First I wanna point out that this is one person's
view, opinion, whatever... If you disagree, I'm not surprised.
If we ever really do resolve the old
argument about what is and what is not bluegrass, the editorial
and letters pages of Bluegrass Unlimited will never be the same. I
kinda hope it never happens, personally.
Here's why: Bluegrass is an evolving music, and that's why there's
all the argument. Think about it. Does the music you hear on your
Top 40 radio station sound much like the top 40 of the 50's? Do Smashing
Pumpkins sound much like Elvis? Nope. How
'bout country? Compare Kitty Wells to Reba. Evolution.
We definitely aren't mainstream, and we're a pretty close knit group,
even with the old Argument, so we haven't split into factions the way
rock n' roll did. (The average metal fan is pretty far away from the
tastes of the "Easy Listening" radio station listener.)
We all still know the words to "Will the Circle Be
Unbroken" and as long as we do, it won't be.
As long as groups and
artists are willing to try something new, the music will evolve, and
sometimes push the limit far enough so that a few purists will hop up
and holler "That ain't bluegrass!" When the argument ends it will only be
because the evolution has ended, and at that point the music will be
dead. Just a museum piece. Bit of history.
Let's hope that never happens.
Let's be glad that didn't happen before the Country Gentlemen
did songs like "Matterhorn" and "Redwood Hills."
Let's be very
glad that didn't happen before The Lonesome River Band took a great old
jam session classic like "Sitting On Top Of The World" and made it
their own, and gave it a whole new life. (Sure, everyone has done it,
but admit it; it's now an LRB song, and I'm not just saying that because
I've been lusting after Ronnie Bowman since before he was even in
LRB. hehe...) So fine, keep the Argument going, even though it annoys the hell
out of me at times... I still realize it's a healthy argument.
So what is bluegrass?
It's not 100% accoustic anymore, electric bass isn't frowned upon
that much anymore.
It's sort of traditional, in that a lot of the songs are
traditional and in the public domain, and there are a lot of traditional
themes that turn up over and over, and there's a basic sound that traditionally
means bluegrass.
And of course the Argument itself is a time-honored tradition.
Does it have to have a banjo to be bluegrass? Is it only
bluegrass if a band is made up of the traditional bluegrass
instruments? (Don't forget that Bill Monroe even toyed with having an accordian
in the band, but thankfully thought better of it.)
Sorry y'all, but there really are no absolutes. Most bluegrass
instruments are accoustic. Most bluegrass songs have a banjo in
there somewhere, but certainly not all. (Give a listen to Paul Adkins
and Borderline's "Wings of Gold" sometime... the banjo isn't the star
here, the voices are.)
Most bluegrass fans like most of music that's labeled "bluegrass."
Whoa.. there's the absolute.. Bluegrass fans, many of whom are also
bluegrass musicians, are absolutely passionate about what
they love, which is why the argument is so vehement at times.
Which is also proof that bluegrass is alive, growing, evolving.
Well, hopefully bluegrass won't get quite so far from its
roots as rock and country have... I don't think that will happen, simply because
rock and country needed those improvements more than bluegrass does. ;)