegrass context, which again,for me,is fine. As i mentioned in a previous post,Laurie Lewis & Tom Rozum did exactly that at the UK Ironbridge Bluegrass Festival back in 1993, & apart from myself who was itching to get up & play a couple of numbers with them ("The Hills of My Home" was one of them),nobody missed the banjo,
Ivan