Would you call it “Rhythm and Bluesgrass”. All you need to add is a raunchy tenor sax solo (just a solo) and you’re there. And maybe a sprinkle of cajun style accordion.

Well, Mr. Monroe, found Mr. Schultz, a large part of Monroe's Blues rep.

Y'know, true, there are sensitive folks in each area. Afraid of what? I dunno? But I found, you can't stand there and say, " you mean we gotta play this 12bar three chord crap all day?" I keep it to myself. You've decoded it. Keep it to yourself. Folks will think you're fantastic. To people that don't play music, don't understand it's often simplistic. I get in there and whail. It's fun.

I think there’s a strong connection, although it extends more in one direction than the other; bluegrass was born and continues to be inspired from blues, but blues players are less likely to take inspiration from bluegrass players.

A lot of the pioneers in bluegrass were listening to jazz and blues players when they got started, and some of the repertoire even carried over.

I think it’s reasonable to have bluegrass as a part of a blues festival, especially since in its nascent form bluegrass pays homage to blues.

I would call a Bluegrass band in a Blues Festival a 'novelty'. A 'change of pace'. A 'curiosity'. A lot of people are going to appreciate it for that very reason; a few people are going to disapprove of it for that reason. Whether or not a music festival has a 'theme' - i.e., genre - and they almost always do - most people are there just for the fun of it. Some are drawn by one or two specific acts, but are not necessarily huge fans of the genre in its entirety. Some didn't even want to be there in the first place, and are just relieved to hear anything different from what they've been subjected to for the previous three hours.

As for "sensitive folks" who are "afraid" - I think you'll find that the more 'niche' the genre, the more of those you'll find; they're afraid that eventually they'll get pushed off the little foothold they struggled to get. It's like the Irish-sessioneers who balk if someone launches into a folk-rock song: it's not that they dislike that genre, necessarily, but that they fear, not unreasonably, their nice little Irish session will turn into a Folk/rock/Pop/C&W free-for-all.

Thanks for your alls input. I was very pleased and witnessed a lot of people dancing and hootin! The hospitality was top notch and I appreciated the event very much. You know what they say about "not reading the comments" lol. What came first?

Old Time
Blues
Bluegrass?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erockin

What came first?

Old Time
Blues
Bluegrass?

---

I'd say Blues, then Old Time, then Bluegrass.

I think you could make a decent argument for Old Time at a Blues festival as well, since the original musicians played a decent amount of Blues repertoire. Listening to some of the old string band recordings, it can be difficult to decide whether it's Old Time, Blues, or Jazz. All three of those forms were being played concurrently for a while and the musicians traded repertoire quite a lot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by farmerjones

Well, Mr. Monroe, found Mr. Schultz, a large part of Monroe's Blues rep.

 

Long-time Bluegrass Boy Butch Robins just posted his take on Monroe's blues influence and it's not the usual Arnold Schultz story.  It's interesting and makes a lot of sense, really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZRUEIOHTYA&t=1s

Well I dunno.
But you guys are great! :-D
Enjoyed listening.
Let me know if you ever make it down to NC!

For what it's worth, here's my opinion about where a large part of vocals in early bluegrass came from.
If you ever sat in an Old Original Baptist church (or maybe a Holiness church) on Sunday morning and sang along with the congregation with it's unaccompanied and sorta individualistic style of singing and then listen to some early bluegrass singing, (think Ralph Stanley) you might hear a lot of the same style where one comes up or down to the note with odd melodic turns and tones that prepare for the note that follows.
Most of it was established well before shape notes and most didn't have notes . .. people just sang it how their hearts felt at the moment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erockin

What came first?

Old Time
Blues
Bluegrass?

---

I'd say Blues, then Old Time, then Bluegrass.

I think you could make a decent argument for Old Time at a Blues festival as well, since the original musicians played a decent amount of Blues repertoire. Listening to some of the old string band recordings, it can be difficult to decide whether it's Old Time, Blues, or Jazz. All three of those forms were being played concurrently for a while and the musicians traded repertoire quite a lot.

---

To rank those chronologically, wouldn't we have to define them first?  We've already failed to agree on a definition of Old-Time.  Establishing the birthday of the blues is just as tough, although most scholars put it in roughly the 1890s.  Even the age of bluegrass is debated.  The average "banjo-centric" bluegrass fan says Dec 8, 1945, while many of us feel that bluegrass isn't defined by three-finger banjo rolls and place its origins a few years earlier.   

Fiddle music had slides and "blue notes" in it long before there was a recognized Blues genre. Does that mean that old-timey (not necessarily Old-Time) fiddling influenced the blues? Or was it actually blues? Or were black fiddlers blues musicians and white fiddlers old-time musicians, even when playing the same tunes? Or were both something else entirely?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bacfire

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erockin

What came first?

Old Time
Blues
Bluegrass?

---

I'd say Blues, then Old Time, then Bluegrass.

I think you could make a decent argument for Old Time at a Blues festival as well, since the original musicians played a decent amount of Blues repertoire. Listening to some of the old string band recordings, it can be difficult to decide whether it's Old Time, Blues, or Jazz. All three of those forms were being played concurrently for a while and the musicians traded repertoire quite a lot.

---

To rank those chronologically, wouldn't we have to define them first?  We've already failed to agree on a definition of Old-Time.  Establishing the birthday of the blues is just as tough, although most scholars put it in roughly the 1890s.  Even the age of bluegrass is debated.  The average "banjo-centric" bluegrass fan says Dec 8, 1945, while many of us feel that bluegrass isn't defined by three-finger banjo rolls and place its origins a few years earlier.   

---

I've often seen the birth of the Blues listed as right after the Civil War. Old Time has often been described as being established in 1923. Bluegrass is commonly considered to have begun in 1945.

Saying that the origins of a genre were earlier than the formalized date of birth is really an absurd argument. Of course the things that influenced something came before it. Genres of music don't just spring into existence out of thin air. At some point, stylistic changes become significant enough that a new genre is identified. Some random fiddler could theoretically have played in a Bluegrass style in 1600, but that doesn't mean the genre is that old. The point of definitions is to set clearer marks in time for study. If there is confusion about the origins, more study and discussion are needed to get to the bottom of it. But I think there's actually a lot less confusion about this in the real world than is being suggested on Fiddle Hangout.

I don't think the banjo-centric view you describe makes much sense as the way to identify Bluegrass, either, but I've never heard anyone make that particular claim. 

I'm glad I asked! I seen the blues being created by Robert Johnson and figured old timey music was in the 1800s...
Learned a lot here already. Appreciate the insight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NCnotes

Well I dunno.
But you guys are great! :-D
Enjoyed listening.
Let me know if you ever make it down to NC!

---

I guess can't rule that out but, you never know. Hell, it's hard getting assembled a half hour from home let alone6-7hrs away...LOL

And, thank you!

"Sittin On Top of the World" was a blues song.


 

It's all that wonderful gumbo that is American music. A few points:

- When Alan Lomax first encountered him, Muddy Waters' gig was playing mandolin in a string band.
- Little Walter was known for playing waltzes (on harmonica, for anyone who needs the FYI) at dances before he headed north to Chicago.
-DeFord Bailey, another harmonica-player, and early Opry star - Country, Blues, or what? He played with Bill Munro for a time, before Munro settled on his 'Bluegrass' line-up.
- Woody Guthrie got his first harmonica licks from an anonymous Black player, who probably played something like DeFord Bailey (yeah, I'm into harmonica). There are recordings of Guthrie playing with Cisco Huston, Leadbelly, and Sonny Terry - who's playing what genre of what?
- Hank Williams was mentored by a Black Bluesman/songster.
- There is(was?) a Black university professor from, I believe, the Carolinas somewhere, who made a credible argument that Southern Black singing style was heavily influenced by the Gaelic Presbyterian tradition of 'lining' (call-and-response hymn singing). Note, btw, the frequency of the 'Blue note' in Scottish music.
- Another academic has proposed that Southern American fiddling has a significant Native American influence - which I found far-fetched until I heard a sample of his comparative recordings (sorry I can't recall the names; I'm better with those of musicians!).

Well, I could go on and on with those sorts of observations - the point is, I suppose, that it's a mug's game to try to force music into neat categories, and try to work out the family trees.

Oh, btw:  some great historical photos of Black fiddlers here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tiGryvcqoA

As far as, "bluegrass is part of blues" - probably not for how most regular folks use genre identity.

Despite occasionally examples of compositions (as above); sometimes using some similar elements... they overall are distinct enough.

In how most folks use genre classification, mostly they just listen; it is not as scholarly in-depth analysis, going down checklists, definitions, rules... perhaps to justify/rationalize. Just use simple listen, and can tell it just doesn't fit the same.

Imagine if someone going to a record store, or spotify, AI, or club/festival.. and is specifically in seeking out listening experience that fits their idea "blues" ... IMO they would be confused or perhaps disappointed if presented with any random bunch of typical bluegrass. (they might still it enjoyable, but would not classify it as the same)

[Just came across the name of the academic who connected Presbyterian 'lining' with Black gospel music: Willie Ruff, of Yale U.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Scratch

Well, I could go on and on with those sorts of observations - the point is, I suppose, that it's a mug's game to try to force music into neat categories, and try to work out the family trees.

---

Trying to force music and genre into a few neat static categories can be a bit of fool's errand.

Music has always had lot's of exchange of different musical and cultural influences.

There have been recent discussions (on other forums/papers and YT) address includes issue with categorization; but more so issue is the idea of genre itself, and how it's used, how relevant it is.

Finding (or is that attempting to define?) the edges/borders of various artistic genres is great fun no matter what body of creative activity you happen to be focusing upon. It's one of those human activities that, thankfully, will never be conclusively squeezed into a grid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

 

I've often seen the birth of the Blues listed as right after the Civil War. Old Time has often been described as being established in 1923. Bluegrass is commonly considered to have begun in 1945.

Saying that the origins of a genre were earlier than the formalized date of birth is really an absurd argument. Of course the things that influenced something came before it. Genres of music don't just spring into existence out of thin air. At some point, stylistic changes become significant enough that a new genre is identified. Some random fiddler could theoretically have played in a Bluegrass style in 1600, but that doesn't mean the genre is that old. The point of definitions is to set clearer marks in time for study. If there is confusion about the origins, more study and discussion are needed to get to the bottom of it. But I think there's actually a lot less confusion about this in the real world than is being suggested on Fiddle Hangout.

I don't think the banjo-centric view you describe makes much sense as the way to identify Bluegrass, either, but I've never heard anyone make that particular claim. 

---

I'll argue that the truly absurd argument...given the complexity and fluidity of musical evolution that you just outlined...is assigning a formalized date of birth to any genre of music.

If any particular genre's DOB could be pinpointed, it would probably be bluegrass.  Most fans consider the exact moment that the Blue Grass Boys (Monroe's original spelling) kicked off Whitehouse Blues on the Ryman stage (Dec 8, 1945) to be that birthing.  To them, Scruggs-style banjo is *the* defining characteristic; hence my banjo-centric label.  I disagree because all the rhythms, vocals, fiddle styles, and other elements that together define the bluegrass sound *to me* were already present by 1939.

Jelly Roll Morton invented jazz on a Sunday afternoon in1902 - and he would not hesitate to tell you so!

Nick LaRocca also made the claim that he was the father of jazz. In his case, an argument can be made on the basis of his having played in the first jazz recording. I recall Leon Redbone talking about this in an interview some time ago. Using a recording as a definitive start of an era or genre makes some sense, in that the recording is a tangible piece of evidence with a definite date. If you try to determine the date based on anecdotal evidence, it gets a lot more complicated, as you have to weigh the veracity of every source and double check all references to times for accuracy.

Again, I don’t think previous attempts equal the final product. The Wright brothers went through a lot of iterations before designing the airplane that was ultimately successful. The Army also had designs for planes and were racing the Wrights to get one in the air. So there were lots of designs and ideas already in place, some going back centuries. But manned flight began when the Wright brothers had the first documented attempt.

I think there’s a lot of effort to make music deliberately opaque to keep it on a pedestal as something mystical that defies quantification or the academic pursuit. While the effects music has on people are incredible and perhaps truly mystical, music and its history are not quite as mysterious. It doesn’t diminish its mastery for it to be analyzed or understood. The more people throw up their hands and say that nothing can be known about it and study is anathema to it, the more others begin to doubt its validity. This is one of the fundamental problems in Old Time that steers people away once they attempt to delve into it. The music itself is compelling enough to interest new listeners, but many approaches to playing it and explaining it are deterrents. If there were less obfuscation, I think all three of the genres mentioned would benefit.

I'd say that blues is a part of Bluegrass, but not the other way round. Some interesting thoughts in this thread - thanks Barry for posting the video of Butch Robins. I've always thought the Arnold Schultz story was a little sketchy, but I'm not so sure I can picture Bill and Charlie Monroe out clubbing in Chicago either. Bill had big ears, and part of his genius was recognizing the talents of his various band members over the years and incorporating them into his music, as well as changing his style in an attempt to stay commercially viable.
Also good to hear the original "Sitting on Top of the World" recording by the Mississippi Sheiks, which I was going to post myself. Its interesting that almost none of their lyrics are sung in "modern" versions, besides the changes in key and tempo. Speaking of which, here's my rendition of the song, recorded about 48 years ago now. Blues, Bluegrass, Old Time??? Beats me - I was just trying to hit the notes and keep up.

I love tangled histories...which is how histories usually are, in any case. And I continue to scoff at most attempts to declare a certain piece of art or music as the absolute first of its kind.