Talk:Bluegrass music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is related to WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to cleanup and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.

Music Portal

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Country Music, which is a project dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to country music. If you would like to participate or learn more about the project please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)

	Kentucky Portal Bluegrass music is within the scope of WikiProject Kentucky, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Template Usage] [Watch Project Articles] [Project Talk]
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

A Wikipedian removed Bluegrass music from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: 8 November 2006

	To-do list for Bluegrass music:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Improve references and citations Describe the way in which other genres have influenced bluegrass Add audio samples of bluegrass Geographical spread How does bluegrass fit in the music industry? More (and better) images Eliminate all the lists or move them to individual list articles Write text for "Social and musical impact" section Improve explanation of origin

This article has been nominated for Selected article, at Portal:United States.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.If you are a member of the project, please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) Contents 1 Initial rating 2 Gundula Krause 3 Popularity 4 Removals? 4.1 Charlie Moore, Bill Napier and Curly Lambert 4.2 3rd gen. and Recent trad. bg bands 4.3 generation after generation 5 Article lead 6 Instrumentation 7 "Bluegrass music was around more than 100 years..." 8 "Notable artists" section / How close to featured? 9 Bluegrass rock 10 Bluegrass in Movies 11 Associations section 11.1 Associations 12 Publications with bluegrass content 12.1 Publications with bluegrass content 13 GA Re-Review and In-line citations 14 possible links between bluegrass and reggae 15 Reasons for GA Delisting [edit] Initial rating As Bluegrass music is named for the Bluegrass state, it merits the Top importance designation. The article was a good article until recently, when it was delisted for not using inline citations. As such, I have rated it A-class, and hope someone will clean up the references soon so it can be renominated. Acdixon 16:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Due to the Good Article delisting, and the lack of adequate citation (inline or otherwise), I am lower this to B-class. It is also probably "High" importance rather than "Top" (incidentally, Bluegrass music is not named for the state, it is named for Bill Monroe's band, the Blue Grass Boys). Cmadler 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC) I think Monroe named the boys after the "Bluegrass State", then of course there is the grass itself that grows there too ('cept in the mountians where its too rocky). B-listing makes sense until someone can give a decent effort here. -MrFizyx 22:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC) WikiProject Northern Ireland tasks: Template:Northern Ireland tasks

[edit] Gundula Krause

Does Gundula Krause actually have a connection to Bluegrass music? And if so, is she well enough known to be mentioned? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:45, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don´t know. But she is really an expert in this kind of music. Audax 12:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Having grown up pretty much immersed in bluegrass music and also studying it in school, I have never even heard of Gundula Krause. She may play bluegrass or related music, but she is probably not an artist of significance to merit encylopedic inclusion in a bluegrass article. To me artists listed in the bluegrass article should either be exemplars of the "core" bluegrass tradition (Blue Grass Boys, Flatt & Scruggs, JD Crowe, Doyle Lawson, Dolly Parton) or notable outliers who influenced subsequent musicians (New Grass Revival, Seldom Scene, David Grisman, Béla Fleck). Just being a musician who plays bluegrass, or being a musician who plays music related to bluegrass is not enough, although perhaps some of these could be noted to further explain what is and is not generally considered bluegrass (e.g. although Chris Thiele has recorded bluegrass and the band performs some bluegrass/folk related songs, Nickel Creek is not usually considered a bluegrass band: they never use a banjo, bass does not keep the beat as you would expect in bluegrass - Chris has even said that he does not believe they are playing bluegrass). Cmadler 13:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Yup. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:03, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Remarking a year later: Krause seems increasingly high profile in bluegrass circles. I have no remaining objection to her being mentioned in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dolly Parton an exemplar of the "core" Bluegrass tradition? Please! She recorded a couple of BG-ish records to cash in on a trend. I like her, but she's not BG. Dubc0724 17:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I didn't argue that because it was not the apparent point of the remark. - Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity

The claim that the popularity of Bluegrass is "limited to the Southeast United States and some college campuses" seems to me to be a gross exaggeration. Just by way of some examples to the contrary: the Idaho Bluegrass Association, and a bluegrass festival in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, and European World of Bluegrass. None of these are southeastern or collegiate. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Bluegrass is popular all over the world, for some reason especially in the Czech Republic. It's not as widespread and famous as country or rock, but it has devoted fans everywhere. Tuf-Kat 06:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that bluegrass is popular all over the world! Just look at the events listed in Bluegrass Unlimited each month, with listings for Australia, England, and France. My mother and stepfather were founding members of the Adirondack Bluegrass Society in upstate NY, which has been around since 1972 and is still going strong. We even have a very active bluegrass community/society here in Hawai`i! Bluegrass is everywhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.235.79.85 (talk • contribs) 3 May 2006.

[edit] Removals?

Someone continues to remove Jesse McReynolds from the "core" list. He has played music with his brother for over 50 years (his brother died in 2002), and has invented a new style of mandolin playing called crosspicking. This has become extremely popular with mandolin players around the country. He has been a member of the Grand Ole Opry for over 40 years. He not only had a TV show, "The Jim and Jesse Show" in the 1970s, but had recorded with Chuck Berry, the Doors, the Who, and John Prine. He is a legend of this music.

I moved Uncle Charlie Osborne to the "known for other stlyes" area, because, while his albums were bluegrass, he was known primarily as a mountain musician.

If someone wants to remove them again, I'd like to see a good reason first.

I made those changes, which, along with the rationale, appears in the page history. Because he is primarily known for his work with his brother, I replaced "Jesse McReynolds" with "Jim & Jesse". I removed George W Osborne; I have never heard of him and his Wikipedia article states, "he never played bluegrass..." I removed Uncle Charlie Osborne for a similar reason; he is known for traditional/folk music, but not as a bluegrass musician (bluegrass music is nowhere mentioned in his article).

Keep in mind that the goal is not a comprehensive list of all bluegrass and bluegrass-related musicians (there is a page for list of bluegrass musicians) but to provide someone unfamiliar with the genre with a short list of exemplars and (potentially) suggestions for listening. We have more than 30 musicians already listed in this article; I think that to keep it from duplicating the list of bluegrass musicians we should probably not increase that number (if a musician/band needs to be added, perhaps a less significant artist can be removed). See the above discussion re: Gundula Krause Cmadler 17:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jesse McReynolds merged with Jim and Jesse, but keep in mind they are major pioneers of this kind of music. As for Charlie Osborne, in his early days he was known as an excellent bluegras session fiddle player if you could convince him to do it. The Stanley Brothers had him on several live shows and uncredited on one or two records. (anon 15 July 2005)

I've missed Eric Weissberg and Steve Mandell on the list as "Duelling banjos" is one of the most famous Bluegrass tunes. Melly42 16:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a notable tune, and perhaps the article could have a section for notable songs/tunes and notable albums. However, I think Weissberg and Mandell are probably not important enough (apart from this tune) to be added to this list. They certainly could be added to List of bluegrass musicians.Cmadler 12:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I just caught this: (removed The Earl Brothers, nonnotable, the line appears to have been added so they can list Wikipedia on their website)

I put them in to begin with, and I have nothing to do with the band. The Earl Brothers are a nationally touring act that has been featured at IBMA and write almost all of their own material. Their music is innovative while retaining a traditional feel, and many people in the bluegrass community consider them to be the most interesting original development within the genre in recent memory. On what basis are they "nonnotable"? I don't know how to sign this...C. Ruth

I think this whole "4th generation" thing needs more attention, or should get axed. While plenty of young artists/bands may be doing really interesting stuff and garnering attention within certain communities, I don't think those mentioned here, besides Chris Thiele, have demonstrated the level of impact which warrants inclusion in this article.Ninepoundjammer 10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And what is this "3rd generation"??? Seems just to describe the maturation of the 2nd generation. This history section needs improvement.Ninepoundjammer 10:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Moore, Bill Napier and Curly Lambert

About a year ago I added names of three people who have contrubited to the music. these were Charlie Moore, Bill Napier and Curly Lambert-- all of whom have died. I am wondering if there is some kind of agenda here for they have been deleted!! Who ever did this it is shame on them. If some one is questioning my credentials here it is. I worked with and recorded with the above mentioned people back in the 1970's. You may check the OLD HOMESTEAD record lables for this info.Dan Proctor, bass player /tenor singer Charlie Moore and the Dixie Partners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.77.2.92 (talk • contribs) 29 August 2006.

Well, I've yet to remove any names from this page, but I would support this removal. As stated many times elsewhere in these discussions, the "agenda" is to create a good overview and introduction to the music, not to create a definitive history or catalog of bluegrass music. With this goal, it's necessary to restrict ourselves to only the most notable and influential artists. There's a bunch of additional removals I'd like to make. Listing every notable artist is inappropriate. Moore et. al. may very well warrant their own wikipedia entry, but I agree that they are not appropriate for this page. By the way, if you create a user account then people can discuss their edits to your contributions with you, and questioning the "agenda" of other editors is not really constructive. People have different viewpoints and opinions and the whole point of this thing is to find a way to work together and find an agreeable common ground.Ninepoundjammer 22:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed names from this page, quite possibly Moore, Napier, and Lambert, for exactly the reasons given by Ninepoundjammer. Cmadler 23:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, it's generally strongly discouraged to edit topics with which one has personal involvement. Objectively, the removal is warranted. Subjectively, this might not make you happy.--Ninepoundjammer 04:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd gen. and Recent trad. bg bands

I have to question whether some of the people removing things really know that much about the music. A few points: there is a "third generation" that is pretty distinct, one of the more popular bands is even called IIIrd Tyme Out in homage to this fact, as is mentioned in the entry. Also, for fans of traditional bluegrass, bands like the Earl Brothers and Open Road are rather important. Both are nationally touring acts who have multiple commercially available recordings and they have both been showcased at the IBMA. The point of talking about NEW bands is that some of the people around the periphery of the music probably will NOT have heard of them. That doesn't mean that they are irrelevant to an introduction, however, because a mention of new currents that those in the know are tuned in to is an appropriate part of such an article. Why are they being removed? I also have a hard time believing that anyone who knows about bluegrass would delete Charlie Moore. The entry is not supposed to be only about bands that only those with the most cursory knowledge of the music have heard of. Also, Chris Thile is more marginal than these names, despite his popularity, because he plays very little bluegrass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C Ruth (talk • contribs).

I haven't removed anything myself (nor contributed much either), but can you point to a source that discusses the 3rd generation concept as distinct from the Crowe/Bush/Rice era (all of whom are still very active). As for the name of the band IIIrd Tyme Out, the often told story goes something like this:

Choosing a name for the new band turned out to be one of the hardest parts.

"We really didn't want to put anybody's name out in front, because we all wanted to be equals in the partnership. We were looking at road signs, we were looking in dictionaries, we were doing anything we could to try and come up with a name for the band. I asked Ray, 'What do you think about the name 'Third Time Out'? He said, 'Where'd that come from?' I said, 'You know, this is your third professional bluegrass group to be associated with. It's my third professional bluegrass group, and it's also Mike Hartgrove's. So, this is kind of our third time to venture out in the bluegrass world, maybe the third time will be a charm. He said, 'Man, I like that,' so basically, that's where that came from."

The Roman numeral and substitution of 'y' for 'i' in 'Tyme' was, he admits, "just something to catch your eye, and make you look, and hopefully the name would stick in your mind." [1]

I'm not saying you're wrong on all counts, I'm just wondering if it would be better to organize the history in terms of changes in the music that have occurred in various decades rather than somewhat ambiguous "generations". Also, since you seem to know a bit about bands like IIIrd Tyme Out, Open Road, and the Earl Brothers, you might work on some articles for these groups. I suspect they have been removed because they are all red links and thus not very helpful as examples. -MrFizyx 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I was probably wrong about the significance of "IIIrd Tyme Out." The second generation appellation covers a period of time beginning in around the late fifties. In other words, if we deny the existence of a third generation, the first generation is composed of bands that started in about a ten-year period, and the second generation is composed of bands that started in about a fifty-year period. This is unsatisfying, and furthermore the term "third generation" has general currency. However, I will search for documentation to clean up my act here and try to define a third generation.C Ruth 18:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the IBMM has a "founders" category which lists bands that began up until 1954. That's the closest I could find to any sort of quasi-official categorization. At the very least, it seems clear to me that bands from the late '70s and '80s constitute a 3rd generation (such as the Johnson Mtn. Boys). I am mystified as to why the burden to provide evidence would be on someone claiming a 3rd generation, rather than someone claiming only two, since the taxonomy that includes a third is in common usage, and many claim a fourth is emerging. The defender of the two-generation taxonomy has to justify one generation lasting from 1945 to 1954, and another lasting from 1955 until 2006. This is extemely counter-intuitive, and therefore I submit that the evidential burden is on the people who say there are only two generations. C Ruth 01:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. If "Third generation bluegrass" is a term of common usage then what is the problem with providing a source? If there is no source for a thing, how can it be common knowledge? What generation is Alison Krauss (b. 1971)? Or for that matter Sierra Hull (barely a teenager and already having a festival named in her honor)? Isn't Sam Bush (b 1952) a good bit younger than Del McCoury (b. 1939) and isn't Del already a generation behind Bill Monroe (b. 1911)? I'm not defending the use of two genrations versus three. Both are ambiguous. Could the history be better divided by decades, notable events, or something more clearly defined? One of the great things about bluegrass is that ensembles tend to include multiple generations of people. -MrFizyx 20:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that "third generation" is common parlance, not that it has a citable pedigree. Where is any source cited here for generations at all? Why are we even talking about a first generation, then? The fact is that these are loose terms in common usage, not a complete and unified taxonomy. Also, the "generation" label does NOT seem to be applied to when people are born, but when they began playing. The only official source I know of is the IBMM's list, which only deals with first generation. If you'd rather have "first generation," "second generation," and "more recent devlopments," go for it, I won't change it. But "more recent developments" would have to start some time around the late 70s. CRUTH (not logged in)

To support CRUTH on the difficulty of sourcing these terms...Bluegrass has not recieved much attention in academia, nor in popular media (outside of genre media). So while certain terms and definitions may be reasonably widely accepted within the bluegrass music community, providing citations can be very difficult. That said, it is fairly likely that - if it must be cited - the idea of identifying musicians by "generation" has been discussed or at least mentioned at some time in genre media (such as Bluegrass Unlimited). I don't have adequate access to look for this, but I'm sure it can't be that hard to find such a reference. Cmadler 21:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not pressing the issue because I'm not active on this article at the momnet and I don't want to disrupt work that is being done. Still, I've yet to find evidence that this isn't a neologism. I'm reasonably well read on the subject and I've hung around various grass-roots jam sessions and these terms just aren't used much. There are places one might look. Bluegrass Unlimited has three years of searchable content online. A recent and VERY basic (but still fairly academic) overview of Bluegrass can be found in a book by Stephanie P. Legin--I don't recall how she organizes the history, but it might be a place to start. There really are sources out there if one looks. -MrFizyx 04:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops I think I had her name wrong (as did the linked page above), it is spelled "Ledgin" and here is her site. -MrFizyx 05:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

According to this the Mar/Apr 1994 issue of Bluegrass Now, Vol 4 #2, had an article titled "Third Generation"--could just be about a band with that name or maybe its exactly the reference we are seeking. I dunno, anybody know where to find such an arcane mag.? -MrFizyx 05:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed Earl Brothers, Open Road, and Jumping Willies from "recent section". I'm sorry, but there's no reason to select these 3 groups as somehow more notable than a multitude of other great recent groups. Subjective content such as this is just begging for flame wars.--Ninepoundjammer 04:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea who the Jumping Willies are. I put the Earl Brothers and Open Road in and, not only hasn't there been a flame war, there haven't been any cogent reasons given for taking them out. For fans of traditional bluegrass--still the core of the genre--Open Road is one of the most notable recent bands (recently broken up too, unfortunately). The Earl Brothers have had a lot of buzz on Bgrass-L, just to give a fairly objective reference. Who are all these other bands that could just as well be added? If any are good examples, maybe they should be added, rather than removing these. After all, what's the point of "recent developments" even being in here if we don't want to list any recent developments? And why is it that the only acceptable name under "4th Generation" is someone who doesn't even play bluegrass (with a few exceptions, apparently a song or two on his new album are BG)?

As for the word "generation" being a "neologism" (by which I can only conclude you mean coined by this article), that is just nonsense. For one thing, look at the album "Second Generation Bluegrass" by Whitley, Skaggs and Ralph from the early '70s. A simple scan of Google would have shown you numerous colloquial uses of the term (although not, unfortunately, any authoritative taxonomies).

I have no idea what standards we are supposed to be adhering to as far as "generations" and artists go, but the article is starting to read like its written by dilettantes who may know some artists from the classic years but recently are only familar with country stars who have crossed over to bluegrass, or bluegrass musicians who have gained mainstream acceptance by playing other styles of music, all of which is TANGENTIAL to the putative purpose of such an article, which should be to give an account of the state of BLUEGRASS music. C Ruth 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm absolutely dumbfounded that someone took it upon themselves to remove the Earl Brothers and Open Road without even bothering to respond to the following: "Also, for fans of traditional bluegrass, bands like the Earl Brothers and Open Road are rather important. Both are nationally touring acts who have multiple commercially available recordings and they have both been showcased at the IBMA. The point of talking about NEW bands is that some of the people around the periphery of the music probably will NOT have heard of them. That doesn't mean that they are irrelevant to an introduction, however, because a mention of new currents that those in the know are tuned in to is an appropriate part of such an article. Why are they being removed?" I will restore them until reasons are given. C Ruth 19:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There may be a number of ways to create objective criteria for who deserves a mention in the article. Here are just some ideas. Have they been on the cover of Bluegrass Unlimited or ranked in their survey? Have they appeared in on the Billboard Magazine's year-end chart for bluegrass artists? Do they frequently appear in the top 20 in Bluegrass Now or have they appeared on the cover of one of their issues? etc. These are just some suggestions. -MrFizyx 21:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

C Ruth, you turned this into a flame war long ago. Multiple editors, including myself, disagree with your subjective opinions, and you refuse to adopt any sort of objectivity. I'm done with this article, it's yours to butcher (not that you seem to need my blessing or to exist within the community). Not cool, you've really destroyed my opinion of wikipedia.--Ninepoundjammer 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I've done any flaming. I gave an argument for the inclusion of those bands that you never responded to. Can you name any other notable new bluegrass bands that meet the criteria I presented--nationally touring, featured at IBMA, discussed by BG fans on a national level (see the Bgrass-l listserv for discussions of both bands)? Then list them, I have no idea why your doing so would be objectionable, since "recent developments" is always going to include bands that aren't famous outside of BG circles. Chris Thile, on the other hand, plays almost no bluegrass--I heard there were a couple of BG songs on his new album, but that's the exception, not the rule. Can someone explain to me why someone who is famous and peripheral to bluegrass is a more significant development in bluegrass than someone who is fairly well-known within bluegrass circles, according to verifiable criteria that I have proposed, and--most importantly--ACTUALLY PLAYS BLUEGRASS? Please, give me ONE ARGUMENT as to why my approach is wrong, and I'll stop adding the Earl Brothers and Open Road. Personally, I think if there were 7 or 8 more bands lited under "recent developments" it would be even better--but those are the only ones I can think of that are not basically local acts. C Ruth 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did think of another band that meets those criteria, Cherryhomes. I'm not a huge fan, but they are actually way more popular than the two I originally added. I'm sure there's a few more that would be relevant, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be included. Currently the criterion seems to be mainstream fame, hence all the Alison Krauss/Thile stuff, but I think these bands are more relecant to bluegrass. C Ruth 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

C Ruth, regarding flames, why don't you read your passage about "dilettantes" above and think a little more carefully before you post such remarks. I am NOT a Cherryholmes fan, quite the opposite, but they're out there headlining small festivals and I could get a hold of a CD easily enough. I can't objectively dissent on their inclusion. If we want to get strict about playing "bluegrass", sure seems that the Earl Brothers consciously avoid the word bluegrass in describing themselves, and there are those that would certainly not call them bluegrass. I'm not such a stickler though. I'm more concerned about how widely these groups are known compared to similar groups. Amazon stocks Cherryholmes. Amazon does not stock the Earl Brothers (available through resellers). That's a fair measure of how many people are actually listening to these groups as far as I'm concerned.--Ninepoundjammer 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] generation after generation

"Bluegrass Now" can be found, logically enough, at www.bluegrassnow.com, as a google search would have revealed to the curious. Here's a reference to the "third generation" from the magazine of record (unfortunately, but that's another story) "Bluegrass Unlimited": "In the years since it briefly flourished, NGR has spawned and inspired not just one but two generations of young newgrass Turks (Nickel Creek being one of the most prominent of the third generation) who have continued to erase boundaries between bluegrass and other popular musical styles while sometimes giving hard-core bluegrassers a bad case of dyspepsia in the process!" (http://www.bluegrassmusic.com/index.php?em192=88932_0__0_~0~443~751_-1_10_2006_0_0&issue=88796) References to the "first generation" are most common, indeed so common as to be not worth citing, if nobody insists. It stands to reason that if there is a "first generation," there has to be a second. It also stands to reason that if the first generation encompasses ten years, the second probably doesn't encompass 50 years, hence there is probably at least a third. "Third generation" is used in the bluegrass parlance and I have yet to hear a cogent argument against its employment. "Fourth generation " is certainly debatable. The point, however, is that these are terms of convenience--nobody is going to find platonic forms of the generations that end all debate forever. If the terms are somewhat fluid and arguable, it's still preferable to use "third generation" than to make the ridiculous claim that Red Allen and Chris Thile are of the same "generation" of bluegrass. C Ruth 17:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The truly curious might have followed my aforementioned link to the title of the article at "bluegassnow.com". The problem is that the content of the article is not online so unless one has access to a collection of back issues the article's subject is left to speculation. Who is claiming Red Allen and Chris Thile are of the same generation? My point has been that no taxonomy of generations is sufficiently well-defined to organize a history of bluegrass (I have never said that two is better than three or four or five for that matter, and I wish you'd stop getting stuck on that point). Still, I'm willing to let those actively working on the article organize it however they please for now, but if you can cite a source to define the terms you are using please do. The article really does need better sourcing (as has been noted below regarding the GA re-review). -MrFizyx 20:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my last post was hasty, in regard to 1. my snide comment about where to find Bluegrass Now, which I apologize for and retract--I assume one could just email them about back issues. And 2. I guess I was still arguing against your earlier post which seemed to suggest there were only 2 generations, but if your thing is to get rid of the generations altogether, I wouldn't object if you did. This is pretty common parlance, but we are probably never going to get a strict taxonomy unless someone takes it upon themself to propose one, unless the book you cited has already done so. I personally am now convinced it would be much better to go by decade, and that would result in a richer and more complete account than we have now, but I haven't the time and energy to do that myself right now. How about a show of hands, as it were, as to whether this is a good idea in principle, though? Ideally, I imagine, it could start with bluegrass precursors in the '30s, and it could mention under the account of the '50s which artists are still considered "first generation." I have no idea what my password is, CRUTH

Ok, I DID find a scholarly taxonomy, although it seems a bit idiosyncratic. I'd still vote for decades, but check it out: http://www.fredbartenstein.com/bluegen.html C Ruth 14:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article lead

I don't think the article's lead sufficiently summarizes what bluegrass music is. The second sentence touches on it, but the first sentence (50% of the lead) mostly relates bluegrass to other musics (English, Irish, Scottish, blues, jazz, etc.). Not sure yet how to fix it, as the question "What is bluegrass?" is a complex one to which the only answer I've found is the circular response "Bluegrass music is the stuff played by bluegrass bands." Cmadler 16:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Instrumentation

This instrumentation section was bothering me, and I wanted to document a few of the more significant actions I took. Mentioning Flatt and Scruggs seemed distracting and out of place, they get their due consideration elsewhere in the article. The "one suggested definition" seems pretty arbitrary and open to wide disagreement within the community -- again, more distracting than helpful and it seemed best just to eliminate that passage. Other than that, just some minor edits.Ninepoundjammer 10:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Bluegrass music was around more than 100 years..."

I don't know your format for editing, or suggestion for change.. but dern. This whole article needs re-authored by someone with more knowledge on the subject. You state bluegrass became popular after the 1940's.. Please tell me then what my ancestors were playing after dinner (from my family's oral history) 30 years prior to the civil war? When speaking on the historical side of a subject, it's not typical to date its origins to the era in which the subject's popularity rose. Don't take my statement the wrong way, I'm not saying the whole article is 100% incorrect.. I'm stating that Bluegrass music was around more than 100 years longer than you're giving it credit, and *yes* it was called Bluegrass back then, not "folk" music ,"old time" music, or "Appalachian Folk" music as your article would lead others to believe. I remember many times as a youngster hearing an ancient bluegrass tune about building the slave walls! I'm sorry, if I'm posting in the wrong format. Looking further down [now up] this "edit" page I have no idea what syntax you're using or I'd use it if I did. It's just.. somethings on here should really be tidy'd up a bit.

Thanks guys, this really is a good site with lots of good info. It's just in this case, it could be a lil better. (anon 23 Aug 2005)

You don't offer a citation, so I'm just going to have to go out on a limb and say either your family's oral history is wrong or (if what you are saying can be substantiated) you are sitting on one hell of a scoop. If it's the latter, could you please be more specific than just a claim that basically says "Everything you know is wrong"? (Just for a few stray citations backing up the dates claimed in the article: [2], [3])-- Jmabel | Talk 05:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

According to the Rough Guide to World Music, "It goes against every instinct held by a folklorist to assert that a music has been 'invented', but bluegrass comes the closest. In 1938 Bill Monroe... formed a group of musicians which he named the Blue Grass Boys. Monroe was born in Kentucky, the Blue Grass State -- hence the name of the band." Tuf-Kat 07:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

As to the age, it is widely accepted that bluegrass music was first performed in the late 1930s or (more likely) early 1940s; what did exist in the 1830s (and may account for some of those songs) was minstrelsy. To add to what Tuf-Kat and Jmabel mentioned, one defining characteristic of bluegrass is that each melody instrument switches off, playing the melody in turn while the others revert to backing; this is something that was picked up from jazz, which developed in the 1890s, in part out of ragtime, which in turn owes a debt to the marches which became popular after the American Civil War, and you can occassionally hear the influence of these older styles in bluegrass (in the structure of the music, for example). Cmadler 12:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The 'Talk' page usually consists of a series of discussions (such as this one, "Bluegrass music was around more than 100 years...") with the most recent discussions at the bottom of the page, and newest posts toward the bottom of the discussion (or below the post to which they are responding). Kind of like when you sort email by conversation. Cmadler 12:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Minstrelsy: Yes, but minstrel music (probably the first specifically commercial music with American folk roots) doesn't sound much like bluegrass. "Turkey in the Straw" and "Oh, Susannah" are about the closest it comes. -- 23:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I was just suggesting a possible source for a "tune about building the slave walls." There are a lot of songs commonly played in bluegrass which predate its beginning: White House Blues, Molly and Tenbrook, and John Henry, for example probably began life as broadsheet ballads (or something like that) in 1901, 1878, and the 1870s or 1880s, respectively. Cmadler 12:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Appalachian music of the 1920s and earlier does however sound like bluegrass. I've heard examples, and my own grandfather played bluegrasslike music going back to before this says bluegrass existed and I have recorded samples of his playing to prove that. Just because a people lacked record deals or the connections to get on sheet music doesn't mean they cease to exist. There is an oral history, and among modern historians this can be deemed quite valid. "Bluegrass" as a term is a creation of Bill Monroe in the 1930s, but as a kind of music it is far far older. Traditional Scottish fiddle music from the 1700s is what I'd consider the origin, not "minstrelry." The person who complained was right too and the dismissals of the complaints strike me as a bit of snobbery.--T. Anthony 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I may have found my confusion. International Bluegrass music association mentions part of the origins being from Scotland in the 1600s.[4] However this kind of music was apparently called "mountain music"[5] or North Carolina Scots-Irish music.[6]. To be honest I think the North Carolina Scots-Irish traditional music and "mountain music" sound enough like bluegrass they're often now just called bluegrass. That's probably what I, and the complaining person, were thinking of. The article mentions many songs now counted as bluegrass are traditional Appalachian folk medlets. The main difference being bluegrass took these influences and added others to make it more populist.--T. Anthony 03:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, like all genres of music, bluegrass' exact boundaries are fuzzy. "Mountain music" does sound like bluegrass, but it's not the same thing, and it isn't usually called bluegrass, I think. Bluegrass evolved out of, among other things, the largely Scots-Irish music of Appalachia, of which North Carolina mountain music is a regional variety (and, IIRC, a particularly important one in influence on bluegrass). This article doesn't really cover origins too well, I think, but does mention and link to "old-time music", which amounts to more or less the same thing in this context. Tuf-Kat 04:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Having grown up in Central Virginia (b. 1957), and spent many idle childhood to teenage summers in the mountains of Southwest Virginia (which is the only creditation I have) I would say Bill Monroe:

1) Followed up in A.P. Carter's footsteps by bringing mountain music to the masses. Your own article on Mr. Carter talks about him recording staples like Keep on the Sunny Side before 1940, as well as Carter bringing a blues musician with him to help transcribe the music in the mid-30's. This sort of shows bluegrass' influence on Blues, IMHO.

2) Gave the music it's name.

3) Found Earl Scruggs. Again, an opinion, but I believe Scruggs had as much to do with Monroe's sucess as the other way around. The banjo was pretty much strummed (ala ragtime, also influenced by mountain music) before Scruggs. He brought it to the front, and gave the music another lead to alternate. This was always done with the mandolin and fiddle, until Scruggs.

Monroe was definitely important, and he may have formally named it, but he didn't invent it. And I think Bluegrass is the influential music on country, ragtime, and jazz, not the other way around. IF, the music was invented by Monroe in the 40's (66 years ago?) how does a guy 90 years old play it? And I saw guys in their late ages (60's 70's 80's...) playing at MANY, MANY "Fiddler's conventions", "Bluegrass festivals", whatever you want to call them, in the 70's.

How long have the Western North Carolinians been "clogging"? You need Bluegrass music to clog, or (as we called it) flatfoot to. These are the styles of dance. And, again, I've seen OLD guys flatfotting at Fiddlers conventions. What I mean is, a guy in 1975, a person that was, say 60 (being conservative), would have been 25, and just going to WW2 in 1940. Their music was Big Band. Now, he's flatfooting to bluegrass in the mid 70's. If the guy was 70, he was 35 when Monroe hit it. Will either of these guys ( at the ages of 25 and 35, in 1940) be learning new dances? Not likely. They learn to dance to it when they are 10. That means a guy 75 years old, flatfooting to bluegrass in 1975, learned how in 1910. And he learned it from his sister, or cousin, or maybe his mother and/or fatner to help socialize at gatherings. Which means it was taught by someone maybe 20, who learned it from... well you get the idea.

Mountain music has been around(in some form) just about as long as English, Irish and Scots have been in the US. It evolved and changed, slowly, because the players were mountain folk. It wasn't played in town much, it was always Old Timey. But it changed and evolved. A. P. Carter took it one step, Bill Monroe another. But the people have played it and danced to it for a long time.

Bluegrass is a very specific style of music. It is related to musics that have been around for longer. To some degree, the line separating bluegrass from other styles is blurry and arbitrary, as it is for all music genres. Tuf-Kat 02:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To take an analogous matter in very different music: sure, in retrospect early Jonathan Richman sounds like punk, and so does even much of the Velvet Underground and the New York Dolls and maybe even very early Who, but we don't usually say anything before 1976 or so was "punk". - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Notable artists" section / How close to featured?

I suggest that the "Notable artists" section be removed, possible replaced with a link to the International Bluegrass Music Hall of Honor; inductees have been deemed notable by IBMA and the bluegrass community (as opposed to our current Wikipedian generated POV list). Also, as this page has become fairly complete and stable, perhaps we should request a peer review? Cmadler 19:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

1. I'd have no problem with changing over to just a link to International Bluegrass Music Hall of Honor.
2. Peer review is usually a last step before pushing to Featured Article status. This article is a looonnng way from that.

Jmabel | Talk 04:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

What areas of the article do you see as needing improvement to get there? Cmadler 11:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for starters:

1. Most of it is unreferenced.
2. It talks about what genres influenced bluegrass, but doesn't give any description of the nature of the influence (what came from what genre, what was dropped?).
3. It's about a genre of music, but there are no musical snippets.
4. We don't track the geographical spread, and we don't say much about how it fit into the music industry.
5. We don't have a notably good reference list for further reading
6. The one image in the article is pretty indifferent.

Jmabel | Talk 01:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I will begin working on 1,2,4,5. I can easily get more images, but what do you think they should be of? (A band on stage? Any specific musician? etc.)

I have asked (but not gotten an answer) on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... about snippets of music; do you know how much of a copyrighted work can be used (either percentage or raw duration) without getting permission from the copyright holder (fair use, or something like that)?Cmadler 11:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that if we have a non-copyright photo of either a band even just a pick-up band playing at a festival, that would be good. I'd like to see one image that obviously is from the "home turf" of bluegrass in the U.S. Border States and another that is equally obviously from elsewhere.

There's no firm answer on music snippets, but 20 seconds should be pretty safe, especially if it's not a super-high-quality sample. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:10, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I am beginning to add audio samples, and have created a category for them (Category:Bluegrass recordings). How do you think these should be presented in the article? Cmadler 21:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The notable artists should probably be moved to list of bluegrass musicians, then we can link to that (and International Bluegrass Music Hall of Honor). Tuf-Kat 05:02, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Cmadler 11:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I've reorganized this a bit into a format that is more like how Wikipedia's music genre articles are evolving. (it's not really standard yet, but they're moving in that direction) The "social and musical impact" section may or may not be necessary in this case (it's hard to think of any social impact, though there's certainly some musical impacts that could be stated). I've put the movies in a subsection there, though that really ought to be made into prose or moved to list of movies with bluegrass music or something -- I know there's a bluegrass book I read once that had a whole chapter on bluegrass in soundtracks, but I'm not sure which one. I've also removed the whole "notable artists" section as unnecessary. The Associations, Publications and Museums sections could probably be merged, along with festivals, into a section (maybe "Organizations, media and festivals"?), which would need to be prose, not a list. Tuf-Kat 02:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Social impact was, I suppose, not divisible from musical impact, but bluegrass has played a role in various interpenetration of cultures: it's been one of the bridges between Southern traditions and the counterculture, and it's been a worldwide symbol of aspects of America that are not as slickly commercial as most pop music. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:10, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bluegrass rock

"Bluegrass bands have included instruments as diverse as drums, electric guitar, accordion, harmonica, mouth harp, and piano, though these are not widely accepted within the bluegrass community."

Have electric versions of other string instruments also been used? Is there any information on Bluegrass rock?203.214.75.127.

All of the common bluegrass instruments have been played in an electric version. I know of the following being used: electric guitar, electric mandolin (possibly also electric mandola), electric fiddle, electric bass (guitar or upright), electric banjo (very rare), electric keyboard/piano, pedal steel. I have never heard the term "Bluegrass rock" before, but I can certainly think of some instances in which it might apply. (New Grass Revival in the late 1970s playing with Leon Redman, Earl Scruggs Revue, Osborne Brothers as well as New South in the mid-70s, Druhá Tráva, etc.) Most of those groups used drums, electric bass, electric guitar, and possibly electric fiddles and keyboards. This is more commonly just considered an outgrowth of Progressive bluegrass. In considering the idea of "Bluegrass rock" you would also have to consider the flip side ("rock" or other "mainstream" musicians influenced by bluegrass), which could include Elvis Presley, The Byrds, and cross-over artists such as Ricky Skaggs. This also raises the question of where you draw the line between electrified bluegrass and country music. I suspect it comes down to use of the banjo and (as anyone who has played with J. D. Crowe would say) timing. Cmadler 12:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bluegrass in Movies

What are you shooting for with "Bluegrass in Movies"? Excepting "That High Lonesome Sound" and "King of Bluegrass: The Life and Times of Jimmy Martin", it seems to be a list of commercial movies with examples of a few pieces of bluegrass music in the soundtrack. I would suggest a more comprehensive listing or a correction in your heading. For instance, "The Ralph Stanley Story" directed by Herb E. Smith in 2001 and "Earl Scruggs: His Family and Friends" directed by David Hoffman in 1971 as well as many other films aren't mentioned. -AFinney 71.139.38.142 04:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the eventual goal is to eliminate such lists and have a commentary on "social and musical impact" or something along those lines. (See the "Notable artists" section / How close to featured? section above.) Cmadler 12:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

And now an even odder inclusion: Blues Brothers 2000? Is there any significant amount of bluegrass in the movie? Presumably, this is not intended as a list of every film in which a bluegrass song is played. - Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any significant amount of bluegrass in BB 2000. For list inclusion guidlines, I like what is suggested on Talk:Mount Rushmore (see "Appearances section"). Cmadler 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Associations section

I have removed the "Associations" section (below) because it is getting long and unwieldy, and many of the listed associations are geographically limited and so of small interest to most people. Cmadler 12:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for Wikipedia to have a list of bluegrass associations article, similar to the list of bluegrass musicians article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.235.79.85 (talk • contribs) 3 May 2006.

Maybe not. Since most of these groups don't have articles this would likely become a page of external links (like the list below) and that does not suit Wikipedia's intended purpose (see WP:EL) Still, I can see why such a directory might be useful, I'm just not sure if there is a way for us to do that here. If there is such a directory somewhere else on the web, we could link to that. -MrFizyx 14:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added this one which looks pretty good, feel free to replace it if you find a more useful link:

• Bluegrass World, a web directory for all things bluegrass.

-MrFizyx 14:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Associations

• International Bluegrass Music Association [7]
• Society for the Preservation of Bluegrass Music of America [8]
• Kentucky Friends of Bluegrass Music Club [9]
• California Bluegrass Association [10]
• Northern Illinois Bluegrass Association [11]
• Bluegrass Hawai`i Traditional & Bluegrass Music Society [12]
• Adirondack Bluegrass League [13]
• Boston Bluegrass Union [14]
• Pacific Bluegrass and Heritage Society [15]
• Green Country Bluegrass Association [www.gcba.homestead.com]

[edit] Publications with bluegrass content

I have removed the "Publications with bluegrass content" section for several reasons:

• This article already has too many lists, which need to be replaced by text.
• This list is not necessary or helpful to achieving an understanding of bluegrass music.
• Upon a quick look, none of the listed publication place any special emphasis on bluegrass music. Many publications have some bluegrass content sometimes, and listing them all does not really help this article.

Cmadler 11:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publications with bluegrass content

• No Depression [16]
• Dirty Linen [17]
• Gritz [18]
• Sing Out! [19]
• Frets [20]

Yeah, but we could include "Bluegrass Unlimited", "Bluegrass Now", etc. Dirty Linen has a fair amount of BG material, as does Frets. But No Depression is more of an Alt-country mag. Dubc0724 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point on the other hand, all of the above are a heluva much better source than Rolling Stone. At one time Mags like Sing Out! would've been the only place to read about bluegrass. -MrFizyx 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] possible links between bluegrass and reggae

Does anyone know of a source that talks about possible links between bluegrass and reggae. I have noticed that fast bluegrass always has a strong offbeat emphasis from the rhythm instruments while the bass hits the downbeat. That is very similar to reggae and current popular music in Africa. A good history of Bluegrass seems like a good place to start looking. There isn't anything mentioned in the article about this offbeat in bluegrass. I have seen lots of people in webpages talk about that. Need sources. It would be nice to describe why bluegrass is different than country. I've talked to foreigners who can't tell the difference between pop and country and its getting hard these days.-Crunchy Numbers 23:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sam Bush's frequent covering of "One Love" comes to mind (see here, Sam in concert wearing a Bob Marley t-shirt). Its hard to think of a good source that writes about this in any depth. Lemme think on this. -MrFizyx 01:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Still not quite what you're looking for: "Peter Rowan and Crucial Reggae jam on Jubilee." -MrFizyx 02:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Very cool. Thanks.-Crunchy Numbers 04:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for GA Delisting

This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 18:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)