I think this was more for the Old Daingerfield thread. Sorry, they're similar, but seem distinct. Daingerfield seems where the conversation about speed belongs. Ooops
erik On Jan 5, 7:44 pm, erik berry <[email protected]> wrote: > I gots three paragraphs of thoughts on this subject... > > When I was a teenager and an electric guitar player, many of these > same arguments existed in rock, blues, heavy metal and jazz---speed > vs. soul, is generally how it was summed up. I had a handful of > teachers in different genres and they all emphasized the soul and the > way they did it was to have me sing guitar solos off of records. If I > had to make a more nonsensical turkey call sound, it was speed, if I > could sing the solo, it was soul. Examples they had me pursue were the > guitar breaks in Stairway to Heaven, Sunshine of Your Love, Fairies > Wear Boots...solos I think I could still scat sing today. When I was a > teenager, it was the '80s and metal guitar was the rage and it was all > about flash. In my raggedy high school band I couldn't do that stuff > so I tried a more melodic approach and found it was successful too. > But, of course, a big 'ol whammy bar dive coupled with digital delay > and wah-wah really brought the house down (if that is all technical > jargon to you, let's just say I'd use some electric and mechanical > tricks to make a big obnoxious noise <g>). My jazz instructors had me > listen to horn players, because horn players need to take breaths. If > you try to talk without breathing you lose power, same with playing a > solo on a horn. Because string players can take a breath while they > play, they are more likely to lay down a nonstop barrage of notes, but > it's not natural, human power. That comes from breathing and it's good > to have "breaths" in your solo. > > In my band's van we used to compare the Jerusalem Ridge by Baker and > Monroe with the one the Tony Rice Unit put out. the TRU is a great > example of improvising away from the melody while still keeping the > shape of the song, but generally the way we'd wind up listening is the > TRU version first, then before the third round of solos, which were > the most outside, we'd put on the original. "I like the melody," we'd > say. "And I like the banjo part too," someone would generally add... > > Finally, my band plays loud rock-like string music and our audiences > get a little rowdy. I love playing the melody but I also like using > flashy, aggressive breaks, sort of mandolin versions of the big > obnoxious noise mentioned above. Lemme tell you, that if I have a > successful flashy break and the crowd eats it up, they yell for more > and it's hard to not be tempted to try it again on the next tune. > Temptation is a powerful thing. But it has been my experience that > somtimes those great "out of body" mandolin experiences do happen and > I'll improvise a melodic, yet inventive solo that complements the tune > and showcases that I have some technique under my belt and <everybody> > seems to like that. And if I'm very, very lucky, I can do that once a > gig. Just once. It's so hard, but boy, it feels good when it happens > and that's what I keep trying for. > > Anyway, that's what I got for the discussion, although I might add > this on the subject of traditional bluegrass then and now. It seems to > me that even if you're not trying to use it, doesn't awareness of > modern stuff make it hard to be as traditional? What I mean is, can > you really play like it's 1945 if you've heard Metallica, Moby, and > Madonna on someone's Ipod during the last 15 minutes? > > erik > > On Jan 5, 6:31 pm, Tud Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Since this topic seems to be (d)evolving into a bit of a comparison > > of BG and OT styles, traditions, vitality etc, I thought I'd toss my > > nickel into the kitty...To me, the main thing that impacts how a > > musician will interpret a traditional music is what that player thinks > > is most important about that tradition or what touches them the most > > about it. This could be a variety of many things...technique, > > politics, gender, popular culture, class, religion, ego, need/want to > > make a living, soul, sound, what is going to attract that nice > > lookin' boy or girl in the corner, etc etc...Folks will preserve the > > things most important to them or the things that satisfy their > > preconceived notion about a music or culture is all about. A few > > opinions and thoughts... > > While I highly respect the technique of Bruce Molsky, to me as a > > listener, technique is the part of old time fiddling that he found to > > be most important. He's obviously done his homework on the complex > > bowing involved in some Southern styles. He also has wonderful > > intonation. I think that his bow technique and great intonation has > > been inspiring to lots of younger musicians like Alex, Tatiana and > > others who come to OT music from a classical background. To me, the > > new tradition being focused on is based on impeccable chops and that > > is one of the points emphasized in the initial post in this thread. I > > think contemporary bluegrass has the same priorities. Bluegrass has > > always been about outstanding picking and singing but recent > > generations focus more and more on flawless skills. It makes me wonder > > if bluegrass could go down the same road that jazz did. Jazz began as > > a vernacular music and became a new form of American classical music. > > In the beginning you learned jazz on the streets, brothels and > > speakeasy night clubs. Now you learn it in college. Bluegrass still > > has some street credibility as hillbilly music (I use that term with > > the utmost respect) but it too is beginning to show up in college. > > Topher mentions in his post a workshop leader who mentioned that > > "Old-time music was primarily music for dancing to and for > > participating in, and that bluegrass was primarily a musical form that > > showcased the musicians in a concert setting". I'll agree with > > portions of that statement and argue for some other perspectives. I > > think that nowadays OT music is primarily for dancing and > > participating in but that approach to the music and culture of OT > > music is dates to the 1960's and '70s rather than the 1860's-'70s. Tom > > Carter (formerly of the Fuzzy Mountain String Band) has a wonderful > > essay called "Looking for Henry Reed" that describes the new approach > > and aesthetic that the Hollow Rock String Band had. They started the > > "everybody play the melody" approach so common now. Alan Jabbour > > himself wrote that the focus is on the music and the social > > integration of the players and dancers as a group and not the > > musicians as individuals. No individual would take a solo. This > > "festival style" approach to playing OT music is what dominates the > > scene today in my opinion. There are few folks out and about playing > > OT music as you might have heard on a pre-war commercial recording. > > Those records had lots of variety in instruments and > > approaches...Wonderful singing instead of the current OT approach of > > bellowing the tune out in unison. The older bands were also > > polyrythmic (African influence) in their band styles rather than the > > current unison (European influence) approach. > > As to bluegrass, it was definitely an elite-level, performance based > > music played by professionals at the beginning. Today, any stroll into > > the campground at the fester will show bluegrass alive as a true folk > > music with lots of non professional pickers at all levels from rank > > beginner to powerful.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Taterbugmando" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/taterbugmando?hl=en.
