Musing on the State of Bluegrass Music

I was recently reading the latest copy of No Depression, the magazine devoted more or less to American music. 2 different articles, one on Chatham County Line and the other on the Earl Brothers, see the artists complain about the packaged nature of modern bluegrass music. CCL talks about how audiences want to see covers, some of bluegrass standards and some of bluegrassed-up rock songs. The Earl Brothers say "Bluegrass now is like rock in the 70s. It's produced. It's predictable."

How true is this? And why has this come to pass?

While I'll admit I haven't kept up on new bluegrass releases as well as I should over the past couple of years, there is definitely a trend toward the normalization of bluegrass music. Coming out of the O Brother phemonena, audiences expect bluegrass to be a particular thing rather than an organic and changing musical tradition. When Karl Shiflett added a drummer to his band a few years ago, something that was quite common among bluegrass bands in the 50s, fans revolted and he had to get rid of the guy so as not to not sacrifice his entire career. That is just disgusting. Bill Monroe, the father of bluegrass music, not only basically made up the genre but he experimented with it throughout his life. Some bands had both drums and accordion. You never see either of those instruments today.

While some bluegrass musicians may just be scared to have an anti-Shiflett-like reaction aimed against themselves, some seem to have bought into the canonization of the genre. The worst is probably Ricky Skaggs, whose Skaggs Family Records puts out extremely produced and slick albums, which while technically proficient, have the life sucked out of them. Which isn't surprising given Skaggs' own music.

Bluegrass risks becoming like mainstream jazz. Jazz has seen its canonization over the past 20 years as both artists and audiences rejected the innovations of the late 1960s and 1970s. Today, if it sounds like anything recorded after 1965, it's not going to sell. The master of this process is Wynton Marsalis, who sees innovation as heresy. Skaggs could be the Marsalis of bluegrass--an amazing player with a very solid background but completely wrongheaded about the music. Unfortunately, both Marsalis and Skaggs have a lot of money and power within their respective genres and both are using their influence for harm.

Why are audiences buying into this? Bluegrass audiences in the post-O Brother era seem to be dominated by middle-aged urban residents who believe they are buying authencity through music. They think that bluegrass is something that is concrete and unchanging. Change questions the authenicity of the music they are consuming. And they don't want to think too much. They want to go and enjoy the music without having to wonder what is happening. They want to hear "Orange Blossom Special" at the end of the show, a couple of old-timey murder ballads, and a bluegrass cover of some Zeppelin for laughs. Sadly, these are the same type of fans (and in fact many are the same people) who believe the same thing about jazz.

No music can live without change. The 1960s and 1970s saw constant innovation in bluegrass. A lot of this I frankly don't like, particularly the influence of jam music. But at least they were doing something new. The bluegrass traditionalism of the 1990s was welcome as well, curbing the excesses of the jam-bluegrass and making some great music. But the best bands will always be pushing the boundaries, whether musically or lyrically. So good luck to all the bands out there who are trying new things, getting rejected by bluegrass festivals, and knowing they will probably be cult bands at best. They're going to need it as well as your money. Attend some shows, buy some albums. Look at bluegrass as a living music and love it as such.