Thursday, May 30, 2013
Over the course of the research I have done this quarter I have found out a lot of new information and a lot of new and interesting views on how to see the bluegrass culture and how bluegrass operates in its culture. I just recently did a quick search on wikipedia for Bill Monroe and I found that, after I had learned of Arnold Schultz, that there was only a small blurb on the wikipedia entry saying that Schultz was an important influence on Bill Monroe, but that there was no further elaboration on Schultz and no more mention of him in the article. So, I think that the racial influence in bluegrass might have some effect on why people prefer a traditional style versus a newer bluegrass style. In addition to the racial issues, which I haven't looked much into, the reverence in which that people hold bluegrass here in San Diego also seems to have influence on people whether they feel bluegrass should stay traditional or incorporate other musical styles. I think that there is also a certain feeling of ownership when people discover bluegrass for themselves, and some people feel that keeping it traditional is keeping bluegrass true to the way they feel it is authentic, often in the form they discover it. Another one of the concerns of the people who are traditionalists, is that keeping the music of bluegrass traditional will help to keep the tradition alive, sometimes feeling that the more progressive style loses some of the old tradition, whether it is the oral tradition or other stylistic elements that define bluegrass. In general the progressive bluegrass musicians, and this is a view I now hold myself, feel that it is within the style of bluegrass to continue to bring other influences into the music and to break away from the repetitive and somewhat restrictive format of traditional bluegrass music. I personally feel that keeping the traditional bluegrass ways around is important, as everything that people play in bluegrass has a foundation in the traditional. I remember hearing someone say at a festival once, that someone had to have played the standard licks first and made them standards, and we build off of those conventions in bluegrass. Bluegrass is a living culture and to attempt to keep it 'pure' or exactly like it was back in the 1940s doesn't really hold to how cultures work or hold true to the spirit in which bluegrass was born. I doubt that the views of traditionalists will change, but I'm glad to know that most of the progressive bluegrass musicians embrace the old while accepting the new, because I feel that if bluegrass is to survive that it will need to continue to grow and develop, just like any other culture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I learned a great deal about some of the history of Bluegrass after your presentation. It was nice to know its roots and some of the developments within the music and it makes more sense after hearing you play the music itself, especially in the traditional bluegrass set up.
ReplyDeleteI still can't get over the Punch Bros. example you played during your presentation and how that is an example of the progressive bluegrass that has developed out of the traditional methods; it doesn't even sound remotely similar to the traditional, even the voice quality (Punch Bros. sounds more like Mumford and Sons as opposed to the signature Bluegrass voice which the term eludes me at the moment). For their music, I don't know what I would classify it as, but I'm certain I wouldn't call it Bluegrass. After seeing how far bluegrass has progressed, I'm really interested in seeing where it can go from here and the reception it receives within the bluegrass community.
I like your point about Mumford and Sons, I suppose I never really thought about exactly what genre they would be classified under, but based on instrumentation (a banjo and gravely vocal style) they definitely have some bluegrass influence, but are well within our widely encompassing popular music genre.
DeleteI agree with Jordan about the Punch Bros. perceived sound as more akin to say folk-rock or Mumford-esque 'Americana' or whatnot, but I am a little more hesitant on the idea that it isn't Bluegrass. Classification is always going to be difficult (a concept we've exhausted in this class in particular) but I think that Punch Bros. may be 'Prog Bluegrass' if that's how they identify themselves, as modern Jazz today may not sound like the jazz of the 1920s, or Western Art Music by Stockhausen might not sound AnYthing like Handel.
DeleteI've always seen you (Brent) with your Mandolin around CPMC & hear that you are an excellent musician - it was neat hearing you talk about the music you love & getting your insight on the genre (especially since I don't know many bluegrass musicians or enthusiasts).
I really knew nothing about bluegrass before your presentation, so seeing its development from beginning to now was really interesting. What you say about how the bluegrass enthusiasts have a sense of ownership over the music and preserving its traditions is also really interesting, especially after how you mentioned in class about how the original bluegrass wasn't even called bluegrass and had a sense of ownership to it as well. I believe this sense of ownership of fans over the music they enjoy is particularly common amongst musical genres that traverse the less traveled road. Musics such as bluegrass, folk, other things not mainstream, give off a sense of "purity" and natural curiosity when one discovers them. Because coming to love these musics feels less forced than commercialized mainstream musics, these people feel a sense of duty to preserve what it is they love about it like you said. However, also like you were saying, as a culture, it is something that must change over time. And just because certain music styles are not quite as mainstream as others, this is not truly reflective of how they existed years ago so forcing a deviation to prevent a shift towards mainstream-ness is in a way "unnatural" to the flow of a culture. Like one of my interviewees said, "it's important to know where you came from to go forward". I think this sums up understanding the traditions and roots to keep a culture moving forward, not just in bluegrass and music, but pretty much for everything else in life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jordan as I also felt that from the video you showed us, the Punch Brosthers seemed more to be a folky "popular" style with bluegrass influence (seemingly mostly in instrumentation than anything else) than the other way around and I wonder if that's how those of the more traditional bluegrass style feel. Rather than truly progressing the bluegrass style, they may think that it is "selling out" the tradition in favor of others. I can't say for sure obviously, but you also showed us a pretty drastic difference. It could have been evolved from a slow implementation of other genres until most of the stylistic bluegrass characteristics seem gone.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, it's unrealistic to not expect experimentation with any genre. A genre will remain static if there are no progressives and potentially be left behind. There will always be traditionalists, but as a culture we also value creativity. I find it interesting that it went that route as jazz and classical headed toward experimentation in the avant-garde(but of course, the Punch Brothers is only one example).
I also very much enjoyed your presentation on bluegrass! It was interesting to learn what would be considered bluegrass and how the instrumental make up and peoples' perceptions in the scene is how that music could be considered bluegrass. As with Jordan I also enjoyed the punch bros. music, there was something about it that connected it to the traditional bluegrass yet seemed separate from it at the same time.
ReplyDeleteSince you mentioned the Punch Brothers earlier this quarter as one of your favorite Bluegrass artists, I have started listening to them and am quite a fan of the music. It's also led me to dig deeper into the genre of bluegrass and listen to different artists within the scene. I feel as though the comparison with Mumford and Sons that Jordan brought up was pretty spot-on. I wouldn't be surprised if they get deemed as "folk" in the same way that Mumford and Of Monsters and Men are. For this reason, I would imagine that the traditional style of bluegrass will always stay the same while progressive bluegrass will eventually grow into something that is hardly recognizable. Folk music has not been lost because Mumford has won several grammys and is essentially every other play on the radio. Mumford is simply a more popular and marketable form of folk music, as is Punch Brothers for bluegrass.
ReplyDeleteI think you made your points during your presentation very successfully and I learned a lot about a style of music I had very minimal prior knowledge of. I appreciate that the terminology and logical paths you chose were well suited for your audience of largely western music listeners/western art musicians which enhanced the accessibility of the information. The notion of learning "traditional" style/technique/licks and then adopting other styles is not unlike western art musicians learning classical scales/repertoire/practices before venturing out into other styles of music (jazz, theater etc.) and building off these initial skills. Musicals, to my mind, are poppy versions of classical music, as progressive bluegrass could be looked at compared to standard tunes.
ReplyDeleteBased on what we discussed in class about what actually constitutes bluegrass, namely the technique and song form, I find it hard to understand how bluegrass can really progress and still be bluegrass. These parameters of what bluegrass is are pretty strict, so anything else that steers away from this would just be bluegrass inspired. I guess I ask you as an insider: how do you define "bluegrass" that is outside of these parameters?
ReplyDeleteI think while the song form holds some importance and that it is a marker of bluegrass it doesn't define the music as bluegrass. You bring up a good point, though, and I think the answer is a mix between what you call the music and how the instruments are played in progressive bluegrass. I personally prefer the term Newgrass as opposed to progressive bluegrass, because it separates the two different ways of playing much better than progressive bluegrass does and I think that a lot of people look at bluegrass and progressive bluegrass as two different styles off music, one heavily influenced by the other. For the video of the Punch Brothers I would call our progressive bluegrass, because the instrumentation and the style of playing. The connections between the traditional style of playing and the newer style presented are more apparent If you have been In the tradition longer, for example, the off beat chop played in the mandolin is straight out of the traditional style. I think that the strictness of the parameters in bluegrass is more so the view of the traditionalist perspective, and that progressive bluegrass musicians see bluegrass as a more fluid form or even as a starting point to develop something new. So I think that the answer is really unclear and that many people will have many different opinions. Personally, I would define music that falls outside of the parameters as progressive bluegrass, because of the hold overs of traditional bluegrass that make it recognizable, but I think that the word progressive is there to signify the break from the traditions that define what bluegrass is.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I wasn't able to make it to presentations that day, I do have a few thoughts and questions about bluegrass music and some of the things you talk about.
ReplyDeleteYou mention that there is a struggle between traditionalists and those who want to modernize the music by adding different influences or what not. My question to you is what makes certain bluegrass music "authentic" versus those that are "inauthentic"? Furthermore, if bluegrass music is one that is born from another genre (i.e. folk, blues, etc.) can it even be "authentic"? I think the idea of authenticity is a fraud argument that doesn't make much sense. I feel as though progressive bluegrass players should be free to include whatever other influences in the music they feel is necessary. Breaking from a so called tradition is generally looked down upon in the music community in particular, but I think its a mistake.
I feel you've made a really good connection to the idea that people feel that the traditional is usually in the form they have learned it in or what they feel is the most authentic. If feel that this is an idea that can be found in many musics, including my topic.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most interesting concepts I found within your presentation had to do with the language when describing bluegrass. It seemed as though bluegrass is a very much developing genre, or maybe growing is a better word than developing. The ideas of new bluegrass or progressive bluegrass and it being specifically named different than that of bluegrass or traditional bluegrass. Is this due to style, instrumentation, tune type or something to that effect? Are they drastically different? I don't know much about bluegrass in general so these are just some things I was thinking of when you mentioned these different terms. I think it would be interesting to look into exactly what makes each one different and where these names/descriptions came from (if that's possible to find...).
It was really interesting to learn about bluegrass and its roots. This was a style that I hadn't been interested in learning, but after hearing the last video you played, I realized a lot of my favorite music has bluegrass influence in it.
ReplyDeleteYour presentation also made me think about how music changes and compare it to other styles of music. Do you think people were as upset when other style (like Western Art Music) started to change through time? I know there was protests in the churches but do you think it would have been the same for the secular music?