Re bluegrass 'n' the purists: I think it's right to be skeptical about the
extent of genre-purity policing and how much it's directly kept away potential
fans; *but* - consider the secondary possible effect, that purist attitudes are
part of the reason that bluegrassers have perhaps hesitated to embark on
projects like the Steve Earle album before now. (Aside from Grisman/Garcia, and
perhaps a couple of more minor examples, that's somewhat true isn't it -
contributing to coffee-house f*lk albums doesn't count, by the way - ?)
As someone remarked, a lot of people have trouble with hardcore bluegrass (and
old-time, and of course country for that matter) when they first hear it - find
it piercing, grating, repetitive, etc. (a lot of this is class, anti-rural etc.
but it's also lack of exposure and familiarity). A lot of people don't "get"
jazz either. But crossover projects in the long run help bring people 'round to
new appreciations of the source material, and rock-pop-jazz-soul-country
crossovers of various sorts have been common for ages. If bluegrass musicians
hesitate to do such projects because they'll get flack and "is it bluegrass"
grillings for it, then that opportunity's lost.
All that to say: it might not be purist attitudes driving away potential
bluegrass fans, but obeisance to purists (real or apprehended ones) may make
bluegrass musicians less effective popularizers.
carl w.
