Richard Dress - Posted - 02/08/2011:  09:51:40

---

I can't disagree with what you are saying about improv, now that I think of it. I believe that we are mostly talking about the same thing. when you say improv and I say play-by-ear. If not, I will have to adjust the list.

Now it took me decades of guitar picking before I noticed that G,C,D was sort of like D,G,A and certainly I was better off musically after I knew that. We all pick up stuff like that and everyone has heard of do re mi. But adding a course of music theory as #9 on the list makes the banjo seem not worth the effort. Let the theory come from natural osmosis?

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/08/2011:  10:01:27

---

Mike, the is a lot in what you say there besides it all being true. But here again is the cake rather than the recipe. We might say the recipe is step one and the cake is step two. I am still on step one, which is a lot to deal with all by itself.

I really appreciate your point, though, about the importance of the ability to hear a song in the wall of sound, when the music is so often submerged in the technique.

Gymbal31 - Posted - 02/08/2011:  10:42:41

---

Spends more time playing music than typing about it.

Old Hickory - Posted - 02/08/2011:  10:44:54

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress

I believe that we are mostly talking about the same thing. when you say improv and I say play-by-ear.

Now it took me decades of guitar picking before I noticed that G,C,D was sort of like D,G,A and certainly I was better off musically after I knew that....Let the theory come from natural osmosis?

---

I agree we're probably saying the same thing. Yes, play by ear and improvise overlap a little in meaning. But I think there's a difference, too.

"Play by ear" can refer to the way someone learns and plays in general -- in particular those who don't read music (or tab) and generally work up their own versions of songs. They listen to recordings, figure out how the song goes (with or without referring to chord charts) and work up how they want to play it. This is not at all to say that people who play by ear can't also read music or tab. I can read music (slowly) and I get a lot from tab. But I mostly play by ear.

Improvise, I think, refers more specifically to doing that on the spot at the time of performance. I think someone else has already said that improvising doesn't necessarily mean composing new original music. It means drawing on the musical vocabularly (licks, phrases, scales, rolls) you already possess and playing something -- as I said a couple posts ago -- appropriate and musical for the moment.


I totally agree that the theory can come through experience or osmosis. Wasn't suggesting at all that a bluegrass musician needs formal schooling

I learned my chord progressions a little quicker than you, but I mis-named them at the outset. After noticing the similarities of G-C-D and C-F-G (by changing the chords in Beatles books to those I could more easily play or sing at age 13) I mis-named the standard progression 1, 5, 7 for the fret position (or number of half-steps) of one chord to the root. Wasn't until a chorus class in high school that I learned that what I had been calling 1, 5, 7 was really 1, 4, 5 (and why). OK, guess I did get somewhat formal training. But this basic knowledge is available so many other ways. Anyway that's where I also learned the circle of fifths, the formulas of major and minor scales, and how triads are constructed. Lots of useful stuff to gain at 15 and 16 that helped me out when I started playing banjo at 22.

GW in Ohio - Posted - 02/08/2011:  12:25:20

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by O.D.

You need to be "musical".
You need to be able to convey the same emotion in your playing that you get from listening to others play.
I comes from inside of you.
This something I have not been able to conquer.
Anyone have any suggestions?
Regards, O.D.

---

A lot depends on whether you're going to sing. If you are the lead singer, you need to have some stage presence and attitude.

If you're just going to play banjo (or bass, or mandolin, etc.) all you need to do is play well.

Tom Hanway - Posted - 02/08/2011:  17:15:47

---

Part and parcel to knowing the genre, whether it being for playing on radio or on stage, is developing media and entertainment skills. One needs a professional, respectful attitude (good banter) in addressing and playing for one's audience. Knowing one's audience, including them, being an entertainer and creating new fans is key. It's not enough to sing and play perfectly for the already converted. (I've come to the grumpy-old-man view that bluegrass has to be perfect, or not at all. I don't want to hear mediocre bluegrass - period.)

Bluegrass has always been about healthy competition, like baseball (going back to Monroe's Blue Grass Boys), and it has seen a growing market share in the music industry, which a lot of pros worked very hard to realize over successive generations. It didn't get there overnight. Professional bluegrass bands and dedicated players worked extremely hard to get somewhere in show-business, a cutthroat racket. It's a business, not a band contest.

People would be wise not to take market share, TV and radio airplay for granted. Reach the fans!

For every bluegrass musician who cares about his audience: Media and social skills, both on and off the stage, are especially important for radio, video and TV, also interviews off-stage, and it's my opinion that these need to be emphasized for the continued success and health (growth) of the bluegrass genre.

In Ireland I see a lot of "traditional" players who only play for themselves and other musicians, and people notice that and lose respect for trad music, as virtuosic as it usually is. Many of these musicians have lost connection to their audience, and sit in a corner and play to each other. It's sad at times. Of course, the best groups are entertainers and strive to appeal to their fans on many levels. Do as I say, not as I do. LOL

---

Edited by - Tom Hanway on 02/08/2011 17:23:47

Tom Hanway - Posted - 02/08/2011:  18:10:07

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress

*snip*... I am working up a list of musicianship skills, i.e. things you gotta know to play bluegrass (i.e. radio play quality). I got this far and ran out of steam. Can you give me more things to put on the list?

Genre (bluegrass)
Repertoire
Hearing chord changes
sense of rhythm
dexterity
...?
...?

Thanks

---

Okay, I read too quickly and I apologize for sort of hijacking this thread with my above rant. Richard specifically asks for this:

"a list of musicianship skills, i.e. things you gotta know to play bluegrass (i.e. radio play quality)."

Oops, I saw "radio" and took it out of the context of this thread. My bad. I would delete my post, but the rules have changed, so I cannot. I meant every word of it, but I hope the thread gets back on track to Richard's specific topic, re:

BLUEGRASS MUSICIANSHIP SKILLS

My apologies Richard! I didn't mean to mess up your excellent topic by giving a rallying cry for bluegrass, but I'm passionate about this music, and I miss home. I don't get to play bluegrass as much as I'd like to in Ireland. Now, that's lonesome! Haha.

Great replies here. I'll lay out and read. My apologies folks. I get carried away!

---

Edited by - Tom Hanway on 02/08/2011 18:16:54

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/08/2011:  19:33:31

---

Great post, Tom. I am with you on that. It's a cakish thing to say, like some of the other posts. But even more so; your post is more like icing on the cake. If you get the right ingredients and bake yourself into a musical cake that doesn't flop, then the next big step as a new musician is to learn to engage the audience, how to connect, how to empathize, how to make them want to pay attention and enjoy your music, how to entertain with your new musical skills. In other words, the icing on the cake. Art needs appreciation, but appreciation needs both a little pulling and a little pushing to take hold and flourish. Entertainment is guiding the audience so they can consume and enjoy your art.

The truth is that unless you can engage the audience, there will be no art and your time was wasted. A bluegrass band is rooted in Vaudeville, in entertainment not in dance or performance. Look at Grandpa Jones, Stringbean, Lester Flatt, Mac Wiseman, Eddie Adcock, Reno & Smiley, Little Roy, Leroy Troy, Stanley Brothers. There are a lot of greats out there to teach us how to pull off the entertainment thing. It's an obligation, after all is said and done.

dlc - Posted - 02/08/2011:  23:28:42

---

Entertaining! YES!

Technically proficient and artistically satisfying to those making the music is not the same as entertaining to an audience. As a music journalist, specializing in the various country forms, the best new bluegrass CDs by the most technically proficient bands in the business show up in my mail at least a couple times a week (I've been listening to the new Gibson Brothers album, "Help My Brother," for two weeks now ahead of its Feb. 22 street date, and I've had the Grascals And Friends album since November, and they're good - that's just the way it is with music journalism), and some of the "contemporary" albums I get are so technically complex and, frankly, self-involved that I can't possibly recommend them to a mainstream country audience that will accept someone like Cherryholmes, Rhonda Vincent or the Gibson Brothers.

Being as far beyond merely excellent as possible is a good thing from an artistic standpoint. But if it's not entertaining too, it's a bad idea to take it in front of a crowd and risk boring them.

Given my choice between the absolute best band and a better-than-mediocre band that entertains me, I'll choose the entertaining band every time. And I suspect most fans will, too.

wb4yal - Posted - 02/09/2011:  05:25:14

---

I would choose the entertaining band also.

Slick Salmon - Posted - 02/09/2011:  06:28:00

---

This thread is taking an interesting turn. All of the early posts were about technical ability. But Mr Hanway has tacked on the hardest skill of all -- how to be entertaining. In my view, this is where the vast majority of bluegrass musicians and BG bands fall flat. They're technically proficient, but they're just not entertaining for more that 10 minutes. They stand on the stage like stones and don't engage the audience. They expect the audience to come to them, rather than making the effort to reach out to the audience. They sing about things that they don't identify with.

Many years ago, back in my folk singer days, I went to a guy to take some vocal lessons. He was the tenor soloist at my church and had an operatic voice, so I expected to be practicing a lot of scales and developing good vibrato. To my surprise, we spent far less time on vocal technique and much more time on how to entertain. Turns out he was a church soloist as a hobby. His profession was night club entertainer. It was the most valuable training of my life.

We talked about how you have to embody the lyrics of the song, how to structure the tune with an applause line at the end, how your choice of tunes needs a narrative thread, how the audience has to like you and what you stand for. He showed me how to make eye contact with an audience and how to reach out to everyone in the room. Yes, we did some vocal work, but he was far more interested in 'talking' the tune than singing it, expressing rather than impressing.

As a public speaker in my subsequent professional life, I've thought about and employed this training over and over. And, I'm sorry to say, it's a set of skills I almost never see in bluegrass.

dlc - Posted - 02/09/2011:  12:04:18

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slick Salmon

This thread is taking an interesting turn. All of the early posts were about technical ability. But Mr Hanway has tacked on the hardest skill of all -- how to be entertaining. In my view, this is where the vast majority of bluegrass musicians and BG bands fall flat. They're technically proficient, but they're just not entertaining for more that 10 minutes. They stand on the stage like stones and don't engage the audience. They expect the audience to come to them, rather than making the effort to reach out to the audience. They sing about things that they don't identify with.

...I'm sorry to say, it's a set of skills I almost never see in bluegrass.

---

I agree.

beegee - Posted - 02/09/2011:  12:13:04

---

You should have humility and a thick skin, neither of which are too prevalent among BG musicians.

I agree with Stanger, a radio-quality BG musician should know how to sing. Too many BG musicians have no idea of singing. they sing through their noses, with their mouths closed, teeth clenched, no diaphragm control, most sing flat, especially on higher registers and few know how to enunciate, so words are unintelligible. I know a guy who is perhaps one of the cleanest banjo-pickers and he could have easily been a professional BG musician except he didn't sing a lick. I'd rather have a mediocre picker who can sing, than a great picker who can't.

Old Hickory - Posted - 02/09/2011:  13:22:20

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slick Salmon

This thread is taking an interesting turn. All of the early posts were about technical ability. But Mr Hanway has tacked on the hardest skill of all -- how to be entertaining.

---

I don't disagree with anything that Tom said. Especially since he's a pro and I'm not.

All I would say is that it all depends on what your personal goals are as a "bluegrass musician." If you want to be the best possible bluegrass jam participant you can be and never get up in front of an audience, then maybe you don't need to learn how to be entertaining. I think our entertainment at jams comes from the camaraderie.

But, yes, if you're going to get up in front of people and expect them to watch and listen to you play, you owe them more than simply standing up there and playing. You need to remember that when the venue has a sign that says "Live Entertainment Tonight," that means you.

My wife reminds me of this after nearly every gig. ;-) I get another chance this Saturday.

Tom Hanway - Posted - 02/09/2011:  18:07:51

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Hickory

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slick Salmon

This thread is taking an interesting turn. All of the early posts were about technical ability. But Mr Hanway has tacked on the hardest skill of all -- how to be entertaining.

---

I don't disagree with anything that Tom said. Especially since he's a pro and I'm not.

All I would say is that it all depends on what your personal goals are as a "bluegrass musician." If you want to be the best possible bluegrass jam participant you can be and never get up in front of an audience, then maybe you don't need to learn how to be entertaining. I think our entertainment at jams comes from the camaraderie.

But, yes, if you're going to get up in front of people and expect them to watch and listen to you play, you owe them more than simply standing up there and playing. You need to remember that when the venue has a sign that says "Live Entertainment Tonight," that means you.

My wife reminds me of this after nearly every gig. ;-) I get another chance this Saturday.

---

Old Hickory, good on your wife! That's a great moniker for a bluegrass musician; okay, great points – and I wish you a fun gig this Saturday. Lucky you!

First, thanks everybody for thinking about what I tacked onto the topic, but now I want to pull it back on topic and focus on a special kind of creative skill. This may not be for everyone, but it’s a worthy goal:

How about exercising artistic license, composing tunes and/or songs, and being a creative collaborator (and not merely a passive holder) of the bluegrass tradition?

And you’re right: it's all relative to one's personal goals as a musician. “Personal” goals are key.

We would be wise to look at the whole person, and not objectify bluegrass pickers, treat them like abstract parts in an engine (an old bluegrass metaphor), interchangeable parts, "Stepford Pickers" as it were – devoid of blood, sweat, soul and personality. Bluegrass is a very physical music; it’s a workout, and jamming can be a real sporting event where you work up a real sweat. Beautiful!

It's about friendship and personality for me, too, and in hardcore bluegrass musicians I just assume a high skill level (instrumentally and vocally), a big body of chops, knowledge and mastery of the standards, and devotion to detail. I love versatile players who can sing different parts, play different instruments (sometimes all of them), drive to shows, tell bad jokes, stay up all night and pick, occasionally drink too much (with me) – all of it. Those are great people to be around!

One can be a passive holder of a tradition, carrying it on in a casual way, and that's cool. I love playing and jamming with musicians who don't want or have to do it for a living. It's liberating and fun just to pick for the sheer enjoyment of it. We all do that and share in that basic camaraderie, whether we do it for sport or for bucks (or both).

Let me re-state something: Bluegrass jamming should be fun, or not at all. Professional bluegrass in a competitive industry (show-biz) has to strive for perfection, or not at all. (Mistakes are human, and risk-taking is to be admired.)

Honestly, I hate to see bands that punch in and just fill time slots, playing clock-eaters, revealing next to no originality or personality. Some people go inside themselves, zone out, look bored, or frightened, or just seem to implode on stage. I can't to bear to watch bands that implode, that shrivel up and die in front of their audience, every time. It pains me and I feel bad for them. So what’s the solution?

True artistry in bluegrass is not being in a cover band! Yup. Too many bluegrass bands, fancying themselves “traditional” – as if that makes them unique, and even the more contemporary bands that think ‘I’ve Just Seen a Face’ is “progressive” – draw from the same overused, exploited repertoire, making their generic brand of bluegrass, call it “Brand X Bluegrass Band”, the same thing as being in a cover band. It’s somehow okay to do that in bluegrass because it’s that treasured buzzword: “traditional”! I don’t get it? (I'm sure this post will make me unpopular with some folks.)

Maybe the antidote to this widespread and bizarre phenomenon, from a requisite skill perspective, is simply to be ORIGINAL, at least some of the time:

How? Compose songs and write instrumentals like Bill Monroe did. Who's more bluegrass than Bill Monroe? Do what he did: innovate a little, give it your own feel, take chances musically and create new songs and tunes.

Mr. Monroe didn't stick to traditional music belonging to someone else, and the Blue Grass Boys wasn't a cover band, though they were a baseball team. Bill Monroe created something new, something different.

That's the essence of bluegrass. It has a person’s fingerprints on it; and it’s that personal feel integrated with a person’s experience, not necessarily virtuosity, that makes you want to listen to that artist all night. He doesn’t have to be a technically great player to draw in people, just having a personal feel, style or originality that captivates an audience.

Might it be that there are too many cover bands (thinking themselves authentic bluegrass), actually lowering standards, or worse, boring the bejesus out of people? (Shoot me outside.)

Nobody take this personally please – it’s an observation about cover bands who don’t write their own material, cling to old clichés such as “traditional” and “authentic”, who don’t take risks, don’t reach out to an audience, and who for some reason, avoid being creative collaborators in the bluegrass tradition. It’s okay to show some personality, okay to write songs, tunes, and give something back to the tradition. Otherwise, it’s taking, taking, taking. There, I said it, and I'm sober!

---

Edited by - Tom Hanway on 02/09/2011 18:18:33

mikey5string - Posted - 02/09/2011:  19:39:58

---

im probably in the minority here but i place little value on "entertainment" when i go and see bands. i dont care if they sit with their backs to the audience. if the music is good thats all that matters to me.

the music the band produces entertains me, not the band members.

i understand that to "make it" in the music business, a musician has to make compromises. thats too bad but its a reality for anyone who wants to make a living playing music. its a good thing there are still bands out there taking chances, playing original stuff and following their own vision and not catering to the whims of the record companies and general public.

bluegrass is unique though. youve got a set of "rules" you have to follow to be considered a bluegrass band at all. the bands are confined to a style. its hard to be a standout when standing out would actually take you out of the game. i think this is where entertainment comes into play. you can only do so much with the music.

Jim Yates - Posted - 02/09/2011:  20:37:17

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stanger

Hi, Hickory...
True. You don't need to sing to be a musician, but you need to be able to sing to be a bluegrass musician.

---

It's a great assett to a bluegrass musician (or any musician) to be able to sing, but not a necessity. I think Jerry Douglas and Earl Scruggs both qualify as bluegrass musicians, but neither is known for their vocal abilities. A guitar, mandolin, fiddle, banjo, bass and Dobro group does not need to have six part harmonies.

dlc - Posted - 02/09/2011:  21:29:45

---

Tom Hanway, I agree, to an extent.

One of the points I always stress when writing about country music is that most who try to "modernize" it just end up changing it into something else. I'd say the same concept apples to Bluegrass. For instance, I thought a lot of the Newgrass Revival jazz experimentation stuff was self-indulgent and boring because, even though it used Bluegrass instrumentation, it wasn't good Bluegrass and it wasn't good jazz. Even though it was technically innovative and undoubtedly original, and still has its fans, it was destined to be never more than a small niche sound.

"Rocky Top," on the other hand, was to me a truly innovative and original Bluegrass song. It had all the best traditional elements, set in an unprecedented - for the day - chord structure (that flat 7 chord is common now, yeah; but back in the 1960s there were only a few songs using it - "Little Maggie," "Sugarfoot Rag," some arrangements for "John Henry," and a handful of others).

You are absolutely correct, though. BRING ON THE ORIGINALITY IN BLUEGRASS! But don't sacrifice what Bluegrass is just for the sake of being different.

Tom Hanway - Posted - 02/10/2011:  02:56:26

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Yates

quote:

---

Originally posted by stanger

Hi, Hickory...
True. You don't need to sing to be a musician, but you need to be able to sing to be a bluegrass musician.

---

It's a great assett to a bluegrass musician (or any musician) to be able to sing, but not a necessity. I think Jerry Douglas and Earl Scruggs both qualify as bluegrass musicians, but neither is known for their vocal abilities. A guitar, mandolin, fiddle, banjo, bass and Dobro group does not need to have six part harmonies.

---

Jim Yate, I agree with you about this. And the world needs more innovative players like Earl and Jerry!

Tom Hanway - Posted - 02/10/2011:  03:05:40

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gymbal31

Spends more time playing music than typing about it.

---

I love this quote. Spot on!

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikey5string


im probably in the minority here but i place little value on "entertainment" when i go and see bands. i dont care if they sit with their backs to the audience. if the music is good thats all that matters to me.

the music the band produces entertains me, not the band members.

i understand that to "make it" in the music business, a musician has to make compromises. thats too bad but its a reality for anyone who wants to make a living playing music. its a good thing there are still bands out there taking chances, playing original stuff and following their own vision and not catering to the whims of the record companies and general public.

bluegrass is unique though. youve got a set of "rules" you have to follow to be considered a bluegrass band at all. the bands are confined to a style. its hard to be a standout when standing out would actually take you out of the game. i think this is where entertainment comes into play. you can only do so much with the music.

---

Mikey5string, where do you get these fancy notions from? You make "entertainment" sound like a dirty word. It’s not. Respectfully, where do you get off? Brotherman, don't pick on a word, a very important word in the history and growth of the bluegrass industry. It is entertainment.

You notion of “making it” in the music business is not the issue here, or compromising one’s music for some romantic fantasy: It’s about being competitive, more than just getting on a stage or winning band contests, having a professional attitude, getting hired by real bluegrass promoters and talent buyers, getting a realistic touring schedule, also working hard to get airplay, and probably living hand to mouth a lot of the time or when times are lean.

Let’s get real, playing bluegrass for the fans – have you ever tried it? – is a labor of love, not some rock’n’roll fantasy about “making it” in the music business. It has nothing to do with compromising one’s music either, in fact, quite the contrary. Your abstract argument is logical on paper, but simply does not obtain for dedicated bluegrass musicians, the ones you want to hear at shows. They’re making huge personal sacrifices to play the music, just to get on the road, but they wouldn’t tend to compromise their music (en masse) for commercial pop radio, MTV or American Idol. Are you saying that they do?

This seems a false, outdated model, and I think, probably, an unrealistic way of thinking for bluegrass bands. It never really applied to bluegrass road bands in the past, who have always taken a more down-to-earth approach: just eking out a living, getting shows, getting to the shows, getting more shows, getting to the shows, getting something to eat – not expecting to become rock’n’roll millionaires or to get on the cover of Rolling Stone. That’s absurd. It’s a labor of love, always has been.

Mikey5-string, I find your position a kind of straw man, though we seem to agree on this, my position as stated earlier that bands really need to take chances, play more ORIGINAL stuff and be true to their own creative impulses. Doing that is not predicated upon the dreamy notion of “making it”, whatever you mean by that. I’m talking about healthy competition, respecting one’s audience, meeting their demands for “entertainment” in a highly competitive industry. Even you like to be entertained, whether you care for the word.

I like your style, if people played bluegrass the way you write about it, maybe for the sake of being different, it might be more interesting, not that it would have "to cater to the whims of the record companies", whatever that means. I don’t know how you came up with that, it’s another straw man. Which bluegrass bands are you talking about (who have done or do that)?

To be sure, this way of thinking (playing devil’s advocate?) has never been of major concern to bluegrass road warriors and recording artists, who have tended to work with smaller independent labels and regional labels (not the majors), tending to do their own thing. Even Bill Monroe, with Bluebird, RCA Victor, and Columbia, was uniquely stubborn about his original music and wouldn't change it or his band's basic instrumentation to update in accordance with formulas or the “Nashville sound”, especially its use of slick arrangements, electric instruments, pedal steel guitar, drums and the like. (I like this music, by the way – I’m not knocking it.)

He bucked the tide, and he never stopped being an entertainer, and I assure you, he didn't consider putting his back to his audience, insulting or condescending to his fans, for the sake of the music. That’s the difference between a professional and an amateur approach, imo. Good summary of his career here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Monroe

Bill Monroe didn't make compromises or sell out his music (as in your weird model), even when his popularity sagged, even in the face of declining music demands in the late 50s for live bluegrass performances, after Elvis and the rock’n’roll takeover of the music industry. Monroe stood proud and firm, having the courage of his convictions. He didn’t “go country”: he was country, the real deal. Too bad.

Now that’s what bluegrass entertainment is really about, and that’s why we can talk and theorize about this. Bill Monroe. Somebody had to fight for it and remain true to his artistic vision. It wasn’t the guys who put their backs to the audience or looked down their behinds at them. That’s just condescending.

Mikey5-string, be glad for hard-working entertainers like Bill Monroe, or we wouldn’t have any bluegrass festivals to go to, where they can play with their backs to you, standing on one-leg, whatever floats your boat. Nothing personal, it's good business, common sense and classy entertainment.

---

Edited by - Tom Hanway on 02/10/2011 03:11:33

Martian - Posted - 02/10/2011:  07:05:10

---

How to define a BG musician? 3 nice sets of clothes, a used car, and no insurance. Marry a nurse. All that aside, I am on board with those who firmly believe that entertaining a crowd, one person at a time, is the way to be successful. A stage performance is not for the performer, period. I am our bands MC, and I also MC bg festers in Mi. I have seen okay bands, upstage more tech. good bands, who on stage, were frankly boring. They should stay in the studio and discuss pentatonic scales, and theory, and let lesser, entertaining groups take the stage. the REAL pro bands, can do either

mikey5string - Posted - 02/10/2011:  08:04:05

---

i suppose i wrote my post a bit hastily.

what i mean to say is that i put musicianship above everything else in judging a musician or band.

i did not say "entertainment" was a bad thing nor did I call Bill Monroe a sellout or even mention Bill Monroe.

"if you play bluegrass the way you write about it"
??????

what did i write about playing bluegrass?

I think a lot of musicians who make a living make compromises. Wether its playing a gig you dont want to play or "crowd pleaser" material. This wasnt a dis on bluegrass musicians. A bluegrass band dosent cater to the whims of the masses. if they did, they wouldnt be playing bluegrass. When I wrote that in my post I was speaking more about the music "industry" in general.

When I went on to say that im glad there were bands out there taking chances and following their own vision I meant bands that arent only after mainstream commercial success. i like, i dont know, say... a bluegrass band?

I see some cases where a band releases an album that might not please their entire fanbase. some change direction radically because thats what theyre feeling musically at the time. i appreciate those bands.

"Let’s get real, playing bluegrass for the fans – have you ever tried it? – is a labor of love, not some rock’n’roll fantasy about “making it” in the music business. "

ok. thanks for the info. my post was about valuing musicianship over entertainment or everything else besides the music. the next part of my post was about valuing musicians that follow their own musical paths and not the current commercial pop market. i said nothing about bluegrass musicians "selling out", nothing about playing the music not being a "labor of love" nothing about a "rock and roll fantasy" Bill Monroe or Elvis.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


In my last paragraph I was trying to say that a bluegrass band cant be too "original" or they would not be playing bluegrass anymore. therefore entertainment is important to seperate themselves from the pack of other talented bands and musicians.

I wasnt taking a swipe at bluegrass bands or at you personally. I play bluegrass. Im on your team. I listen to bluegrass. I buy CD's and go to festivals and camps. Im sorry my post was taken as it was, it wasnt my intention to disparage any bluegrass muscian or band or any musician for that matter.

Ira Gitlin - Posted - 02/10/2011:  08:05:31

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikey5string


im probably in the minority here but i place little value on "entertainment" when i go and see bands. i dont care if they sit with their backs to the audience. if the music is good thats all that matters to me.

the music the band produces entertains me, not the band members.

---

As you're suggesting, different people find different things entertaining. Some--like yourself--get all the entertainment they need from the music itself. Some find the experience enhanced by visuals like interesting stage clothing, lighting effects, or physically attractive performers. Others like to see performers project their personality--earnestness, friendliness, authority, vulnerability, or whatever. And there are those who don't feel they've really been entertained unless there's some dramatic element, comedy, or what not.

The best performers manage to do all of this, without slighting any aspect. Hot Rize, IMO, I think was great at it. They had distinctive and carefully crafted visuals and a dramatic/comedic element, but that never came at the expense of the music.

mikey5string - Posted - 02/10/2011:  08:36:19

---

quote:

---

As you're suggesting, different people find different things entertaining. Some--like yourself--get all the entertainment they need from the music itself. Some find the experience enhanced by visuals like interesting stage clothing, lighting effects, or physically attractive performers. Others like to see performers project their personality--earnestness, friendliness, authority, vulnerability, or whatever. And there are those who don't feel they've really been entertained unless there's some dramatic element, comedy, or what not.

The best performers manage to do all of this, without slighting any aspect. Hot Rize, IMO, I think was great at it. They had distinctive and carefully crafted visuals and a dramatic/comedic element, but that never came at the expense of the music.

---

well said.

im not against entertainment in the form of stage banter, costumes, acts, light shows or whatever. if its done well, i like it.

you cant cover up bad music with all the laser light shows in the world.

i only mean that i think musicianship is the most important aspect of being a good musician.

when i said i wouldnt care if the musicians stood with their backs to their audience i was using hyperbole to make a point. i would probably be annoyed by this...unless they were REALLY good ;)

Old Hickory - Posted - 02/10/2011:  08:39:57

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ira Gitlin
The best performers manage to do all of this, without slighting any aspect. Hot Rize, IMO, I think was great at it. They had distinctive and carefully crafted visuals and a dramatic/comedic element, but that never came at the expense of the music.

---

The Dillards, too. Especially every version that included Rodney Dillard, Dean Webb and Mitch Jayne. Mitch was a fabulous story teller, comedian and MC.

Supertone - Posted - 02/10/2011:  08:57:16

---

Things you gotta know/do?

1. Play great
2. Sing great
3. Show up on time

Old Hickory - Posted - 02/10/2011:  09:00:24

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Hanway
Old Hickory...That's a great moniker for a bluegrass musician

---

Thanks. It's only an online i.d. Comes from the name of the street I live on! Hickory Avenue. I wasn't particularly "old" when I joined the Hangout, but I'm getting there.

quote:

---

I wish you a fun gig this Saturday.

---

Thanks for that. It always is. We've been playing this place pretty regularly for a few years. Now second Saturday, every month through June.

You might actually enjoy what we're trying to do. This is an Irish-rock, country-rock, roots-rock band. Paddy Goes West. But while our drummer continues a long convalescence, we've set most of the rock aside and gone more acoustic. I play about 30% banjo, 70% electric bass. Our lead (electric) guitar player plays more fiddle and hammered dulcimer. Rhythm is acoustic-electric. And his brother plays whistle and harmonica.

Nothing we do is actually bluegrass. Though because of my 3-finger pikcing, our versions of Handsome Molly, So Early in the Morning, and Boatman's Dance come out as a cross between bluegrass and Irish.

I'd love to see any Hangout members in the Washington, DC - Maryland - Virginia area come by. The Royal Mile Pub, Wheaton, Md. 8:30 - 11. No cover!

paddygoeswest.com

page is out of date and the recordings were made at practices, so there are glitches, but they give you an idea of what we're about

Sorry for the hijack

Old Hickory - Posted - 02/10/2011:  09:04:30

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supertone

Things you gotta know/do?
1. Play great
2. Sing great
3. Show up on time

---

To quote Woody Allen: "Eighty percent of success is showing up."

wb4yal - Posted - 02/10/2011:  09:06:05

---

Yes, I would give a nod to the Dillards also. You have to put a lot of the "band personality" into the show. In the earlier days of the 1950s and 1960s, a lot of groups had a character who came on stage and was a sort of comic relief. This gave the audience laughs and also made them become more a part of the show. This to me is an important thing: having the audience feel that they are a part of the show.

---

Edited by - wb4yal on 02/10/2011 09:06:51

Tom Hanway - Posted - 02/10/2011:  17:51:35

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wb4yal

Yes, I would give a nod to the Dillards also. You have to put a lot of the "band personality" into the show. In the earlier days of the 1950s and 1960s, a lot of groups had a character who came on stage and was a sort of comic relief. This gave the audience laughs and also made them become more a part of the show. This to me is an important thing: having the audience feel that they are a part of the show.

---

Great example!

Okay, Mickey5-String wrote: “I understand that to ‘make it’ in the music business, a musician has to make compromises. That’s too bad but it’s a reality for anyone who wants to make a living playing music.”

So, “anyone” would presumably include bluegrass musicians who make a living playing music. One might ask, to whom do you refer in bluegrass that is (or was) making “compromises”? Examples, please? If you cannot answer this question, I submit that your initial position was a false attribution (which I loosely termed a ‘straw man’ ), using an unidentified fabricated source in support of your argument. Back it up, if you can. Whom are you talking about in bluegrass that makes “compromises” to make a living at it?

Along with this false attribution (a kind of straw man) about bluegrass musicians, unless you can give examples, you offered this prima facie contradiction, for which you later did an about-face:

“I place little value on ‘entertainment’ when I go and see bands. I don’t care if they sit with their backs to the audience. If the music is good that’s all that matters to me.”

One could ask: If you’re listening to the music, and you find it “good”, that being “all that matters” to you, well, aren’t you enjoying it – that is, being entertained by it? You couldn’t be saying that it’s not entertaining you. You can mince words, poison the well, and put up any links that you want, but when you go to see bands playing good music, it’s presumably for entertainment, or you wouldn’t go.

Okay, this is not worth debating, and you have modified your stance, now saying that you are in favor of entertainment, though you didn’t exactly say that, mincing words:

Now, you write: “I’m not against entertainment in the form of stage banter, costumes, acts, light shows or whatever. If it’s done well, I like it.”

I figured you’d have to come around to this position, because your earlier statement made little sense. And you offered this, and I’ll accept it, because this is not my idea of fun:

“I suppose I wrote my post a bit hastily.”

Yeah, I’d say so. Let’s talk no further about fallacies and the “straw man”, which would only hijack this thread. Good on Ira for helping to tease out your position and give some clear thinking to this thread.

Entertainment and bluegrass musicianship go hand in hand. No matter how one says it, when he finally does say it, sort of. Poisoning the well doesn't help matters. There's no need for that.

I’ll let other posters contribute on-topic remarks and links. I’ve made my points. Thanks everybody.

---

Edited by - Tom Hanway on 02/10/2011 18:00:33

mikey5string - Posted - 02/10/2011:  19:02:45

---

Tom.

i play banjo in a bluegrass band. i am a fan of bluegrass music. i have bought tons of Cd's and merch at festivals, jams & concerts. ive listened to scruggs, JD crowe, Sonny O trying to copy their breaks. ive spent hours jamming, playing alone and listening to bluegrass music.

do you really think i have anything against bluegrass musicians? really?

i clarified myself in my second post. why cant you let it go?

ira seemed to understand what i meant. nobody else bothered to type up a long response making assumptions about what i meant.

i think entertainment is a component of the music business and an important one. in my opinion, it takes a back seat to musicianship. im not changing my position at all. ira didnt "tease me out of my position" he read my post, comprehended it and offered his point of view. and ira is a professional musician! imagine that!

and about the "compromise" thing i wrote. if i knew you would pick that up and run with it like you did i wouldnt have written it.

have you never done something musically you didnt want to do to pay the bills, make other bandmates happy, make your audience happy?

you dont think there has ever been a musician who caved to label pressure and was forced to make more "hits" rather than play what they really wanted?

really?

you need me to make a list?

ok, you win i cant. i dont know anyone personally who has done that. its just an assumption. i guess i should be more careful with my assumptions.


i have to say though tom. i bought your book when it first came out. i must have read it 100 times. i used to lie in bed and read the tab with not a banjo in sight. i read your bio, and really looked up to you as a musician. i saw you when my family went to ireland at the johnny keenan banjo fest. i was too intimidated to come up to you and say hi. i stood in the background whil you were playing in a session and promised myself that i was going to practice so i could play irish music like you. you even showed up at banjo camp north a few years ago and we picked a few tunes together.

when you joined the hangout i was psyched.

then i watched you fly off the handle a few times. i chalked it up to a bad day(s). then it happened again. super defensive reactionary responses to peoples posts. all sorts of "fallacy of reasoning" rhetoric and general over reaction. and again. and again.

and again.

congratulations! your professionalism and entertainment has officially lost you a fan!

wow, i guess it IS about more than the music!

JoeZ - Posted - 02/11/2011:  05:21:10

---

Hi Richard! You want 8 things a "professional" bluegrass banjo player MUST have? Here's my Top-10 list for a BLUEGRASS BANJO PLAYER:

1. Good timing. If you don't have this, you'll never sound good and you can't play with others.
2. Clean, precise fingering with the left hand. Sloppy sucks.
3. Thorough knowledge of the neck - all the way up and back down again.
4. Ability to duplicate classic banjo playing by the pros and improvise your own solos as well (variations on a theme). Knowing how to kick off bluegrass classics is a must, for example, and in some songs there's really no substitute for the original or classic banjo break.
5. Extensive backup skills. This includes chopping, up the neck fills, counter melodies up the neck or down at 1-7, etc. It includes how to back up a singer, a group of singers in harmony, and each of the other bluegrass instruments, at slow, medium and fast tempos.
6. A decent repetoire of bluegrass instrumentals.
7. Thorough knowledge of and familiarity with what bluegrass music is now and once was, and of how its songs are arranged and presented. We are playing within a tradition, even when we deliberately stretch its boundaries.
8. Thousands of hours of practice.
9. The ability to "sound out" an unfamiliar song - to find the chords either by ear or by watching the guitar player's left hand, and to approximate the melody.
10. Desire.

JoeZ - Posted - 02/11/2011:  05:22:38

---

Oh, yeah . . . Timing, tone and taste. After 37 years I'm still chasing all three.

Tom Hanway - Posted - 02/11/2011:  07:51:40

---

Mikey5string: Relax man, hey, just stay on-topic and stop shooting from the hip. That last post is more diatribe and character assassination than anything productive. Nobody was attacking you personally, and you don't have to poison the well.

Don't disappoint yourself, hang in there, man. Please just think before you post and contradict yourself, and don't be so reactive and vengeful. It's only words, following through on ideas that help people. I can't help your emotional responses or impulsive posts. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings or infuriate you. Let it go, take your own advice, please, for your own sake.

No harm, brotherman. I forgive you. It's only BHO, rhetoric; don't get yer knickers in a twist!

Okay, I was reading Tom Ewing's compilation, The Bill Monroe Reader, which he edited, drawing from many sources and historic anecdotes. I want to take a quote from the book, which I think helps this thread -- it's about generosity and giving people a chance to show their stuff:

On page 175 Bill Monroe is quoted as saying:

"I feature all of my people that play with me," he declares. "Give them a chance to sing a solo, or play the fiddle or play the banjo. I give them a chance you see."

"I believe in coming up with some new material. I don't believe in singing the old all the time. Get a new gospel song or a duet or a good trio, a new instrumental. And see what the people would like about it."

No meltdowns, let's stay on-topic.

Warmest wishes ~ Tom

---

Edited by - Tom Hanway on 02/11/2011 07:55:46

Lightfingers Clepto - Posted - 02/11/2011:  08:25:00

---

John,

I'm impartial here don't post except to give Richard some "peanut gallery" type comments now and again. After reading the exchange I believe that, if anyone should be apologizing it would be you. Your one of those dudes who walks into a room of people, kicks someone in the ass then argues everyone should start being gentlemen and stop kicking each other in the ass.

Cheers,

Padraig Taylor

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/11/2011:  08:54:17

---

I know it's hard to focus a thread on the original point, but I have had more time to think about it and now I can maybe give it a better context. The way I am looking at it is how the information can help a beginner. I want to compile a short list of things a beginner needs to succeed. Sort of a checklist of MUST-HAVE items.

At this point in the thread the list looks like this:

1) knowledge of bluegrass genre
2) performance list (repertoire)
3) hear chord changes
4) sense of rhythm
5) dexterity with strings
6) play-by-ear
7) ensemble experience
8) banjo technique

This list has a practical purpose. If anyone lacks one of these items, then they will know that they must do some work on it. It won't be perfect, but if you all know what it's for then maybe you can look it over in that light and maybe give me another item to add to the list. You all have helped a lot already. Thanks.

Ira Gitlin - Posted - 02/11/2011:  10:08:40

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikey5string


congratulations! your professionalism and entertainment has officially lost you a fan!

---

That's too bad, and I hope you'll reconsider. Tom is a great guy, and though I haven't seen him for quite a few years, it's always been a pleasure to spend time in his company. Please remember that when we try to communicate through typed posts, a lot of the nonverbal elements of communication often get lost.

As Abraham Lincoln put it, in more trying times than these, "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection."

banjomikey - Posted - 02/13/2011:  04:26:28

---

Alright guys, lets calm down. Lots of passion flying around here. Lets debate topics and not insult each other. Okay?!

Tom Hanway - Posted - 02/15/2011:  03:42:41

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress

I know it's hard to focus a thread on the original point, but I have had more time to think about it and now I can maybe give it a better context. The way I am looking at it is how the information can help a beginner. I want to compile a short list of things a beginner needs to succeed. Sort of a checklist of MUST-HAVE items.

At this point in the thread the list looks like this:

1) knowledge of bluegrass genre
2) performance list (repertoire)
3) hear chord changes
4) sense of rhythm
5) dexterity with strings
6) play-by-ear
7) ensemble experience
8) banjo technique

This list has a practical purpose. If anyone lacks one of these items, then they will know that they must do some work on it. It won't be perfect, but if you all know what it's for then maybe you can look it over in that light and maybe give me another item to add to the list. You all have helped a lot already. Thanks.

---

Leaving out psychological factors (self-respect and respect for others) and social skills (sportsmanship and teamwork), I think you have a solid list in layman's terms.

I thought about music theory, but it's really applied, so one can "hear chord changes" ("play-by-ear") and "dynamics" and just go there automatically without thinking about it. One can be oblivious to what something is termed or why something works. One can just hear it, so I see an overlap here, in "hear chord changes" and "play by ear". I wouldn't change the latter to "learn by ear" (aurally), because this collapses into "hear chord changes"; so, play by ear is really about learning the music as an oral/aural tradition, not being stuck in tab/chord charts. Of course, all of these skills have to overlap and be operating together.

I would modify your list slightly, with some subtle add-ons, allowing for overlaps of the requisites for a beginner to succeed in a bluegrass ensemble.

1) passion and perserverance
2) knowledge of bluegrass genre (melody and harmony)
3) performance list (repertoire)
4) hear chord changes and band dynamics
5) keen sense of rhythm and phrasing
6) dexterity with strings
7) sing and play-by-ear
8) ensemble experience
9) banjo lessons

Ambition fits in with passion and perserverance, but it gets into psychological territory. A sense of teamwork and sportsmanship are also psychological factors that are learned from "ensemble experience", so that's covered.

Playing by ear is key, but singing is also part of the basic bluegrass ensemble, and it is absent from the list. Bluegrass and bluegrass gospel is so much about singing, and learning by ear. It bothers me to see it left out when it's so much a part of the core of the tradition -- not that everyone has to sing (especially if they can't). Many great bluegrass pickers don't sing, and nobody need be bothered by it.

If I were to add a tenth requisite musician's skill, with "creativity" (a psychological attribute) and "improvisatory skills" in mind, I would simply add:

10) risk-taking

Of course, this overlaps with "play-by-ear" (or "sing and play-by-ear"), but it speaks to artistic license and creativity, which is how Bill Monroe created a whole genre where none existed before. He took chances musically and added a personal touch.

There are other ways one could organize this list, but I won't dissect it. It's a good starting point, even leaving personal "risk-taking" off. "I meant to play it that way!"

---

Edited by - Tom Hanway on 02/15/2011 03:55:47

Trisha S - Posted - 02/18/2011:  14:21:55

---

It's important to become Baptized In The Banjo.

To do this as a beginner you grab your instrument in one hand and hold the strap with the other.
Lift the banjo with one hand while attempting to place the strap over your head, and SMACK! yourself in the forehead with the resonator!
Briefly, see stars and get a little dizzy.
This is how it's done so follow the steps closely.
If this hasn't happened to you, and you want to be a Bluegrass Banjo Picker, make this a priority on your list.

robbie macdonald - Posted - 02/19/2011:  17:10:36

---

My suggestion as to what comprises a promising bluegrass musician is, above all, a genuine love of country music. This might come off as "glorifying the obvious" but most of the variants of the music veer toward jazz and away from country. To me, bluegrass is more like baroque music than jazz- quite sylized and limited (not lessened!) by that quality. The challenge is to be creative within those innate limits.

This topic is probably hopelessly subject to personal taste and mindset.

opinatedly,

Robbie Macdonald

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/19/2011:  18:03:38

---

"a short list of things a beginner needs to succeed. Sort of a checklist of MUST-HAVE items."

That's what I am asking for, Robbie. Can you help?

overhere - Posted - 02/20/2011:  03:43:58

---

When we were young and bluegrass was just being named as such it wasn’t a matter of being aware of anything technical but only to the fact that bluegrass named and as old time country was, it had in it the sounds of un-electrified and uneducated voice control science. It was simply a happy fun music that if you happened to play guitar, banjo, fiddle etc you were able to duplicate the sound in most cases ,with out a cord hanging to some amplifier it was shown that music of a high quality could still be played out. It was the matching of certain instruments and voices that blended to produce that unique quality and anyone with a half way decent musical sense could come close to producing by simply sitting around with friends at a kitchen table while drinking coffee. And good enough to play down at the grange or at the local church gatherings for instance. All you needed was the love and the passion that went along .

Hopefully bluegrass will remain in its unique form. Hopefully the traditional side will remain intact. This is not to say that those that take it beyond are doing anything wrong but it will be a sad day when melodic phrasings become the goals passing away from the true bluegrass sounds have become the norm.

No other form of music can be uniquely an American genre. With exception of the black mans blues, bluegrass is rooted in and from a way of life. Spawned more by circumstance and tools at hand then for any other reason. An empty Saturday night and raw talented imagination produced this magnificent quality of sound. To know what it is we must keep that memory alive.

So to answer to what makes a bluegrass musician ,songster, I would have to say that it is something born into, and that for some unaware may lay dormant but will float to the surface in time.. so...
the love and passion for the music.

RB-1 - Posted - 02/22/2011:  06:18:13

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trisha S

It's important to become Baptized In The Banjo.

To do this as a beginner you grab your instrument in one hand and hold the strap with the other.
Lift the banjo with one hand while attempting to place the strap over your head, and SMACK! yourself in the forehead with the resonator!
Briefly, see stars and get a little dizzy.
This is how it's done so follow the steps closely.
If this hasn't happened to you, and you want to be a Bluegrass Banjo Picker, make this a priority on your list.

---

I consider myself a Bluegrass Banjo Picker for 38 years now, but this never appeared on my list.
My no.1 item is:
Hoist your strap onto your right shoulder.
Never let your head come near the banjo's......
Proof:

Z Daniels - Posted - 02/22/2011:  12:30:55

---

A good musician listens.

Kenneth Logsdon - Posted - 02/22/2011:  16:13:46

---

A goood banjo picker knows when to play and when not to play (and what songs to lay out of!)

pasturepicker - Posted - 02/23/2011:  05:56:03

---

"Okay, Mickey5-String wrote: “I understand that to ‘make it’ in the music business, a musician has to make compromises. That’s too bad but it’s a reality for anyone who wants to make a living playing music.”

So, “anyone” would presumably include bluegrass musicians who make a living playing music. One might ask, to whom do you refer in bluegrass that is (or was) making “compromises”? Examples, please? If you cannot answer this question, I submit that your initial position was a false attribution (which I loosely termed a ‘straw man’ ), using an unidentified fabricated source in support of your argument. Back it up, if you can. Whom are you talking about in bluegrass that makes “compromises” to make a living at it?"

I think we have to look no further than to banjo patriach, Earl Scruggs as an example. I would consider the later pop material covered by Flatt and Scruggs to be compromising their music. In my opinion, the experiment failed. I suspect the influence of record labels and Louise Scruggs on the music was a contributing factor to the break up of Flatt and Scruggs.

This is a good thread that gives some insight into the business side of playing bluegrass music. There is some valuable information here for aspiring musicians that want to compete in the bluegrass business.

Tom Hanway - Posted - 02/23/2011:  16:43:18

---

Andy wrote: This is a good thread that gives some insight into the business side of playing bluegrass music. There is some valuable information here for aspiring musicians that want to compete in the bluegrass business.

Andy, I brought in a lot of ideas about what I believe to be the requisite entertainment and social skills of a BG musician, though you haven't cited me (while maybe quoting me out of context).

I'll let that slide, because to respond would be to hijack this thread. I humbly suggest that you start a new thread about Earl Scruggs, or whomever your target is, but for godsakes, leave Louise Scruggs alone. She has nothing to do with this specific topic. Leave her in peace.

Start a new thread, maybe. That's my take on it. Respect. If you want to make assertions or debate something tangential to the thread topic, that's fine, but please don't hijack this thread. It could lead to trolling, haha!

stanger - Posted - 02/23/2011:  23:12:59

---

About compromises...

I think it really all depends on what an individual or a band considers what constitutes a compromise.

Using Bill Monroe as an example- Bill never included Foggy Mtn. Breakdown in his play list, ever. But Scruggs had given him Bluegrass Breakdown, which is essentially the same tune with one chord's difference, and whenever the audience called for Foggy, Bill gave them Bluegrass Breakdown.

Is this compromise or not? Personally, I don't think so.

In my own case, when I get a call for Foggy, I play it like I want. I usually start with just enough of the Scruggs elements to make it recognizable, then take off and do whatever hits me at the moment. I'll improvise widely on it, make it a part of a medley, cut it very short, and carry on with it. I'm me, and Earl is Earl. I'll never be him, or he me, so why bother trying to play every note he played 50 years ago when he recorded it?

Am I compromising? Again, I don't think so. I like to improvise on the fly, so I play like I like to play. If another player wants to play Foggy note for note, that's fine with me. I could probably do it too, but I lost my imitation of any other player long ago.
I'll leave exact replication of notes up to the classical music world, where it's a big deal to play everything exactly as written.
regards,
stanger

---

Edited by - stanger on 02/23/2011 23:15:39