"Every time they define old time, I die a little"...  Time for an INTERMISSION FOLKS!: https://youtu.be/b3tdLTpDJpA

My purpose in starting the thread was to suggest a method of definition for the genre of Old Time. I linked the piece about jazz because it showed three different approaches toward definition, explaining in great depth the strengths and weaknesses of each. I liked the idea of looking at Old Time through that lens, so I started the thread to do just that.

As I mentioned, it seems to me that my father’s idea of family resemblances is the one that most aligns with overall public perception, both in jazz and in Old Time. As much as I share my father’s enthusiasm for Wittgenstein, however, I lean more toward the strict definition approach when it comes to Old Time. This is what I’m suggesting as a way to bring more cohesion into a genre that seems to be woefully discombobulated.

Since I’ve been asked for a definition, this is what I’d suggest:

Old Time is a nostalgic form of American rural music that grew out of fiddling traditions that were imported through settlement primarily from the Scots-Irish and English (and to some degree from the Germans, Polish, and French), then modified by the reinterpretation through a West African influence, then reinterpreted by rural communities and then played in relative isolation for roughly a century.

In the early 1920s musicians began to record music that paid homage to this tradition by making recordings that could be widely distributed to an audience that was completely unaware of its existence. Because of its novelty, record companies sought a name for this style by which to market it to the public, and eventually the term “Old Time” caught on. It remains the name today. Recordings of this music were made in significant quantities and to moderate public demand until the 1940s, at which time a transition occurred where players sought a more performative and faster-paced style that became known as Bluegrass. Players of Old Time music today distinguish it from Country and Bluegrass music, pointing to its earlier origins and stylistic differences.

Old Time music is typically led by the fiddle, as most of the early music was derived from fiddle tunes, and because the tradition can be traced back to a time in which only a fiddler was needed to accompany a dance. With the African influence, the banjo became a popular accompaniment instrument, and later, the guitar was added. By the advent of the recorded era that came to define Old Time, it had become common for the music to be played in groups, using the available instrumentation (including various types of basses, the cello, the harmonica, the occasional use of a percussion instrument, and eventually the mandolin and dulcimer). As it follows in the footsteps of older fiddling traditions, it also prioritizes the dance for its syntax. Many of the bands that recorded were led by a fiddler, often named after him as well. Because the fiddle played such a vital role, fiddlers often played unaccompanied and competitions for fiddlers were established, following the pre-existing American tradition of the fiddling contest.

Tunes tend to have a simple structure designed for ease of transmission and ability to be aligned with dancers. Some variation is considered acceptable, although pure improvisation is frowned upon.

During the Folk Revival period of the 1960s, a number of people began to take an interest in Old Time music and sought out musicians who were still alive and playing the music. Having spent time with the older players, they established themselves as the heirs to the music and began to record their own renditions. In time they established the practices of playing in public jam sessions and transmitting the tune repertoire through workshop attendance. These two practices have given rise to stylistic changes that differentiate them substantially from the music of the early recorded era.

A fine summation!

...but by implication you also seem to feel something currently happening is threatening the tradition, is that right? You want your defination to protect against some corrosive influence?

Uh-oh...you hit another trigger with me...Wittgenstein! Ok...so we all have our pet peeves, right? That's ok, but we can't force our own pet peeves on somebody else and stop them from enjoying being who they are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Wood

...but by implication you also seem to feel something currently happening is threatening the tradition, is that right? You want your defination to protect against some corrosive influence?

---

Something along those lines, although I want to be clear that I'm not against the music that's being played currently. I think some of my comments have been interpreted as though I'm saying people should stop what they're doing, but my interest is not in changing playing styles but rather in defining what's being played for the sake of clarity and of historical preservation of what I believe encompasses the style of Old Time. 
 

When I was first introduced to fiddle music as a child, no one ever used the term Old Time. The music was just called fiddle music, clogging music, or barndance music. I didn't come to know of Appalachian fiddling until we moved to Virginia when I was nine and I started to hear about Appalachian fiddling from a professional fiddler. Even he didn't really use the term Old Time (at least as far as I can recall), but he also wasn't an Old-Time specific player (he played multiple fiddle styles and a bit of blues/jazz). It was only when I was in high school and college that I began to really hear the term used.

While I was in college, a bass player and a drummer from a jazz trio asked me to play fiddle along with a harmonica player/singer and we played music that I would say in retrospect was in keeping with the Old Time tradition (we didn't really think about it at the time,  although the harmonica player was very much into the idea of looking the part of a 1920s Southern gentleman).  We didn't listen to anything for reference but rather picked a few tunes (predominantly of Irish origin) that were sure to please a crowd and played them for events on and off campus.

After college, I was invited to play in a couple Old Time bands while working as an apprentice to a violin maker. In these groups we would be given reference recordings for listening to get some ideas and then we worked on our own renditions in rehearsal before shows. This was a much more conscious focus on Old Time style and it felt very much in keeping with it at the time and still does looking back. It wasn't slavish copying, but I think it fit the spirit of the style.

A while after moving to the DC area, I decided to folllow my great-great-grandfather's tradition of having a jam for fiddlers after the shop closed every so often. I was put in touch with the players in the area and got a jam started. Since then, I've played in lots of the jams put on by members of the group monthly as well as some other local jams and jams at conventions. I've quite enjoyed them.

But I've noticed something very striking at Old Time jams--the tunes are the same, but the sound and style seem to be different, and perhaps because of the setup of jamming vs. playing for audiences, the feel is very different from what I hear in old recordings. That isn't to say one is superior, just that they don't seem to me to fit in the same category, like a performance of "Mackie Messer"  from Kurt Weill's score as opposed to a big band style "Mack the Knife."

As I've heard people use the terms "festival style" and "workshop style" in recent years, it's made me think that there's a sentiment among many players that the style is morphing, and I read a lot of comments here about newer players not sounding like older ones. Of course some of that might just be people saying the cliche "They just don't make them like they used to anymore" as a knee jerk reaction to the passage of time, but I hear comments about a shift enough and from a wide enough age range to think there's more to it. So then it follows naturally to ask:

"What is Old Time?"

"How do we preserve it if it seems to be losing identity?"

I think the only reason this is an issue is because we have a reference point to look at for comparison (the recordings). But that is a snapshot - not the definition. I don't think it is correct for us judge how today's version of yesterday's music compares with yesterday music? . As idf to say: "..if it is not exactly the same - or at least trying to be the same, then it cannot (or should not) be called the same. ". I get it. But we are going to use that as our measuring stick  - then we ought to at least be willing to acknowledge a few facts: "Yesterday's" old time - probably didn't sound much like the "day before yesterday's" old time. And "yesterday's" old time in each region's "old time" was uniquely different from all the other regional "old time". AND - even the fiddlers in the same region - ALL made a conscious effort to sound different than every other fiddler. The goal was always aimed at playing fancier and having their own rendition of the common tunes the competed with. Their perceived need was to find ways set their fiddling apart.  And when we consider the truth in those ideas - we recognize we are attempting to define old time fiddling in a way that was diametrically opposed to what old time actually was - historically.  

So, how could we define the old time genre? I think it has more to do with the tunes themselves.  ...not the players or their style of playing, when they lived, or where they lived. I think "old time" is really more about the community of musicians that gets created when individuals get together to play these old tunes in any setting - regardless of the time or place - as long as there is a "nod" being given to the where the tunes came from and who played them / or whose version you learned to play.  That's what keeps the tradition alive  more than anything else. We can call it a genre of music, but maybe it's not a genre of music at all. Maybe it is just the name we give to our desire to play those tunes / songs best we can - more than it is about a maintaining a hard and fast set of rules - pretending that is the tradition we are protecting - "it has to be played this way in order to qualify".

I don't think there really are any rules - except - for me - the music being played needs to have the same elements of appeal as it did "yesterday" and the "day-before-yesterday":  Old Time is: what's being played, why, and how? And that being:  tunes and songs taken from the collection we call "old time", played in a way draws the player or players into as "unified sum of parts" while playing - and makes the audience feel that are included in the experience.  And - that will be different - in different places, and it will continue to change through the years - and can still be called old time. Old time is just where it came from - not what it is. 

"I don't know what it is, but I know it when I hear it."

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

I think the only reason this is an issue is because we have a reference point to look at for comparison (the recordings). But that is a snapshot - not the definition. I don't think it is correct for us judge how today's version of yesterday's music compares with yesterday music? . As idf to say: "..if it is not exactly the same - or at least trying to be the same, then it cannot (or should not) be called the same. ". I get it. But we are going to use that as our measuring stick  - then we ought to at least be willing to acknowledge a few facts: "Yesterday's" old time - probably didn't sound much like the "day before yesterday's" old time. And "yesterday's" old time in each region's "old time" was uniquely different from all the other regional "old time". AND - even the fiddlers in the same region - ALL made a conscious effort to sound different than every other fiddler. The goal was always aimed at playing fancier and having their own rendition of the common tunes the competed with. Their perceived need was to find ways set their fiddling apart.  And when we consider the truth in those ideas - we recognize we are attempting to define old time fiddling in a way that was diametrically opposed to what old time actually was - historically.  

So, how could we define the old time genre? I think it has more to do with the tunes themselves.  ...not the players or their style of playing, when they lived, or where they lived. I think "old time" is really more about the community of musicians that gets created when individuals get together to play these old tunes in any setting - regardless of the time or place - as long as there is a "nod" being given to the where the tunes came from and who played them / or whose version you learned to play.  That's what keeps the tradition alive  more than anything else. We can call it a genre of music, but maybe it's not a genre of music at all. Maybe it is just the name we give to our desire to play those tunes / songs best we can - more than it is about a maintaining a hard and fast set of rules - pretending that is the tradition we are protecting - "it has to be played this way in order to qualify".

I don't think there really are any rules - except - for me - the music being played needs to have the same elements of appeal as it did "yesterday" and the "day-before-yesterday":  Old Time is: what's being played, why, and how? And that being:  tunes and songs taken from the collection we call "old time", played in a way draws the player or players into as "unified sum of parts" while playing - and makes the audience feel that are included in the experience.  And - that will be different - in different places, and it will continue to change through the years - and can still be called old time. Old time is just where it came from - not what it is. 

"I don't know what it is, but I know it when I hear it."

---

All of this just obfuscates everything further needlessly. You're essentially saying that Old Time is different every day but somehow still consistent because of the community playing it, which really doesn't make any sense. And you're saying that Old Time draws the audience into the music, which also makes no sense now that the listener demographic for the music is increasingly confined to the players, as jams have become much more common than dances or performances. I went to Galax again a few years ago for the Old Fiddlers' convention and was shocked to see how poorly it was attended. The owner of the local fiddle shop told me that almost no one cares about the individual competition anymore and that only the band competition gets much attention. That being said, most of the players are more interested in the jamming they do outside the competition than in the event. The event has shrunk so much since I last attended that I'm not sure if it will be worth going in the future.

To focus on the social gathering as the definition means to ignore the music itself. You say it's about the gathering but then that it's about the tunes. It can't be both if you're trying to simplify it so much. And the tune aren't even all the same tunes anyway, so that's another hole in the logic.

If there are no rules then there is really no definition to the music and we might as well call a lot of current pop music Old Time. After all, it's more about the communal aspect than the music itself (you go to the concerts to be there, not really to listen closely to the music), it's often directly referential to older music without being the same entirely, and it changes all the time while still being identified as pop. Are Taylor Swift and Mabel Carter really doing the same thing?

And to say the music is "where it came from, not what it is" really makes its meaning indecipherable. If you say "it's Irish, Scottish, English, African, German, Polish, French music," that really doesn't tell you at all what the music actually sounds like. There are so many ways those national styles of music could be combined, and you're missing the fact that these styles came together at a certain point in history and in their own histories. Putting a marker down in time helps to make sense of the meeting of the styles. Just saying "Irish music" doesn't give you the kind of useful information that "18th and 19th century Irish fiddle music" does for studying the origins of Old Time. And I don't think it makes sense to say it's just the places it came from because I think it's the combination of those styles at a point in time that makes for the origin story. And I think it makes far more sense to establish a point in time at which the style became codified. Therefore, the music before the recorded era is what inspired Old Time but is identifiable as separate because it predates the recordings and becomes less formed as a single style the further back you look. 
 

The comparison to the famous quote about obscenity is apt here, but for different reasons. As in that case, the definition was not found to be useful (it was found to be far too problematic and was eventually replaced by a stricter definition). The "I know it when I see it" type of attitude is lampooned perfectly in "The Music Man" through the character of Mayor Shin's wife. My mother once put on a display at the library where she works about this kind of thing by displaying books that had been "censored" by patrons who removed "offensive pages" or crossed out words they didn't like, or even wrote in alternatives that they found appropriate. The last thing I would want to do would be to extend that kind of unreason to Old Time. 

Well...you mentioned Wittgenstein, and seems to me we could translate some of his ideas from language to music. Sort of musical relativism, maybe? I think that would make for some interesting arguments for creativity and artistic license.

old time music is "nostalgic"? eeeeek. all of the fiddlers and musicians i knew/know in the mountains really didn't/don't see what they did/do as "nostalgic". it's a living tradition. never died. never needed revival or onlookers to definite it.

it is something that has lasted because people love it. the art. the beauty. the joy of it. and no mention of the ballad/singing tradition. old time music is a lot more than just fiddling. i don't think the summation has improved any definitions i've already seen and includes some typical assertions that have been repeated over and over ....and debunked...like the banjo coming after the fiddle and typical "isolation " mythology. id suggest looking at some of clifton hicks work on banjo traditions. i don't mean to be harsh, it just isn't accurate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShawnCraver

old time music is "nostalgic"? eeeeek. all of the fiddlers and musicians i knew/know in the mountains really didn't/don't see what they did/do as "nostalgic". it's a living tradition. never died. never needed revival or onlookers to definite it.

it is something that has lasted because people love it. the art. the beauty. the joy of it. and no mention of the ballad/singing tradition. old time music is a lot more than just fiddling. i don't think the summation has improved any definitions i've already seen and includes some typical assertions that have been repeated over and over ....and debunked...like the banjo coming after the fiddle and typical "isolation " mythology. id suggest looking at some of clifton hicks work on banjo traditions. i don't mean to be harsh, it just isn't accurate.

---

The players who stayed isolated in the mountains and kept playing the same music would not fit the definition of Old Time I'm proposing. The nostalgia refers specifically to the type of music that was recorded and promoted by record companies, not various field recordings taken of fiddlers in rural settings. I would give the actual rural playing a different name, perhaps American fiddling.

I did discuss ballad singing earlier, but I did not put it into this definition because, as I said, the tradition comes primarily from the fiddle. In addition to that, it's important to remember that the ballad tradition is not always even considered a part of Old Time; it's sometimes referred to as folk ballad singing instead.
 

The banjo may have existed in various early forms in Africa before it was combined with fiddle for playing music, but the fiddle tunes it was eventually used to accompany were already in existence before it was added. History is full of accounts of fiddlers playing unaccompanied and being dancing masters before the banjo appeared in America. The tunes were written for the fiddle, sometimes with a bass line added (not a banjo line) for accompaniment.

I don't understand how you can suggest there wasn't a revival of Old Time or that a definition wasn't necessary. The name for the genre was invented precisely for those who were unfamiliar with the music and it by its own very nature denotes nostalgia. The purpose of the showmanship surrounding the music was to set the scene for an audience to imagine a rural musical event that had already become archaic. 

There's that isolation myth again...

I think maybe take a class and write an academic paper?

That way one could present the theories, assertions, and ideas with structured oversight one might respect.

But sticking this stuff out informally in the living tradition ... I don't think it is going to go well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShawnCraver

There's that isolation myth again...

I think maybe take a class and write an academic paper?

That way one could present the theories, assertions, and ideas with structured oversight one might respect.

But sticking this stuff out informally in the living tradition ... I don't think it is going to go well.

---

What makes you think it's a myth? I have to wonder at the sources of information you're using to arrive at such an outlandish conclusion. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by groundhogpeggy

Well...you mentioned Wittgenstein, and seems to me we could translate some of his ideas from language to music. Sort of musical relativism, maybe? I think that would make for some interesting arguments for creativity and artistic license.

---

Did you not read the linked article in the original post? The family resemblances approach did exactly what you just described already. 

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful    (call and answer)

All of this just obfuscates everything further needlessly. You're essentially saying that Old Time is different every day but somehow still consistent because of the community playing it, which really doesn't make any sense.

It doesn’t make sense when your approach to discovering what “old time” means is limited to isolating minute details in a way that freezes out everything else that might need to be included. But it makes perfect sense when you consider the fact that there were hundreds of recordings made - in several regions, where the styles of playing these tunes were different and so was the rendition of the tune. So, now you are faced with having to define what area and what particular fiddler in that area is “the definition” of “old time”.  I don’t think you would ever get a consensus on any of those issues ....popular or academic. 

You can define it how you want to. What I have described is not intended to isolate details to define old time - but to describe what it means to folks who play it.  The definition you are wanting, is going to eliminate a huge chunk of folks who are considered “old time” fiddlers. There wouldn’t be very many left at all. In some ways  - and in literal terms - you would end up with zero  - except the one you say who defines it.

That’s kind of like saying that the F5 Gibson from 1935 by Loyd Loar is the definition of a mandolin. And if you don’t play one, you aren’t a mandolin player.

And you're saying that Old Time draws the audience into the music, which also makes no sense now that the listener demographic for the music is increasingly confined to the players,

And this sounds like you are attempting to divorce old time music from the purpose of it being played. You are ignoring its place in the community. Your aiming at documenting old time music as an academic discipline for the purpose of presenting a museum piece for future study and not for enjoyment. Static, not living.

“...as jams have become much more common than dances or performances. “

When has that ever NOT been the case?  Perhaps your classical background is peeking out a little here?

I went to Galax again a few years ago for the Old Fiddlers' convention and was shocked to see how poorly it was attended. The owner of the local fiddle shop told me that almost no one cares about the individual competition anymore and that only the band competition gets much attention. That being said, most of the players are more interested in the jamming they do outside the competition than in the event. The event has shrunk so much since I last attended that I'm not sure if it will be worth going in the future.

What does any of that have to do with the definition of old time?  Whether you go or not is your choice. I am guilty. The main reason I go to old time festivals / gathering is more to play than listen. Listening to the pro’s performance and attending workshops - for me - is secondary. The same was true for bluegrass festivals - when I performed at those festivals.  You are not describing a new phenomenon.  

To focus on the social gathering as the definition means to ignore the music itself. You say it's about the gathering but then that it's about the tunes. It can't be both if you're trying to simplify it so much. And the tune aren't even all the same tunes anyway, so that's another hole in the logic.

I can’t believe you are making these arguments.  “It can’t be both.”  Seriously?   “...the tune aren't even all the same tunes anyway”  ...oh, and they were the same “back then” - everywhere you went everyone played the same tunes - the same way - and they only played for dances or performances - never informally when friends gathered together on a front porch or living room.  OK...
 

If there are no rules then there is really no definition to the music and we might as well call a lot of current pop music Old Time.

Strawman.  I said “...tunes and songs taken from the collection we call "old time"”.  That doesn’t even rhyme with “pop”. But - you know - in reality, it’s not beyond belief - to think there are some pop tunes that could be played with fiddle, banjo, etc - and in a style that is reminiscent of the old time tunes. We did a few pop tunes that way in our bluegrass band. Worked well. Not everyone “liked it” - but not “everyone” is ever going to like everything you do.

And to say the music is "where it came from, not what it is" really makes its meaning indecipherable.

Old?Time has never been a single, uniform sound, so defining it by a fixed sonic template will always collapse under its own exceptions. The only thing that actually holds steady across all the variation is where the music comes from and the continuity of the practice itself. Any stylistic definition will eventually fail at the edges, but the lineage of the tunes and the ongoing tradition of playing them together never does.

There are so many ways those national styles of music could be combined, and you're missing the fact that these styles came together at a certain point in history and in their own histories.

Maybe the idea is - that old time has never really had a “certain point in history”. And perhaps it is a bit arrogant to suggest that it has and you are the one - now at this point - who can finally identified what that point is.  If - after all the musicologists and university class studies have digested the history up until now - and have not given us a definition that suits you yet - what makes us think that we can do what they haven’t?

Putting a marker down in time helps to make sense of the meeting of the styles.

The names of musicians best known for their performance has been the traditional way of marking “styles” - as you have suggested. And - if there is a reason to - that can be identified by / associated with a time period and location.

Therefore, the music before the recorded era is what inspired Old Time but is identifiable as separate because it predates the recordings and becomes less formed as a single style the further back you look. 

HA.... so what shall we call it then?  The “older time”?  ...the “older old time”?  ...”pre-old time”?  ...”the time before old time”? And - if the collection of tunes make up both eras - how would you define the tunes then?  “Old time” when they were recorded - but “older old time” when we find the same tune in a music book that pre-dates “old time”?   

You make a few assumptions here that have no support. You are assuming the “pre-old time” fiddling had no identifiable style - BUT - then you say it was the source of inspiration for “old time” genre. So, it sounds ljke you are suggesting the “old time” fiddlers were somehow inspired to play the same tunes - but in a new and  different style - in order to create this new “old time” genre. And that all the recordings were made incorporating this new sound - universally - by all the fiddlers everywhere in this new singlar style.  They all played the same old tunes - in a new and different way -  and they all played them / recorded them - in this new different “old time style” - the same way. I KNOW you don’t believe that, but that sounds like what you are saying.

 

Just going by your posts here on OT and also on who should use the sound off forum and for what reason, I was assuming you were coming at it from more of an absolutist perspective than relativism. Ok, if I've got that wrong, my bad...but i'm not getting it. Also, I've toyed with the idea that maybe you just had a pet peeve that would grind on your nerves...but now I think your only pet peeve seems to be FHO itself, its membership and general discussion. Sorry, not trying to play armchair professional at anything here, but my take is you are toying with FHO members just for fun. Do you play the fiddle/violin? I've wanted to hear you play but don't think I've ever had the opportunity to hear anything you've shared. If you are just here to get your kicks, I wish I had more time for it myself...lol...but it's really hard for me to even write one sentence...I have huge obligations I need to tend to. So...I honestly can't make sense out of most of what you've posted, not as to how it relates to OT or the sound off forum, either one. But I gotta run for now...it's getting more and more difficult for me to take part in anything or do anything much at all. Hope I didn't offend anyonewith this post...if I did, please forgive me....just an effort to sort through whatever it is we are talkin' 'bout...lol.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

It doesn’t make sense when your approach to discovering what “old time” means is limited to isolating minute details in a way that freezes out everything else that might need to be included. But it makes perfect sense when you consider the fact that there were hundreds of recordings made - in several regions, where the styles of playing these tunes were different and so was the rendition of the tune. So, now you are faced with having to define what area and what particular fiddler in that area is “the definition” of “old time”.  I don’t think you would ever get a consensus on any of those issues ....popular or academic. 

Yes, the recordings came out of several regions. That's precisely why I didn't call it only Appalachian music in my definition. But the recordings happened at a certain time, and while regional styles made for some differences, I would nonetheless say that they all captured the spirit of the genre in a consistent way. Focusing on a time period for identification of the origin of the music is more helpful in my mind than trying to explain it by assigning it to regions first. 

You can define it how you want to. What I have described is not intended to isolate details to define old time - but to describe what it means to folks who play it.  The definition you are wanting, is going to eliminate a huge chunk of folks who are considered “old time” fiddlers. There wouldn’t be very many left at all. In some ways  - and in literal terms - you would end up with zero  - except the one you say who defines it.

That’s kind of like saying that the F5 Gibson from 1935 by Loyd Loar is the definition of a mandolin. And if you don’t play one, you aren’t a mandolin player.

Yes, I'm of the opinion that it would be helpful to give a different name to a lot of music that's called Old Time, but that would not mean eliminating everything. And, while my definition explains the period of time that seems to me to typify the genre, it does not exclude later performances--so long as they are in keeping with the same spirit of the original music.

Using your mandolin example, I'd say you've got it all wrong and that what you're championing is something more along the lines of calling any mandolin that's got the same shape, has a label that says Loar slapped on it, and happens to be played by a group of people a F5 Gibson Loar from 1935, regardless of all other relevant information.
And this sounds like you are attempting to divorce old time music from the purpose of it being played. You are ignoring its place in the community. Your aiming at documenting old time music as an academic discipline for the purpose of presenting a museum piece for future study and not for enjoyment. Static, not living.
I'm not trying to divorce it from purpose--exactly the opposite. Old Time is not a regular part of communities anymore and wasn't (except in some remote isolated areas) even when it was first recorded commercially. I think the purpose of the revival was to reintroduce people to the sense of Old Time culture that the music promoted, but over time, that has veered away from the audience in favor of the player at a jam. This wouldn't automatically be dire if there were enough of an infusion of new players, but that just isn't happening enough, so the problem is only growing. 
When has that ever NOT been the case?  Perhaps your classical background is peeking out a little here?
Using a classical background as though it's a detriment is a tired ploy. Add to that the fact that I've said over and over that I grew up playing fiddle music as well. So my background was never strictly classical as you like to suggest. 

What does any of that have to do with the definition of old time?  Whether you go or not is your choice. I am guilty. The main reason I go to old time festivals / gathering is more to play than listen. Listening to the pro’s performance and attending workshops - for me - is secondary. The same was true for bluegrass festivals - when I performed at those festivals.  You are not describing a new phenomenon.  
The problem is that the listening audience is shrinking and the playing contingent is dying out without being replaced. 

I can’t believe you are making these arguments.  “It can’t be both.”  Seriously?   “...the tune aren't even all the same tunes anyway”  ...oh, and they were the same “back then” - everywhere you went everyone played the same tunes - the same way - and they only played for dances or performances - never informally when friends gathered together on a front porch or living room.  OK...
The jam is a much more modern concept. In the time Old Time reminisces about, music was played for dances or for audiences, not in open jams. The musicians were expected to provide entertainment for others, not just themselves. You misunderstood my point about the tunes. Again, the players didn't all sound the same or play the same tunes, but there was a certain consistency in spirit. 
Strawman.  I said “...tunes and songs taken from the collection we call "old time"”.  That doesn’t even rhyme with “pop”. But - you know - in reality, it’s not beyond belief - to think there are some pop tunes that could be played with fiddle, banjo, etc - and in a style that is reminiscent of the old time tunes. We did a few pop tunes that way in our bluegrass band. Worked well. Not everyone “liked it” - but not “everyone” is ever going to like everything you do. 
Of course you could play a more modern tune in a certain style. Postmodern Jukebox does all kinds of excellent arrangements of modern pop songs in different older styles. But the reason they're able to do it is that the styles all have clear definitions that make it easy to come up with patterns to apply to evoke the sense of the genre. There's a good YouTube video of a piano player from the group explaining how to turn songs into Ragtime by following a few stylistic elements. The fact that this can be done is proof that an academic approach does NOT mean it is static. 

Old?Time has never been a single, uniform sound, so defining it by a fixed sonic template will always collapse under its own exceptions. The only thing that actually holds steady across all the variation is where the music comes from and the continuity of the practice itself. Any stylistic definition will eventually fail at the edges, but the lineage of the tunes and the ongoing tradition of playing them together never does.

If Old Time has never had a sound then it has never actually existed and the term might as well be thrown on the scrap heap. You say where the music originated is what matters but you also admit that it came from multiple places, so we're back to the nonsense of telling people it's a list of different regions. But that has even more problems because you then don't have an answer to the question of which origins count (styles eventually codified in different American regions or the countries that they came from?). Establishing the places that provided source material for the music is great for the study, but it is not enough to define it.

Maybe the idea is - that old time has never really had a “certain point in history”. And perhaps it is a bit arrogant to suggest that it has and you are the one - now at this point - who can finally identified what that point is.  If - after all the musicologists and university class studies have digested the history up until now - and have not given us a definition that suits you yet - what makes us think that we can do what they haven’t?

I think there is already some effort to understand the music better by studying its origins through an examination of the historical periods that influenced it and those that define it. I have suggested my own ideas about a definition because I was repeatedly asked to do so. You're defending academics now to try to undermine my arguments despite the fact that you've called academic consideration static and suggested it is the wrong approach.

The names of musicians best known for their performance has been the traditional way of marking “styles” - as you have suggested. And - if there is a reason to - that can be identified by / associated with a time period and location.

I don't recall suggesting this. I do think that prominent players have a large impact, but I don't think most styles are named after players. Bluegrass isn't a player's name, nor are Blues, Jazz, Old Time, Swing, Ragtime, or Cajun. The only style of music I can think of right off the top of my head that originates directly from a performer is Gregorian chant. I do think certain players in the various genres provide especially good/definitive examples.

HA.... so what shall we call it then?  The “older time”?  ...the “older old time”?  ...”pre-old time”?  ...”the time before old time”? And - if the collection of tunes make up both eras - how would you define the tunes then?  “Old time” when they were recorded - but “older old time” when we find the same tune in a music book that pre-dates “old time”?   

You make a few assumptions here that have no support. You are assuming the “pre-old time” fiddling had no identifiable style - BUT - then you say it was the source of inspiration for “old time” genre. So, it sounds ljke you are suggesting the “old time” fiddlers were somehow inspired to play the same tunes - but in a new and  different style - in order to create this new “old time” genre. And that all the recordings were made incorporating this new sound - universally - by all the fiddlers everywhere in this new singlar style.  They all played the same old tunes - in a new and different way -  and they all played them / recorded them - in this new different “old time style” - the same way. I KNOW you don’t believe that, but that sounds like what you are saying. 

 

I've said that the genre grew out if the combination of several distinct styles that were brought over at certain time periods. Before the term Old Time, I would say that, yes, there was no clear term to describe what was being played. I think people distinguished fiddle music from what was played in concert halls, but it could be one of many different styles. The commercial recordings invited the listener to imagine what music sounded like "back on the old homestead" or "up in the mountains" in times past. To me Old Time was not so much a photorealistic portrait as it was a caricature--certain elements were deliberately exaggerated for the entertainment of the audience. 
 

I don't think we need to use Old Time to define what came before it. What's wrong with terms like early American fiddling, country fiddling (not Country), or just fiddle music? I don't think Scots-Irish and English music is proto-Old-Time; it all has a richness and depth of its own and does not need to be absorbed by the amorphous blob that Old Time is becoming. 

---

Where did you study American traditional culture and musicology, Rich?

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful  

Let me repeat a few things - in a different way (perhaps it will make better sense to you): When the recordings that you are pointing to were made, the musicians were not presenting something new to them. i.e., They hadn’t “invented” a “new sound”. What was recorded were tunes and songs that were typically played by fiddlers - long before they were recorded. The recordings were made with fiddlers playing tunes they had always played, but with the knowledge that they needed to present the tunes as best as they could for the recording. With this in mind: an awareness of an opportunity to be noticed and earn a reputation. That would not be representative of a collective style - and the fiddlers would hope it would not been thought of that way. The collection of all the recordings made during that time did reflect the collection of several fiddling styles over several regions from several individuals that wanted to make a name for themselves. But nothing was “the same” - except for the repertoire. That is the tradition - a collection of common tunes and songs traditionally being passed down before anything was ever recorded - and that tradition continues today. We imitate our favorite fiddlers - because their version of a tune has that appeal - and there is no consensus on who or what that might be for the purpose of defining a whole genre.

Why was it called “old time” when it was being recorded?  The players didn’t call it that, but they didn’t reject it either. Why?  Because it understood - it pointed back to what had come before them. That is where the music they played came from.  And what they played / and the way they played / was not radically different that what the previous generation played.  Go back far enough and there probably are more pronounced differences, but they were (generally speaking) the same tunes.

Bluegrass has the same issues. Is bluegrass limited to Bill Monroe recordings for a definition?  Relative to what is being played today?  Is Rock and Roll limited to Elvis Presley recordings for it’s definiton?  ...and what does it have in common with R&R today? Is Blues limited to Robert Johnson?  Etc.

I understand what you are saying, and I think I understand what you are trying to do. But - imo - it has been tried before with no more success than what should be expected this time around.

Old time music (as a genre) is a continuation of a ritual of playing certain tunes that have a history that transcends the players and styles.  There are common elements, but it can include some exceptions and still remain old time.

Using your example, I'd say you've got it all wrong and that what you're championing is something more along the lines of calling any mandolin that's got the same shape, has a label that says Loar slapped on it, and happens to be played by a group of people a F5 Gibson Loar from 1935, regardless of all other relevant information.

You got it!!! That is exactly my point!  ...EXCEPT: it’s not wrong. It’s only wrong when you say: “you aren’t a mandolin player.”

I'm not trying to divorce it from purpose--exactly the opposite. Old Time is not a regular part of communities anymore and wasn't (except in some remote isolated areas) even when it was first recorded commercially. I think the purpose of the revival was to reintroduce people to the sense of Old Time culture that the music promoted, but over time, that has veered away from the audience in favor of the player at a jam. This wouldn't automatically be dire if there were enough of an infusion of new players, but that just isn't happening enough, so the problem is only growing. 

Old time music has NEVER enjoyed that kind of popularity - nationwide / as a whole. Only in the crooks and crannies of rural America, and now pockets of enthusiasts that have a passion for the music. And the appeal doesn't just come from the music but just as much as from the idea of where it comes from and what it represents. Listen to Peggy go on about her “longing for the time when...”  I don't hear her just talking about the music.  i don't think I've ever heard her "go on" about any the stage performances?  Is she an exception - or is that sentiment pretty much representative?  I think I may enjoy the performances a bit more - but I share here sentiments. 

The problem is that the listening audience is shrinking and the playing contingent is dying out without being replaced. 

I don’t think that is the case at all.  If anything - there are more folks putting on more workshops than before with a wider range of new “instructors”. Now, perhaps you should pay more attention to the instruction and instructors if you want to critic the direction of old time. Who are they?  What is their background in music?  To me - that is a lot of what you are hearing - that you don’t think is genuine. In some cases - that would be a legitimate criticism. But it is stuff geared towards a number of new musicians in large numbers - over a very short itme.  Anyway - the picture is well enough defined without going into deep details. Old time is continuing through their efforts - regardless of motive or other issues. Better that than nothing - imo.

The jam is a much more modern concept. In the time Old Time reminisces about, music was played for dances or for audiences, not in open jams. The musicians were expected to provide entertainment for others, not just themselves. You misunderstood my point about the tunes. Again, the players didn't all sound the same or play the same tunes, but there was a certain consistency in spirit. 

And this was why I made the comment about your classical background peeking through.  Right or wrong: I’m picturing your background - preparing for performances in solitude and attending formally controlled rehearsals - juxtaposed to folks (like Peggy) who prepared for playing at dances and social events while playing songs and tunes they learned from youth - and know from heart after playing with friends and family on the front porch once a week - for years. Those kind of experiences are a WHOLE LOT MORE common  than playing for a dance - or an event. And that would be true for just about every other genre of music too You get invited to perform when you've been recognized for knowing the tunes and being able to “keep up”.  There is a difference in those processes - and that is what i pointed to in my comment. I didn't mean to offend.

If Old Time has never had a sound then it has never actually existed and the term might as well be thrown on the scrap heap. You say where the music originated is what matters but you also admit that it came from multiple places, so we're back to the nonsense of telling people it's a list of different regions. But that has even more problems because you then don't have an answer to the question of which origins count (styles eventually codified in different American regions or the countries that they came from?). Establishing the places that provided source material for the music is great for the study, but it is not enough to define it.

I’m saying that old time cannot be defined by a single sound / style / or event. If that means “it can’t be defined” -  so be it. I’m ok with that. 

I don't think we need to use Old Time to define what came before it.

And yet that is exactly what it has always pointed to. Again, when the term was coined - if it was not in recognition of something new. That term itself points backwards to a time before the tunes were recorded.  The PR was intended to communicate:  “this is a record made of the music that has been being played over a long history in remote communities of our country by folks who still play it. And because it is being recorded - now you can listen, enjoy, and even learn to play these tunes and songs too."

Learning to play the tunes. Not: Learning to play just like Tommy.  If it were the case of learning to play just like Tommy, then your criticism before - about playing "pop” tunes would be true. “If you can play “pop” tunes on your fiddle in the same style of Tommy’s old tine fiddling, then that makes you an old time fiddler.”  

Thank you Rich.

"Tony needs to do a better job of proofing what he writes."

Whew... yes he does!    
 

Old Time is a style that harkens back to music that came before it, but we must keep in mind that
plenty of the tunes were made up at or around the time they were recorded—they weren’t all historical tunes. That doesn’t make them any less part of the style because they were in keeping with the spirit. A fiddler could play a 17th century tune from Scotland, a minstrel show tune from the 1870s, or a brand new tune that was borrowed from Ragtime or early Blues without it clashing because the spirit of the playing was consistent.

I don’t believe that the way that people played music for the commercial recordings was identical to the way they were played before. I think there has long been an assumption that if you dug up a Civil War soldier and pressed him to play, the playing would be the same as it was a century later. And some players would encourage that idea by saying they learned tunes from old soldiers—although sometimes this was a tall tale. Stephen Foster’s music was universally popular during the mid-1800s, and it bears very little resemblance to the music in the Old Time canon.

Again, I see Old Time as a caricature, not a portrait. A good caricature artist has a sense of what traits should be exaggerated to convey something that characterizes the subject meaningfully. There are a number of fine portraits of Sarasate, but there are two caricatures of him that I think capture the essence of the man even better than a photograph. I say this to make clear that I don’t consider caricature a pejorative term.

When I go to jams, I often think about the fact that we’re playing a decent number of tunes that were part of the defining era, but it always strikes me that they don’t sound the same. As I said earlier, when I played in a couple bands, I had the sense that what we were doing was Old Time, even if that included pieces that weren’t part of the repertoire of the early recorded era. I think I would go so far as to say that if a group played entirely new pieces, it still be Old Time if the spirit of the music was captured in its playing. I don’t agree that it’s all about the tunes—they are certainly key to the development of the style, but I think once you can define the style you can “Old Time” a modern tune that lends itself well.

I think the term was coined because a name was needed for something novel. The choice of name was apt because it catered to a general feeling of nostalgia at the time. Now that younger generations are seeking older things out more and more, I see Old Time as a potential haven for them. That’s why I care so much about trying to make sense of it—I want younger players to care about it as much as I do. It frustrates me that it gets written off so easily, but equally so that there are players in the field who seem to want to muddy the waters so that no one can come to any definitive understanding of the music. I’ve seen other genres thrive because of more focused interest. But when there is an attempt to take this approach to Old Time, it’s treated like heresy to give it any thought.

I disagree about the message of the definitive Old Time recordings. I think they were made for entertainment, not for historical preservation. For the latter, there were field recordings and recording sessions conducted by historical institutions like the Smithsonian. Those are meant to show a historical account of American fiddling.

I don’t understand the point about Tommy Jarrell. People learn to play tunes but are criticized if they don’t sound like the definitive player regularly. Go to a jam and play a tune that’s associated with a certain player in a different way and you can expect at least one comment like “That’s a lot different from x’s original version.” And many players speak of wanting to sound like Tommy Jarrell or whoever they like.

just play the damn thing!

"Defining Old Time Through a Comparison with Jazz Definitions "

Comparing Apples to Oranges springs to mind.

Boy, you sure do love speaking in contradictions. Again...I'd love to hear you play. And to know where you acquired all of this study that instigates such eloquent expatiations you share with us. Please share such things with us plebeian back porchers here.