Blues can’t be a part of bluegrass if it precedes it by nearly a century. Bluegrass borrowed heavily from music that came before it, including Blues. There were plenty of blues recordings made well before Bluegrass came into being.

I understand that there are dedicated fans of the genre, but enthusiasm for it is not license to rewrite history.

"Bluegrass borrowed heavily from music that came before it, including Blues." I suspect that that is what Doug meant ....

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

Blues can’t be a part of bluegrass if it precedes it by nearly a century. 
 

---

I don't see any consistency in your birthdates for these genres.  You state that Old-Time dates to 1923, a date I assume is established by John Carson or Eck Robertson recordings.  How do you date Blues back to the mid-19th century when there were no recordings or even published music identified as "blues" within 50 years of that era?  There may have been elements of the style present that far back, but there were elements of old-time (pretty much all the elements) for a century before that.  How did you determine that "stylistic changes became significant enough that a new genre (Blues) was identified"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bacfire

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

Blues can’t be a part of bluegrass if it precedes it by nearly a century. 
 

---

I don't see any consistency in your birthdates for these genres.  You state that Old-Time dates to 1923, a date I assume is established by John Carson or Eck Robertson recordings.  How do you date Blues back to the mid-19th century when there were no recordings or even published music identified as "blues" within 50 years of that era?  There may have been elements of the style present that far back, but there were elements of old-time (pretty much all the elements) for a century before that.  How did you determine that "stylistic changes became significant enough that a new genre (Blues) was identified"?

---

If you want to use first recording dates as the strict definition of the beginning of a genre (this is not my argument), even then Blues predates both other genres. Blues recordings exist from 1920. Eck Robertson recorded in 1922 and John Carson recorded in 1923. The 1923 date is often given for Old Time, either because of ignorance of the 1922 recording or because Robertson is instead posited as the first Country Music performer instead. The 1945 date is pretty consistently suggested as the first Bluegrass recording date.

Personally, I don't think recordings have to be the only identifier, although for the recorded era they are often definitive. For pre-recorded eras, the publication of sheet music or verified historical accounts are able to shed light.

If you can accept a publication date as evidence, Blues date back to at least 1908. I would be perfectly willing to accept that they can be traced back to the 1860s as I've read, although I need to do more research to verify this--so far I've seen a lot of claims about this but no evidence to back it up. I hope to find it, as it seems plausible.

I don't think the stigma against the notion that Blues influenced Old Time and Bluegrass is fair. A lot of the pioneers of the genres were much more willing to acknowledge their influences. Why try to rewrite history to sweep all that under the rug?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Scratch

"Bluegrass borrowed heavily from music that came before it, including Blues." I suspect that that is what Doug meant ....

---

Ok, but choice of words is important, and Doug's words suggested that Blues had been spun off of Bluegrass, not the other way around. That's a pretty significant difference from what you're claiming he meant.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Scratch

"Bluegrass borrowed heavily from music that came before it, including Blues." I suspect that that is what Doug meant ....

---

Ok, but choice of words is important, and Doug's words suggested that Blues had been spun off of Bluegrass, not the other way around. That's a pretty significant difference from what you're claiming he meant.  

---

I know.  The wording had me wondering for a second ... but it's not a legal deposition or an academic dissertation, so I think we can allow some slack, and take the more sensible meaning.

First recording dates have nothing to do with the origins of a musical style, only when the technolgy developed, or record companies became interested. Do you think Mozart's violin works date to the first recorded performances?
What would you call these recordings, made by Polk Miller and his Old South Quartette for Edison in 1909?
youtu.be/KUNGQBHGZ5c?si=N3caKbhg5-cFPZDp What a Time
youtu.be/11u0caXq04M?si=jpgRMMcFHwonQqUY No Hiding Place

quote:

---

Originally posted by DougD

First recording dates have nothing to do with the origins of a musical style, only when the technolgy developed, or record companies became interested. Do you think Mozart's violin works date to the first recorded performances?
What would you call these recordings, made by Polk Miller and his Old South Quartette for Edison in 1909?
youtu.be/KUNGQBHGZ5c?si=N3caKbhg5-cFPZDp What a Time
youtu.be/11u0caXq04M?si=jpgRMMcFHwonQqUY No Hiding Place

---

Please read or reread my previous comment. There's no point in being nonsensical. 
 

I would call your two latest example of old recordings Spirituals or Gospel recordings, especially given that they are religious in nature. That genre also had an impact on the secular music that was recorded later on in multiple genres.

Mozart's violin concertos all date to their publication dates, which are recorded and part of the historical record. The same is true for any other composition, regardless of recording date. For music not written down formally, you can only rely on recordings or verified historical accounts. 

aint no part a nothin

A very good point you make is the timing of technology. It is obvious to me that in the early days of these so called genres that entertainers had to perform without the aid of amplification. This could mean that when music is played in community groups like jam sessions (by the masses) it has a completely different fabric to the same repertoire played in music halls (by a select few). Then it is the select few that are invited into recording studios and radio stations giving a false impression of what the grass roots represents. Whenever I hear those old recordings like the examples above I hear singers belting out songs as if they are Musical Town Cryers. I wonder if they would sing like that at a small intimate gig?
It’s a bit like the recent thread that addresses the subject of playing speed. These guys are probably losing all their nuances by pushing the volume pedal so we’re not getting the full picture.

martyjoe - You make good points, but not exactly what I was thinking of. Certainly performers from the older era had a different performing style (Uncle Dave Macon being one example) but we don't know what musical performance and repertoire was like before recording even existed. I don't play Irish music, but I'm interested in it because my grandfather emigrated from Ireland in the later 19th century. I realized that most of what I know is from collections and recordings made over here, not in Ireland. I've since found a few earlier Irish collections, but it seems that Irish music may not have seemed worth documenting, much like African American music over here.
There were definite economic factors (the coming of radio, which posed a huge challenge to the recording industry) that resulted in the commercial recording of "blues" and "old time" music as well as ethnic music, including Irish.
The introduction of electrical recording in 1925 saved the record business, and also enabled the success of artists like Jimmie Rodgers and the Carter Family (to say nothing of pop "crooners").
Here's an example of two recordings of a jazz classic:
youtu.be/tJ7SPjgS-qs?si=HdvFswDp4dmOTccm

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

If you want to use first recording dates as the strict definition of the beginning of a genre (this is not my argument), even then Blues predates both other genres. Blues recordings exist from 1920. Eck Robertson recorded in 1922 and John Carson recorded in 1923. The 1923 date is often given for Old Time, either because of ignorance of the 1922 recording or because Robertson is instead posited as the first Country Music performer instead. The 1945 date is pretty consistently suggested as the first Bluegrass recording date.

Personally, I don't think recordings have to be the only identifier, although for the recorded era they are often definitive. For pre-recorded eras, the publication of sheet music or verified historical accounts are able to shed light.

If you can accept a publication date as evidence, Blues date back to at least 1908. I would be perfectly willing to accept that they can be traced back to the 1860s as I've read, although I need to do more research to verify this--so far I've seen a lot of claims about this but no evidence to back it up. I hope to find it, as it seems plausible.

I don't think the stigma against the notion that Blues influenced Old Time and Bluegrass is fair. A lot of the pioneers of the genres were much more willing to acknowledge their influences. Why try to rewrite history to sweep all that under the rug?

---

Despite your insistence, I haven't noticed that anyone here is trying to downplay the influence of Blues on any other genre.  I haven't really heard much of that in other places, either.  The IBMA promotes an Arnold Shultz scholarship fund to highlight his influence on bluegrass and to promote the music to people of color.  Shultz is even a member of the Bluegrass Hall of Fame.  That hardly sounds like a stigma against the Blues.

I don't want to use recording dates to establish anything other than the "first recorded" dates.  My position is that it's impossible to strictly pinpoint the beginning of a genre.  We can't even define those genres.  Try strictly defining the Blues among Blues aficionados and you'll get at least as much resistance as you've gotten to defining Old-Time.  And it doesn't matter what some particular author wrote in some article or book.  There will be contrary opinions in the next book on the shelf.

I am curious about the sources you use to place the birth of the Blues immediately after the Civil War.  Also curious about why you so badly want it to be older.  Maybe the academic consensus has changed, but it used to be commonly accepted that the genre was born roughly 1890-1910 when guitars began to filter into the hands of workers on Mississippi cotton plantations.  Some who want to be specific point to Charlie Patton's tenure at Dockery Farms, although he would have been very young following that timeline.  I'm sure there are elements of the blues style going back decades earlier, but I've never heard claims of fully formed Blues music existing before the 1890s.  Maybe some other state is trying to claim Mississippi's title as the birthplace!  <g>

martyjoe - Here's a little more favorable transfer of "South."
youtu.be/XAMqm9Ai2Sc?si=5WOfeigpI9xZOqPo
I've produced and engineered a lot of recordings over the years, and listened critically to a lot of them, and this is a great one, IMHO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bacfire

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

If you want to use first recording dates as the strict definition of the beginning of a genre (this is not my argument), even then Blues predates both other genres. Blues recordings exist from 1920. Eck Robertson recorded in 1922 and John Carson recorded in 1923. The 1923 date is often given for Old Time, either because of ignorance of the 1922 recording or because Robertson is instead posited as the first Country Music performer instead. The 1945 date is pretty consistently suggested as the first Bluegrass recording date.

Personally, I don't think recordings have to be the only identifier, although for the recorded era they are often definitive. For pre-recorded eras, the publication of sheet music or verified historical accounts are able to shed light.

If you can accept a publication date as evidence, Blues date back to at least 1908. I would be perfectly willing to accept that they can be traced back to the 1860s as I've read, although I need to do more research to verify this--so far I've seen a lot of claims about this but no evidence to back it up. I hope to find it, as it seems plausible.

I don't think the stigma against the notion that Blues influenced Old Time and Bluegrass is fair. A lot of the pioneers of the genres were much more willing to acknowledge their influences. Why try to rewrite history to sweep all that under the rug?

---

Despite your insistence, I haven't noticed that anyone here is trying to downplay the influence of Blues on any other genre.  I haven't really heard much of that in other places, either.  The IBMA promotes an Arnold Shultz scholarship fund to highlight his influence on bluegrass and to promote the music to people of color.  Shultz is even a member of the Bluegrass Hall of Fame.  That hardly sounds like a stigma against the Blues.

I don't want to use recording dates to establish anything other than the "first recorded" dates.  My position is that it's impossible to strictly pinpoint the beginning of a genre.  We can't even define those genres.  Try strictly defining the Blues among Blues aficionados and you'll get at least as much resistance as you've gotten to defining Old-Time.  And it doesn't matter what some particular author wrote in some article or book.  There will be contrary opinions in the next book on the shelf.

I am curious about the sources you use to place the birth of the Blues immediately after the Civil War.  Also curious about why you so badly want it to be older.  Maybe the academic consensus has changed, but it used to be commonly accepted that the genre was born roughly 1890-1910 when guitars began to filter into the hands of workers on Mississippi cotton plantations.  Some who want to be specific point to Charlie Patton's tenure at Dockery Farms, although he would have been very young following that timeline.  I'm sure there are elements of the blues style going back decades earlier, but I've never heard claims of fully formed Blues music existing before the 1890s.  Maybe some other state is trying to claim Mississippi's title as the birthplace! 

---

Wikipedia's page on the Blues lists this article as supporting that claim:

https://www.aaihs.org/the-historical-roots-of-blues-music/
 

As I said, I'm still looking for the sources that verify this. PBS corroborates the W.C. Handy story that would place the date at 1903. A few sources place it in the 1890s, but these also seem to be missing supporting evidence. Therefore, we're stuck with either anecdotal evidence, which is only as reliable as its source, or hard evidence in the form of a recording or published score. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

 

Wikipedia's page on the Blues lists this article as supporting that claim:

https://www.aaihs.org/the-historical-roots-of-blues-music/
 

As I said, I'm still looking for the sources that verify this. PBS corroborates the W.C. Handy story that would place the date at 1903. A few sources place it in the 1890s, but these also seem to be missing supporting evidence. Therefore, we're stuck with either anecdotal evidence, which is only as reliable as its source, or hard evidence in the form of a recording or published score. 

---

That's an interesting article, but it doesn't explicitly claim that Blues music was created in the 1860s; at least not by my interpretation.  He does say, "The beginnings of the blues can be traced to the late 1860s", but "beginnings" could refer to antecedent forms of music such as field songs or spirituals; much as minstrel pieces and fiddle tunes could be antecedents to Old-Time or early string band and blues music is foundational to bluegrass.

A goal of the author seems to be to tie the Blues more directly to slavery than is typical.  By the commonly accepted time the Blues were born, slavery was 40 years in the past.  That's generations of hardscrabble living where the present challenges of just getting by overshadowed transgressions of even the recent past, political ideology, and pretty much everything else.  I'm sure there are exceptions, but by and large the early Blues were about the hardships of day-to-day living, then later including more about the juke joint life.  Not much about the klan or lynchings or other more politically-charged topics the author focused on in his opening paragraphs.  A big reason for that may have been record company sensitivities, but I tend to think that the things at the forefront of the average 1890s Mississippi sharecropper's mind are found near the very bottom of Maslow's pyramid.

I’ve seen arguments that Blues developed from the call and response patterns that slaves used in the fields to communicate. The idea is that the call and response patterns were then used to make a commercial music form later on, either during the period following the Civil War or toward the end of the century.

I agree that the origins are not the same as the formal start date for the genre, which is why I’m not certain that the 1860s date can be proven. There would need to be some reliable historical account or published music to verify it. Since the article claims the music can be traced back that far, it gave me some hope that perhaps there was a paper trail to follow, but I haven’t found it so far.

I'm no historian, but seems obvious that both radio and bluegrass came from the "bluegrass state," I.e. Kentucky...thus the name bluegrass for the new style of combo of folk plus whatever mighta been startgin to come in on the radio...namely, freed blacks in the process of inventing the blues.

But...who cares? Just enjoy the music for what it is. Lol. not arguing here...just got away from the forum for a while and seeing that the angels on the head of a pin discussions are still alive and well.

I hit the wall and had complete smackdown, being very sick for a long time. Stress plus no music did it to me. Trying to recover but not much luck so far. I have missed FHO. Having a rough time. Hope y'all are doing well.

I’m really late to the game but here it goes. I’m glad some people mentioned the Mississippi Sheiks. Listen to the song “Still I’m Traveling On”. It’s played in the key of D now move everything over one set of strings lower and play it in G. It works perfectly for Monroe’s “ Heavy Traffic Ahead”. The Sheiks were popular with black and white audiences; I wonder, was Bill familiar with the tune?