Walkin' the Bluegrass/ Old Timey line.

[allenhopkins]

If you read Pete Hicks's first post, he says he plays in a bluegrass band, that mixes in some old-time songs/tunes, and tries to play them by "different rules" so they're not mixed up. Subsequent discussion of what those "rules" might be.

If you're adhering to the strict "IBGMA contest rules" definition of what constitutes bluegrass (and of course, those rules only apply to instrumentation and style, not so much to repertoire), and consider that old-time is an amorphous body of music ranging from Carter Family to fiddle-band to Almeda Riddle singing a cappella, then the definitions are pretty clear: "bluegrass" vs. "everything else."

I think that some of the discussion has revealed that there are blurry lines in several places, especially as regards repertoire. Bluegrass bands do Carter Family songs, play (speeded up) old-time fiddle tunes, sing gospel songs from old Baptist hymnals. They have standardized the instrumentation, adopted vocal styles and arrangements that follow bluegrass models, and moved the tempi up from "clog dance" to "high speed."

But you can listen to some pre-bluegrass string bands, like Mainer's Mountaineers, the Morris Brothers, or Snuffy Jenkins' Hired Hands, and get a clear picture of bluegrass "roots," in terms of tempi, vocal blend, fiddle/mandolin stylings, etc. So the line's not always so clear.

The general Cafe view of "old-time" appears to be fiddle-band music, and I think that's what we're tending to contrast here. When the bluegrass banjo picker takes off the picks and switches to clawhammer style, and the fiddler drops the tempo down a notch or two and starts "sawing off" Bonaparte Crossing the Rhine or John Brown's Dream, you've crossed that "Bluegrass/Old-Timey Line," IMHO.

[JeffD]

Between the two, bluegrass, and old-time, it is true that bluegrass is the more defined and delineated. Its much easier to say this or that is or isn't bluegrass than to say that of old time.

This type of discussion is always worth having, in my opinion. Its worth the effort to try and define terms and draw some lines, even if there is no concrete resolution that satisfies everyone. Because every day there are many many new cafe "attendees" who are coming to the music at various levels of experience and from various points of view, who can learn from this and the benefit of experience and time in the saddle.

[TonyP]

I just like that the OP has the knowledge that there are different "rules" for each genre. A guy who has always ridden the fence successfully between the two is TimO. Another is Laurie Lewis. For that matter I feel like JR and Jaybirds are that mix too.

But to me you can tell there is a deep knowledge and love of the two to know what makes "it" and correctly applies "it" to the song/tune. "It" is not easy to define, hence the endless pages and heated discussion. But ultimately it shows to me in the music. I like balance, a good song/tune sung and played with attention and intention.

Around here I first thought it was just green musicians. But over time I see it's a decision, not a matter of simply prowess. I can't even put it into words, because whatever I compare it to, demeans the comparison. But it's becoming a thing of it's own, like a sub genre. Grungegrass? FunkyTime? OldSlacker? dunno...man I feel ancient.

[JeffD]

But over time I see it's a decision, .

That is the key, I think. What ever you do, be it BG or OT or something that straddles the line, or includes some jazz, or whatever, it should be a deliberate decision based on options. Not just crazy "innovation" to hide an inability to do it right. Chris Thile can go crazy because he has proven that he can play it straight very very well. His flights of fancy are very meaningful because they are on purpose.

I think of Picasso, who often painted very fancifully and sometimes childlike. But he paid his dues painting very representationally, showing that he could if he wanted to, but he had bigger and more interesting things to do than accurate representation.

[allenhopkins]

...When the bluegrass banjo picker takes off the picks and switches to clawhammer style, and the fiddler drops the tempo down a notch or two and starts "sawing off" Bonaparte Crossing the Rhine or John Brown's Dream, you've crossed that "Bluegrass/Old-Timey Line," IMHO.

And what I didn't mention: the mandolin player stops chopping chords on the off-beat -- not quite sure what he/she does instead...

[SincereCorgi]

I just like that the OP has the knowledge that there are different "rules" for each genre. A guy who has always ridden the fence successfully between the two is TimO. Another is Laurie Lewis. For that matter I feel like JR and Jaybirds are that mix too.

But to me you can tell there is a deep knowledge and love of the two to know what makes "it" and correctly applies "it" to the song/tune. "It" is not easy to define, hence the endless pages and heated discussion. But ultimately it shows to me in the music. I like balance, a good song/tune sung and played with attention and intention.

Around here I first thought it was just green musicians. But over time I see it's a decision, not a matter of simply prowess. I can't even put it into words, because whatever I compare it to, demeans the comparison. But it's becoming a thing of it's own, like a sub genre. Grungegrass? FunkyTime? OldSlacker? dunno...man I feel ancient.

See, I'm also kind of unhappy with the idea that 'old time' and 'bluegrass' are the only two options, since it seems to leave a huge amount of 'American roots music' (and I kinda hate terms like that, too) out in the cold.

I like Charlie Poole's style and songs, but his music is fish-nor-fowl when it comes to the commonly accepted descriptions of those genres, and the same with early Roy Acuff (steel guitar old time? early country?) and lots of other stuff. If I want to play those songs and try to preserve some of their feel, some member of the genre police is probably thinking inwardly "but... but that's not [insert genre]". And they're sort of right, of course.

I guess what I might be getting at is that a lot of what we call 'bluegrass' and 'old time' is really petrified versions of a few artists' styles from the '30s and '40s, and I think jams are usually poorer for it.

[Big Joe]

Bluegrass is essentially old time with a resonator banjo and about twice the speed as old time, but the basics of bluegrass come from old time music. I don't really see any difference unless you get the "purists" involved. You know. The ones who insist it always has to be done a certain way because Mr. X did it that way years ago and you cannot possibly change it or interpret it another way. I have worked with these kinds of nuts for many long years and they are on both sides of the spectrum.

One of my best friends is an old time banjo player (and champion no less) and he can play old time banjo till the cows come home. He can't do Scruggs style, but he can play any style of old time. He is a great banjo player and a good vocalist. The only problem is he makes it so hard to want to play with because he always insists every song can only be done just one way and that way only and if everyone does not do it his way he gets upset. It is hard to keep people wanting to play with that attitude. I understand his desire to keep his music "pure". My question would be, "pure what?". I also know many bluegrassers who are much the same way. It has to be done the way they want it done or the way their favorite artist did it.

In the music instrument business we run into the same thing all the time as well. "I want to sound just like Bill Monroe, or Chris Thile, or ???" It does not matter what mandolin you get, what pick you use, or what strings or attachments you have, you will NEVER sound like those guys. They would sound like themselves on whatever you are currently using. They sound like themselves on anything they play. It is in their hands and their hearts, not the wood or plastic or wire. They chose those items for any number of reasons, but they will sound like themselves on anything. I know because I have seen it over and over. Bill sounded like Bill on any mandolin he picked up.

I guess I've diverted a bit, but it is the same mentality. It is good to want to be like your musical hero, but real growth comes when we consider them a mentor rather than just hero. That frees us to play like ourselves and to expand the narrowness of our music into what may be a wonderful surpise as we move into our own maturity in music. That applies to the instruments or the way in which we interpret the style of music we chose to play. I love to play my Ramsey Open Back Banjo, but I don't play like my friend or others. I play like me and I like it if no one else does. That is all that matters to me .

[allenhopkins]

As usual, Big Joe makes worlds of sense. I would add a note to those who insist on trying to copy a particular musician's style, and insist "that's the only way to do it" -- remember, when your hero/mentor came on the scene, he/she played differently from everyone else! That person didn't copy what had come before, but played a whole new way. Now you say we all have to play like Bill Monroe or Tommy Jarrell or whomever.

There are huge areas of overlap between bluegrass and old-time music. A musician like Ralph Stanley personifies that, playing songs from each genre. I'd say that there are more differences than Big Joe mentions -- it's not just tempo and the resonator banjo -- but to me "purism" and dogmatic adherence to a stereotype of any type of music, holds that music back. And it's pretty clear that the musicians who are actually playing the music, enjoy experimentation, cross-pollination, and innovation -- sometimes much more than their audiences do!

[TonyP]

Agreed Big Joe. I agree with everybody's points. That's whats so hard about this discussion. I don't like the purist point of view either, that's what surprises me to be on that side of the fence.

When I'm playing Americana with the band I do that with, we don't call ourselves a Bluegrass band. We range all over so don't call ourselves one thing or another. My issue is bands being labeled Bluegrass, and have neither the equipment or ability to deliver such. I guess I'm just wanting truth in labeling if for no other reason to help the audience understand, instead of confuse. I actually had a lady say she didn't know you could play Bluegrass with a mandolin(after she asked me what the instrument I was playing was). I was dumbfounded.

We are careful to say, "this is a Bluegrass song" or whatever, and who originally recorded it, as I see as part of my job to help the folks who care in the audience, to know what they are listening to. Even though that can be dangerous from a BMI/ASCAP point of view. That's part of the attention and intention.

I KNOW I can't sound like my hero's, but, I can be true and shoot for that "it" of the song/tune. There's been many a try in band practice that ended up being tabled because we didn't have "it" in this particular instance. What's funny, was it was by general consensus, not by one person's decree. Either it's there or it isn't. And if it isn't, it doesn't get played out.

[Paul Kotapish]

Allen and Big Joe have summed it up nicely.

I have always thought of bluegrass as a range on the broad continuum of rural string band music, a sprectrum that ranges from decidedly "old-time" cross-tuned fiddle & banjo music through the early commercial string bands like Charlie Poole and the North Carolina Ramblers and Gid Tanner and the Skillet Lickers and the Carter Family through Bill Monroe's various iterations of bluegrass and the interpretations of his acolytes right on through to the Newgrass Revival and the Punch Brothers and the David Grisman Quintet.

Monroe's classic band with Flatt & Scruggs marks an essential datum on that spectrum, but Monroe's music over his lifetime spanned pretty far to either side of that mark.

Some groups pattern their sound after that classic moment in musical time, others have their own territory. The Stanley Brothers were slightly to the old-time side of the classic Monroe mark, while the Seldom Scene were/are slightly to the "progressive" side.

Bluegrass is a handy term to describe a lot of music that falls close that that Monroe mark, but--with a few exceptions--most bands occupy a fair amount of bandwidth on the spectrum, and trying to box the music in usually results in boxy music.

[CES]

The best current examples that pop into my head of each are the Carolina Chocolate Drops (Old Time) and Del McCoury's band (BG), but that's probably not a fair "boxing in" of either group. But I've listened to both recently, hence their recollection.

This is a good discussion, and one that I've read with great interest as a relative beginner trying to figure this distinction out. I once got the stinkeye for chopping on an OT song at a BG jam...can't remember the song (it's been a coupla years), but I had only heard BG versions of it and didn't realize the song was originally OT. I was actually playing it pretty well (not always the case, esp. at BG tempo), so I didn't figure it out until later, b/c the stinkeyer was nice enough not to say anything and was even a little embarassed that I caught the look in the first place. I honestly wish he'd just told me my error after the tune.

Confusing matters even more for the uninformed are those groups like Avett Bros, Mumford and Sons, Old Crow Medicine Show, etc, who are making some great music that is most definitely not strictly BG, but not necessarily OT as I think of it, either. I can't count the times I've been listening to the Avetts or Old Crow and my kids walk in and go, "Awwww maaaan, bluegrass again?" I always say, "Nope...but if you wanna hear some bluegrass to hear the difference I'll get some on next." They actually take it pretty well...

I also took Professor McGann's comments about building repertoire to heart. I've realized for a while that I need to get some songs down to pull out when needed. I'm too dependent on chord sheets/tab/music, etc, and need to focus my practice time again. I can play a bunch of songs, but only have a few down that I can play rhythm and lead fluently on from memory. Part of the problem is my musical ADHD...I like a lot of different styles, and lately, for example, I've been working more on some Doors songs and a couple of songs my 14 year old likes to sing with on guitar rather than playing mando. Part of the problem, though, is just not really studying the music, regardless of the genre or instrument. Too much of my listening is either mindless or done from long playlists where I just don't pay attention to song names...

Anyway, thanks for the discussion...

[Bluegrass Boy]

I think we get into trouble (but also into interesting discussions) when we think that a simple term can actually encompass the definition of a cultural/human phenomenon that is practiced by so many people in diverse settings, times and locations as music. We have to remember that the map is not the territory.

Having said that, I'd say it's Old Time music when the fiddle never (ever!) stops playing (picture Hieronymus Bosch, "The Scream")

[Gan Ainm]

Good points all, about the overlap and differences in BG an OT music, I agree with most of Allen’s points (so we MUST be right ) the only thing I would like to add is that each genre in it's "purist" form (indefinable) has a different rhythmic feel, which is also in my opinion what defines an “authentic” sound in Irish or Cajun, Klezmer or Blues music etc. (I mean authentic as closer to the sound made by people with a direct aural, social and/or family connection to the older form of the music as a local phenomenon, NOT authentic as in “valid”.) For mandolin players in particular this means for BG a pretty defined chop in the famous “snare drum” role but in old time usually a more “shuffly” open sound, maybe a little more on the down beat. I believe John Mcganns’ rhythm DVD gives some examples, or was it Marshalls’ or both? But as I said these rhythmic differences can be subtle and have to be heard ,felt and absorbed. I would be interested in any other takes on this aspect of the music.

[JeffD]

For mandolin players in particular this means for BG a pretty defined chop in the famous “snare drum” role but in old time usually a more “shuffly” open sound, maybe a little more on the down beat. I believe John Mcganns’ rhythm DVD gives some examples, or was it Marshalls’ or both? But as I said these rhythmic differences can be subtle and have to be heard ,felt and absorbed. I would be interested in any other takes on this aspect of the music.

There is always the melody to play!

[JeffD]

The best current examples that pop into my head of each are the Carolina Chocolate Drops (Old Time) and Del McCoury's band (BG), but that's probably not a fair "boxing in" of either group....

Well I think the Chocolate Drops are recreating, reinvigorating, re-animating, old time jug band music. I love that band.

[Big Joe]

My youngest son won a picking competition when he was 16. It was strictly acoustic. He competed in the guitar, mandolin, and fiddle. He also played upright bass for a couple people as well. He won the acoustic guitar competition and when he was receiving his award the older gentleman MCing the event asked him his favorite music (expecting the name of a country singer). My son responded "Heavy metal and bluegrass.". The MC almost had a heart attach and was trying to stop his head from spinning when my son added, "well, they are really about the same but one is played on electric and the other on acoustic". He was very perceptive. We each have our own favorite performer or group or genre, but music is music and there is really not that much difference in the music as much as the way it is played.

I play several instruments and with lots of different kinds of people. It really is not any different. There are only 8 notes and a handful of chords to use. They are not the issue, it's just where and when you use them and the tempo you use that changes it from one genre to another.

[Willie Poole]

Allen, about sounding like some other performer....When Gene Autry first started singing and recording he sounded just about exactly like Jimmy Rogers and it wasn`t until he just sang like himself that he got all of his popularity and better recording contracts and movie offers...Of course we have all of the Elvis copiers now days....What I really liked about the older music is that after the first three notes of the kick off you knew who the artist was because each one had his/her own style, modern artists can`t make that claim any more, well maybe a few but not many....There is a singer on The Midwestern Country show on RFD-TV that sounds like and does mostly Hank Williams songs, David Church is his name and now he has started singing with his wife and doing stuff other than Hank`s because I suppose he has drawn attention to his singing and now wants to make it with his own songs and style...

I just wish he would learn how to tune his guitar or send it to Big Joe for a set up, it sounds out of tune to me every time I hear it...

[allenhopkins]

I guess you've really developed your "own style" when other people start copying you. The whole concept of "covering" another singer's or band's style has always puzzled me: if you can listen to Elvis's recordings, and watch his concerts and movies on DVD in the comfort of your home, why would you pay good money to go see some guy sorta sing like him? But these guys make good money doing it, so there must be a market.

The musicians who get imitated, are imitate-able because they weren't imitating anyone else. They sounded unique. Love her or not, Alison Krauss sounds just like herself, not like Wilma Lee Cooper, Molly O'Day or Kitty Wells. You can try to play mandolin like Bill Monroe or Jesse McReynolds, but they didn't play like anyone else. No one else sang like Charlie Poole, or played guitar like Riley Puckett, or fiddled like Carter Brothers & Son.

I quoted Monroe's advice to Frank Wakefield in the "classic bluegrass" thread: "Son, you can play almost as good as me; now go get your own style."

[DrEugeneStrickland]

One must study the grammar and vocabulary of any language to reach the goal of uniquely expressing ideas and emotions.
Music is a language.