Chris Pandolfi on the State of Bluegrass

[mandopete]

Thanks for the link to Bluegrass Nation Scott. I will keep my eye on that development for sure.

...and the Jon Weisberger article.

[AKmusic]

general edit -

This is not a slam. You may see it that way, but any negative connotation given will come from the reader – I’m not putting it in there. These are just the facts as I see them.

After reading the article – I’m left with a very strong sense that this appeal is being made on the same commercial basis that has driven country music to the commercial extreme. It is the artist’s justification of “why we are leaving home” for greener pastures.

Country music (as a business) kept it’s name (country music) and allow itself to morph into something that does not resemble it’s roots any more. And I would be willing to bet that if you ask any of today’s “successful” country artists – they would be quick to extol the virtues of traditional country music and the traditional country artists responsible for its early success. And yet probably none of those early country artists would stand a chance at success, much less gain any acceptance from today’s country audience if they were faced with trying to break into the market as an unknown today.
Do I sound like a disgruntled bluegrass traditionalist? I’m not. In fact, I play in a bluegrass band that plays much more outside the box of tradition than inside. If you sawour set list – you would agree.

But I am a realist. Say what you will, but - IMHO - we are witnessing the commercialization of Bluegrass – change for the sake of pleasing the largest crowd for the biggest buck and the most success. I won’t brand “them” all that way. I’m sure that some are truly only wanting to stretch their creative wings in new directions. But those who aren’t looking for the “opportunities for success” – for the sake of success – are nevertheless the forerunners of those who will. There will always be folks aiming to capitalize on “success” and they will commercialize the sound to reach even larger audiences – both bands, promoters, mangers, etc. They will come – it’s only natural. Is that bad? It would be easy to say yes – but I do understand why it happens.

But I don’t know how much I agree with the idea that appealing to the largest audience possible is a way to expose new fans to the traditional roots of the music. IMO – traditional bluegrass music enjoys a much larger following than traditional country. And I think that has a lot to do with the reluctant traditionalist attitude. I don’t blame them for wanting to preserve what they have – for as long as they can. Today’s country music is not leading anyone back to the roots of the genre (generally speaking).

Also remember that when we are judging what is to be understood from attendace numbers - young folks are out to party, and not really to show appreciation for your music. The author admitted as much. Young folks usually have more disposable income and less responsibility - they will come out for a party. If your music is being generated to appeal to that crowd - it is going to be commerical. When we grow up, we can't get out as much, have pretty much settled down, and we are ready to listen. Am I right?

[Mike Bunting]

general edit -

This is not a slam. You may see it that way, but any negative connotation given will come from the reader – I’m not putting it in there. These are just the facts as I see them.

After reading the article – I’m left with a very strong sense that this appeal is being made on the same commercial basis that has driven country music to the commercial extreme. It is the artist’s justification of “why we are leaving home” for greener pastures.

Country music (as a business) kept it’s name (country music) and allow itself to morph into something that does not resemble it’s roots any more. And I would be willing to bet that if you ask any of today’s “successful” country artists – they would be quick to extol the virtues of traditional country music and the traditional country artists responsible for its early success. And yet probably none of those early country artists would stand a chance at success, much less gain any acceptance from today’s country audience if they were faced with trying to break into the market as an unknown today.
Do I sound like a disgruntled bluegrass traditionalist? I’m not. In fact, I play in a bluegrass band that plays much more outside the box of tradition than inside. If you sawour set list – you would agree.

But I am a realist. Say what you will, but - IMHO - we are witnessing the commercialization of Bluegrass – change for the sake of pleasing the largest crowd for the biggest buck and the most success. I won’t brand “them” all that way. I’m sure that some are truly only wanting to stretch their creative wings in new directions. But those who aren’t looking for the “opportunities for success” – for the sake of success – are nevertheless the forerunners of those who will. There will always be folks aiming to capitalize on “success” and they will commercialize the sound to reach even larger audiences – both bands, promoters, mangers, etc. They will come – it’s only natural. Is that bad? It would be easy to say yes – but I do understand why it happens.

But I don’t know how much I agree with the idea that appealing to the largest audience possible is a way to expose new fans to the traditional roots of the music. IMO – traditional bluegrass music enjoys a much larger following than traditional country. And I think that has a lot to do with the reluctant traditionalist attitude. I don’t blame them for wanting to preserve what they have – for as long as they can. Today’s country music is not leading anyone back to the roots of the genre (generally speaking).

Also remember that when we are judging what is to be understood from attendace numbers - young folks are out to party, and not really to show appreciation for your music. The author admitted as much. Young folks usually have more disposable income and less responsibility - they will come out for a party. If your music is being generated to appeal to that crowd - it is going to be commerical. When we grow up, we can't get out as much, have pretty much settled down, and we are ready to listen. Am I right?

I think so.

[Mandolin Mick]

AKmusic-

I agree with you!!!

[Maddie Witler]

I wrote a lengthy response to this but forgot it on another computer. My basic point though, just to play devil's advocate, is that Chris seems to be missing the point about why a lot of traditional bluegrass fans aren't into YMSB, Trampled By Turtles, Railroad Earth, or even the Stringdusters more recent stuff. There seems to be a lot of hand wringing about music politics, the curmudgeonly BG police who refuse to enjoy "modern" BG because of some loyalty to an idealized sound from the '40s, but lost in all that is the fact that the music Pandolfi is advocating and the traditional bluegrass a lot of folks prefer is actually quite different.

I think you may be missing the point with this one. I agree with most everything you said in this post. Most of the traditional bluegrass audience will want nothing to do with the newer fringe-grass bands. However, Chris doesn't seem to be trying to convert anyone here. He just wants that segment of the audience to acknowledge that these other styles of music exist, that they are in some way related to bluegrass, and that they pose no threat to traditional bluegrass as a genre. By simply acknowledging this in a public way, a door to a potentially much wider fan base is opened. If the IBMA were to acknowledge that Mumford and Sons and Yonder Mountain Stringband are influenced by bluegrass, fans of those bands may be much more willing to go see another bluegrass or bluegrass influenced band, which is good for all of us. So I would say that the point of this is not that he's hoping that trad bluegrass fans will want to go see these fringe bands, but rather, that the fans of the fringe bands will associate those bands in someway with bluegrass, and will be more likely to support other bluegrass-y bands, maybe even traditional ones.

[mandopete]

Good response AK, I like your thought process.

Last Sunday as I was airing my tribute to the late Hazel Dickens on my radio program I thought how will the people who have just come to bluegrass music be able to appreciate her music and will they even like it? Hazel's singing style is as one of our other programmers put it "not for the faint of heart". It's an acquired taste I guess.

I think AK is right about the "commericialization" of the music when it comes to things like vocal style, lyrical content and instrumentation. All of these things may fly in the face of "traditional" bluegrass music, but from my perspective bluegrass music may (if it wants to) have an advantage.

Have both.

I do. I do it in my radio programming and I do it as a performer and participant. Over on another listserve we're talking about "inclusiveness" and I think that's what's needed for bluegrass to not only survive, but to thrive. There's a very popular music festival here in the Pacific Northwest called "Wintergrass" which does exactly that and they have been very successful.

Great discussions!

[Willie Poole]

Thanks guys...AND DAVID, THE LAST THING I HEARD SNORT AT ME WAS A JACKASS.....they also go HEE-HAW

Willie

[Ken_P]

But I am a realist. Say what you will, but - IMHO - we are witnessing the commercialization of Bluegrass – change for the sake of pleasing the largest crowd for the biggest buck and the most success. I won’t brand “them” all that way. I’m sure that some are truly only wanting to stretch their creative wings in new directions. But those who aren’t looking for the “opportunities for success” – for the sake of success – are nevertheless the forerunners of those who will. There will always be folks aiming to capitalize on “success” and they will commercialize the sound to reach even larger audiences – both bands, promoters, mangers, etc. They will come – it’s only natural. Is that bad? It would be easy to say yes – but I do understand why it happens,

If you were looking for the largest crowd and biggest buck, wouldn't you just go into pop or at least commercial (or "mainstream") country? Even if you appeal more to jam band fans, a group that features mandolin and banjo is never going to be a huge commercial success.

I think you're also missing the larger point of the piece. He's not advocating that bluegrass change to become more popular. He's saying that the label of bluegrass is holding his group back because of bad associations with hardcore traditionalists. I think he was quite clear that he had no interest in changing the sound of the band to attract a larger audience - quite the contrary. He wants to be able to embrace bluegrass (or more accurately, to be embraced by bluegrass), while bringing in new audience to the sound of the band. He doesn't want to change the art, he wants to change the marketing.

[Charlieshafer]

I think the only thing misunderstood about the Mumfords and Avetts and Crooked Stills of the world is that they didn't go progressive for the money, they did it because that's what they wanted to play. They all started out playing to tiny little audiences, just like everyone else. It's just that their music caught on with younger people, who tend to go out to shows in bigger numbers. The Avetts were quite vocal in saying that they miss the smaller venues where they could really connect with their audience on a more personal level. Interestingly, I find my audiences, both young and old, appreciate the off-genre specific artists, where the more genre-specific artists, like a John Jorgenson or Claire Lynch or whomever, seem to draw a slightly more...ahem...aged crowd.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Well, after reading the article i posted on here saying very much what AK said,but erased it as maybe being too 'negative'. I have to agree that reading between the lines,Chris P.is seemingly justifying the path that the 'Infamous Stringdusters' have chosen to take. For me he doesn't need to,any more that AKUS have(not) done. For what it's worth, i'd rather listen to the new bands doing what they do best & using trad. Bluegrass instruments the way they should be used,than listen to the C & W 'cross over' artists 'speaking' their dreadful dirges with a Bluegrass backing.
I feel that bands such as the I.S.'s & others are bound to appear as Bluegrass stretches it's legs in an effort to look alive & to be making progress. Even myself, as a 100% trad.Bluegrass afficionado realises that we can't go on singing purely 'trad.' songs for ever,& i find bands like the ' Stringdusters,Crooked Still etc., to be a breath of fresh air in genre that's become somewhat stale (IMHO). I'll always like the bands such as 'Blue Highway', 'Balsam Range' & many others with their 'new style' trad.songs,but also enjoy the 'progressive' bands as well,
Ivan

[ralph johansson]

What I get from this lengthy blog post is that Pandolfi and his mates resist being labeled as "Bluegrass" - their audience is elsewhere.
This seems to be a trend among younger players with BG backgrounds, and I wholly sympathize. An even more obvious case is the Punch Brothers. "We're not a Bluegrass band". They're not a jazz band, nor a choro ensemble, nor a klezmer band, nor a mariachi band -
lots o things they aren't, but the one thing they really don't play is Bluegrass.

The reason I resist the current much too liberal use of the label "bluegrass" is not purism but respect for the musicians, their creativity and open minds. Louise Scruggs: "Bluegrass is a very limiting word". I would like to see BG as only one narrow segment of the broader genre of Contemporary American String Band Music. And I would like to see more interaction between its various segments.

[mandolino maximus]

I am a Stringduster fan and can tell you that they keep a stronger element of traditional bluegrass in their music than Yonder Mountain, Railroad Earth or Punch Brothers. But they're good friends with all of those (Their first guitar player - who started out playing with Greg Cahill, now a former President of the IBMA - now plays with The Punch Brothers). Pandolfi's blog touches on a lot of facets in making it. I also have to agree that they do want to be accepted by the bluegrass industry and that the blog is partly a declaration that they aren't going away.

If the genre developed by synthesis of several musicial sources (btw, old time was also developed from folk music from other sources) including blues and experimented with along the way (Bill Monroe and an organ), it has a natural tension between change and tradition built right into it from the beginning. I think the Stringdusters, generally so far, assimilate other forms of music into Bluegrass while other alt-bands are less concerned with the original genre.

Great discussion, folks. Thanks. For perspective though, keep in mind that Pandolfi is only banjo player.

[David]

Thanks guys...AND DAVID, THE LAST THING I HEARD SNORT AT ME WAS A JACKASS.....they also go HEE-HAW

Willie

Sir, you need to revisit Board Guideline #1. I have done nothing but try to encourage some healthy conversation and debate, and I'm glad to say that's what's happening, but you are apparently more interested in trolling.

Moderators?

[mandopete]

I just now finished re-reading Chris' blog and I come away with a few thoughts. I think what he is saying is for bluegrass music to continue to thrive it really should embrace a more "inclusive" attitude. I think this is already in play when you look at music festivals such as The River City Bluegrass Festival and Wintergrass. Seems like most objections I hear are from using the term "bluegrass" or even "grass". I like one thing Chris says about the definition of bluegrass - it's whatever you say it is.

Another thing he states that may be more a matter of faith is that traditional bluegrass is not going to go away by including more progressive forms of the genre. His belief (and mine) is that including bands like Yonder Mountain and The Avetts might bring more people to traditional bluegrass. This was certainly my experience. I first started listening to The David Grisman Quintet and loved the music. Someone said "that's bluegrass" so I travelled in that direction and discovered Tony Rice's "Cold On The Shoulder" and from there the journey lead farther and farther back in time. It's that question of where did this come from that leads to discovery. This is sorely needed if traditional bluegrass music wants to survive.

There's a cool video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtjkLEbgWck) out there on YouTube of Northern Departure performing at Seattle's EMP Sky Church for a battle of the bands contest. I wonder how many young people in that audience are thinking "what is this, I dig it". The energy and drive of music will certainly attract many young people, but if there's no vehicle for them to travel backwards and discover the roots of the music traditional bluegrass will suffer. They also recently performed on the Bob Rivers radio show here in Seattle and I wonder what people are thinking when they hear this for the first time. Will those people feel included if they tune into a program like Bluegrass Ramble on KBCS?

I'm reminded of the explosion of interest in bluegrass after the movie "Oh Brother Where The Heck You At ?" <grins>. I was at the Down From Mountain concert here in Seattle and during the intermission I heard people in the lobby saying how much they liked this music, but they didn't know where else to find it. I think most of these people discovered the music from a movie and could probably care less what it was called, but lacking that they had no way to find more of it.

Enough for now, but let's keep this conversation going.

Pete

[Scott Tichenor]

Sir, you need to revisit Board Guideline #1. I have done nothing but try to encourage some healthy conversation and debate, and I'm glad to say that's what's happening, but you are apparently more interested in trolling.

Moderators?

Not tactful, yes, but also not worthy of much more than and eye roll from me. Willie is well on record with his one-dimensional view of his music preferences. He doesn't need me or anyone else stating that fact and I could care less what most music preferences are because they're all represented here! It's fine that everyone has their opinion but it's true, we don't need any trolling. As far as the rest of the forum, no need for this discussion to get derailed by poor choices in words.

To me personally, nothing Chris said is particularly new or eye opening. Lots of people toiling professionally in bluegrass or music related to bluegrass have these feelings and have attempted to communicate them. He just stated them far, far more eloquently. Interesting, yes, but been covered. The IBMA "big tent" talk that this all refers back to amuses me, but I don't really have a dog in this fight. Running IBMA certainly props up the price of the company that manufactures Advil. My take is you can make the tent bigger but that doesn't mean anyone is going to choose to stand under it. Bluegrass moves very slow and isn't about to be hurried into anything. A professional organization or spiffy new web site isn't going to change the face of bluegrass or any other kind of music. Facebook and other social networks may be the catalyst for regime changes in the middle east, but pigs will fly before they can change opinions in bluegrass.

[Mandobart]

Pete - I loved BG Ramble on KBCS the years I lived in Seattle! I should see if they are on-line too.

Overall this is a great discussion. I am in agreement with earlier posts regarding look what happend to Country & Western music over the post-Garth Brooks period. C&W has morphed into something hardly recognizable from the original. I know many fans of today's C&W that are not fans of the roots of the music and have no regard for the originals. I'd hate to see that happen to BG. I am a big fan of the Infamous Stringdusters, Bela Fleck, Tony Furtado, and many others in the new grass or alt grass genre. I am also a huge fan of many in the alt-country or Americana genre like Robert Earle Keen, Wayne Hancock, and others that to me are truer sounding than any of todays mainstream C&W acts to the original. The thing to me is, (lower case) bluegrass music is already inclusive, as witnessed by the success of the new grass acts. I don't see why SPBGMA or IBMA need to change or how that will give more success to established or up and coming alt grass acts. It sounds like the original blog is asking "please make BG cool so I can bill myself as BG" or something. BG is already cool! And Bill Monroe, Del McCoury, Tim Obrien, Sam Bush, the Stringdusters, Jerry Garcia, Bela Fleck, Alison Krauss, etc and on and on have all been part of it. I don't think many of us would say "look how cool country music is now" even though it is hugely commercially successful. I'm grateful there are some of the crusty old traditionalists and even bluegrass police out there, to keep the genre from going the way of the CMA.

[BradKlein]

I may be mistaken, but I think that Chris wants to change opinions of promoters, bookers, club owners, through IBMA etc more than he wants to change the opinions of players and fans. Not being a professional musician, the full implications of this are kind of lost on me -- but it's a strange cultural stew that we live in, and sometimes it moves faster and further than most people thought possible. There was the '60s folk scare after all, as strange as some of it seems with hindsight.

[Scott Tichenor]

Brad, my take on this is that Chris' comments were in response to those made by one of the powers to be at IBMA and some changes they're wanting to make. It's clear to me that some here have not read that so I don't really see how anyone could get the entire picture of what he's talking about without doing so.

[250sc]

For years I've thought that there are a group of "Traditional Bluegrass" fans that don't want the music to change or grow in any way at all and when they hear a "bluegrass" band that does something that is a bit different (electric bass) they cry out "That's not Bluegrass!" and write it off. IMOHO Those people's love for the music will kill it. After their generation dies off (which is happening now) there won't be enough people who like the "old" stuff to keep is a viable art form. Art is supposed to grow and expand it's own boundries. That's not to say you have to like the changes but the changes should be allowed and encouraged. The greater public will weed out the forms they don't like.

Someone in a previous post of this thread made a reference to jazz and said that there are many people who love big band swing who won't like free jazz. I agree but only the least educated or most inflexable of them will deny that free jazz is part of the jazz evolution.

Personally I prefer hearing something different and more in keeping with the content of the thread I understand why musicians feel they have to leave part of what they love to do what they are driven to do by personal vision and/or financial security.

[Alex Orr]

Good discussion.

I do think I may have been looking at this issue a bit askew. If it's just a hope by Chris and some others to expand the parameters of the genre a bit then I think it's a good point. Call traditional bluegrass "traditional bluegrass" and other styles other things, but work to keep it associated with the same tent. It seems that this may be the way it's naturally playing out, regardless of what the IBMA or other large promoters have to say about it.

That being said, where should the boundaries be drawn? I hate to come back to it, but if Mumford and Sons are considered bluegrass, then why not Arcade Fire? Should Sufjan Stevens be marketed as a bluegrass artist because he occasionally uses a banjo? How about the low-fi synthesizer indie pop band Magnetic Fields? They occasionally use a banjo, and they recorded an album of eight-track songs in the early '90s that were intended to be a take on country music using only a drum machine and a cheap synthesizer. Brad Paisley is a terrific flatpicker - should bluegrass try to market him and his music as bluegrass? The Avetts honestly sound more like an alt-country act these days, so should the IBMA start booking Wilco for the awards show and call them a bluegrass band?

If the idea is to expand the tent, so to speak, then bands like the Dusters (who still sound quite recognizably BG IMO) seem like a perfectly reasonable inclusion, but when I hear some of the bands that various bluegrass blogs have recently been citing as good candidates to use to try and expand the concept of bluegrass, I really wonder where the demarcation line should be drawn.

[allenhopkins]

Reiterating what I said before: apparently the Stringdusters took stock of their musical future, and decided that calling themselves "bluegrass" and playing for the venues that book bluegrass bands, was an unwise choice in terms of both the music they'd like to play, and the audiences they'd like to draw. So they changed their press kit, bought some stage equipment, and started going after a "younger, hipper" audience. Bully for them and the Red Sox,* says I.

Where the discussion gets more controversial, is where Mr. P seems to be asking the bluegrass "powers that be" to give this choice some kinda "stamp of approval." I'm not sure what benefit derives from that. The "younger, hipper" audience probably couldn't care less what IBMA thinks of "newgrass" or "fringe grass" or whatever-you-call-it bands. And, honestly, there are a helluva lot of bluegrass fans who like listening to bluegrass-related-or-derived styles -- Dawg music, jam-grass, the Fleck-Tones or Punch Brothers, etc. -- and will go to the Stringdusters' shows and buy their recordings even if they can't showcase at IBMA any more.

I think seeking approval from the guardians of the "trad" BG flame, for whatever heretical twist one is putting on Mr. Monroe's music, is a wild goose chase. If you want old-line bluegrass fans to like you, play old-line bluegrass -- which can be a very exciting and satisfying music for many people. However, taking this path does limit a band's options for "crossover" acceptance. We look at bands like AKUS, Ricky Skaggs, etc., that have undoubted bluegrass creds and chops, but have chosen to try to attract audiences outside the bluegrass niche. Some of us hate that, and say so. Others might prefer a more "trad" approach, but understand both the creative and innovative aspirations of musicians, and the realities of the music business, that reward performers who appeal to a broad spectrum of listeners.

Purity, and strict adherence to traditional forms, can be very appealing, but it definitely sets limits that "cramp" a lot of musicians. And food must be put on the table. And, frankly, there are lot of young, very competent musicians, expert in traditional styles and repertoire, who might feel more comfortable playing for a young audience in a "rock" venue, than for a bunch of older, more sedate bluegrass fans in a festival tent. And they might get paid more, too.

* One of my late father-in-law's favorite sayings.

[SincereCorgi]

That being said, where should the boundaries be drawn? I hate to come back to it, but if Mumford and Sons are considered bluegrass, then why not Arcade Fire? Should Sufjan Stevens be marketed as a bluegrass artist because he occasionally uses a banjo? How about the low-fi synthesizer indie pop band Magnetic Fields? They occasionally use a banjo, and they recorded an album of eight-track songs in the early '90s that were intended to be a take on country music using only a drum machine and a cheap synthesizer. Brad Paisley is a terrific flatpicker - should bluegrass try to market him and his music as bluegrass? The Avetts honestly sound more like an alt-country act these days, so should the IBMA start booking Wilco for the awards show and call them a bluegrass band?

Thanks for writing this Alex, it's what's been rattling around in my head. I saw the Avetts on Austin City Limits the other night... they do a good show but what they do doesn't seem any closer to bluegrass than it does to, say, trad jazz. Same for Mumford and Sons- my sister gave me their CD because 'you like bluegrass', but it struck me as sounding more like the Arcade Fire than anything else. I guess a banjo and western shirt is enough to get you branded bluegrass for casual listeners?

(Incidentally, it's a fantasy of mine that Charm of the Highway strip would get covered in its entirety by, say, Willie Nelson. Drum machine or no, that's a great country album.)

[mandopete]

Pete - I loved BG Ramble on KBCS the years I lived in Seattle! I should see if they are on-line too.

Availble on the internets at www.kbcs.fm - both live and streaming!

[TonyP]

Taking Scott's hint, I looked up the IBMA website, and guessed what he was talking about was the President's message,http://www.ibma.org/Articles/ViewArt...ticleId=996239

I can see by that, where Chris's article comes from. But he's really holding his cards close to his chest. I guess rightly so, as the IBMA seems to working closely with polls to guide them. While I can see that as prudent, it remains to be seen how that whole chunk of data is interpreted or what it reveals.

I've been on several sides of this, being on a board of a bluegrass association, privy to the behind the scenes of selection committee's/festival organizers and a performing band. And depending on which view you have, each of which is drastically different, I don't have a clue how you'd make that "big tent".

In a certain way, it's amazing anything gets done So trying to steer something that I think is pretty decentralized, factionalized, with a raging controversy as to what it really is......wow.

[Mandolin Mick]

"But pigs will fly before they can change opinions in bluegrass."

Thanx Scott!!! I'm glad to hear it from you!!!