> > As for why the "roots music movement" is different in this
> regard, the short
> > answer, IMO, is unfamiliarity. People's exposure to bluegrass, or
> > alt.country, for instance, is a lot smaller and a lot chancier,
> hence the
> > greater likelihood that hearing someone who, pardon my French,
> sucks will
> > turn the first-time observer off; s/he's more likely to take the lousy
> > performance as typical of the genre.
>
> That's assuming that the performance is in fact lousy.
Well, it was part of the premise - that lousy performances/performers are
especially destructive to the "roots music movement." Bill asked why they'd
be more harmful in that area as opposed to others, given that there are so
many crappy performances/performers in all genres.
> What about bands
> that put on a show which may be entertaining even though their music
> bears no resemblance to the genre they're billed under?
More complicated problem, I guess, but certainly not as harmful as
unentertaining ones <g>.
> Heard a Freakwater song one time and thought it was "interesting,"
One of the online CD stores has a RealAudio clip of their, ahem, rendition
of "Put My Little Shoes Away." As someone who's doubtless familiar with
Monroe's, Wiseman's and other bluegrass versions, you oughta check it out,
Geff. "Interesting" doesn't begin to describe it.
Jon Weisberger, Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger
