Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link: http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/236970/4
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 06/02/2012: 11:09:11
Eric Clapton played and sang well in his Robert Johnson phase. He took the time to become a musician and then took the time to become a blues musician before recording his versions of Johnson's tunes.
For the last time. I don't care if Lady Gaga sings Bully Of The Town in a meat dress - so long as she hits the actual notes without wavering and hits the actual rhythm.
Sometimes things are just plain bad. Watching that video is like sitting through those American Idle try-outs where they bring out the people who should have been told by a thousand relatives to stay off the stage. If the singer did it to himself, I guess is is more delusion than anything else, but posting it on a forum, where thousands of people who are not interested in this guy, is Still cruel.
mojohand - Posted - 06/02/2012: 11:46:45
Ok, woodchuck...we get it. You don't like his singing. Why do you always have to sound so self righteous in your posts? You can not like his music or care for his singing, but when you repeatedly come out and emphatically state in your ultimate REAL musician authority that he is not even a musician, it's kind of laughable. I guess We'll all have to watch on of your videos to see what A REAL musician sounds like.
banjopogo - Posted - 06/02/2012: 12:33:24
quote:
Originally posted by JTRoberts
OT banjo is an unintentionally closed community. Folks are expected (expressly or implied) to be plunky, play over the scoop, be round peak, don't be too strummy, and stuff the pot with towels, sponges and teddy bears. Those who disagree, rock the boat. Either you know it is so or you do not, and nothing I can say will convince anyone. A perfect example of exclusion is Pat Costello, a fine frailing banjo player, who has taught and inspired more folks to make music with the banjo than perhaps this entire forum combined. He had been banned multiple times, because he is strong tongued in defending himself from relentless attack. He is considered "not old time, and just a folk musician."
Disclaimer: I don't know Pat Costello, and have never spoken with him.
The old time banjo community would thrive if it was more inclusive which is the thrust of this thread.
Old Time Music in general and Old Time Banjo in particular has it's trends and fads. A lot depends on who is on people's radar as far as being a role model.
At one point, Uncle Dave Macon was HUGELY influential on banjo players. Coincidentally, he was a SINGING banjo player at a time when singing with the banjo was the norm... and the young guy who was influential at the time was Pete Seeger, who also was a singing banjo player, and I think Dave Macon's dramatic banjo style suited how he wanted to use the banjo and influenced him, and he in turn influenced probably tens of thousands of banjo players. During the folk boom, a fair amount of the songs were actually Old Time, and nearly every group had a banjo player, but hardly anybody played the fiddle, except for the New Lost City Ramblers.
Pete Seeger's half brother Mike helped change that, along with his band mate Tracey Schwartz... many banjo players migrated or attempted to migrate to fiddle. That created an environment where fiddle and banjo duets became a focus, and since Tommy Jarrell and Fred Cockerham were recorded about that time, they started getting focused on.
Anyway, that focus on the fiddle as being the partner of the banjo has NEVER gone away. And I think you have to understand the current emphasis in that context.
Also, NLCR contrasted with the rest of the folk boom in the the rest of the folk boom only cared about a good song, but they didn't care about the style... the effect was to do folk songs in a late 50's light pop style, and the result was VERY dated.
But NLCR's members had more staying power, because they had cared more about the style... the result was that their interpretation didn't sound nearly as dated 10 years later.
One of the reasons for the stuffing of the pot, the playing over the neck, the plunky sound and the avoidance of brush strokes and bright banjos is related to what works well with fiddle. That sound will not drown the fiddler out, and it will complement the sound of his fiddle. Play too loud on a bright banjo (especially if you point the heat straight at their ear), the fiddler will start to bear down too hard to compensate, won't play his/her best, will not be a happy camper, and will think twice about jamming with you again. Possible exception- if the fiddler has a LOUD fiddle or is partly deaf anyway, or is trying to emulate the same local style that features that kind of banjo playing. Also, I've found that banjo players who play loud, brushy, and bright don't LISTEN to the fiddler. They assume the fiddler is going to do all the listening and adjusting, but the fact is that the fiddler has a LOT on his/her plate dealing with the bowing, and it's hard to totally redo their playing just because the banjo player is rigid and won't adjust. You HAVE to meet the fiddler AT LEAST halfway if you want to keep jamming with them.
Watch some Clifftop videos... like it or not, it's the festival that defines the current Old Time scene, and it'll give you a good idea as to what's "trending" in Old Time music.
One of the challenges in music in general is that success, especially success using a certain formula, causes overexposure, and then "familiarity breeds contempt". If a style is everywhere, people get tired of it.
The likeliest hope that the Round Peak sound will fall out of favor is that people get tired of it, but warning... you might not like what replaces it!!!!
Anyway, open mindedness and tolerance about such stuff is good, but it's not going to change the fact that people like what they like, and what is popular is popular. And if you happen to be in the minority... it's going to be hard, but too much complaining is only likely to make it harder.
Oh yeah.... one of the attractions of instrumental fiddle and banjo tunes is that a LOT of people don't feel comfortable or qualified to sing the old banjo songs... it's a culture that's now far enough removed from many of us, that it's a stretch for many to relate to the words of the songs. But they still love the tunes. So it works for them. (I tend to relate to such songs as living history, so I still like them and sometimes sing them).
Back before ezfolk.com had the big server crash, there was a LOT of clawhammer banjo on it. I put together a "radio station" of my Old Time favorites.
While I prefer a Round Peak influenced sound for my own playing, some of the players had a nice sound using brushed frailing and a bright banjo, and I included them because it was GOOD playing with GOOD timing, it was OLD TIME, and offered variety and a contrast. I personally think there is room for that.... so I DO thing some stylistic tolerance is a good thing.
pastorharry - Posted - 06/02/2012: 12:51:54
quote:
Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb
Sometimes things are just plain bad. Watching that video is like sitting through those American Idle try-outs where they bring out the people who should have been told by a thousand relatives to stay off the stage.
Now that is funny......cruel, but funny!
pastorharry - Posted - 06/02/2012: 12:53:00
BTW; Excellent post,banjopogo!
erikforgod - Posted - 06/02/2012: 13:14:17
quote:
Originally posted by mojohand
Ok, woodchuck...we get it. You don't like his singing. Why do you always have to sound so self righteous in your posts? You can not like his music or care for his singing, but when you repeatedly come out and emphatically state in your ultimate REAL musician authority that he is not even a musician, it's kind of laughable. I guess We'll all have to watch on of your videos to see what A REAL musician sounds like.
For the record..I recommend you watch one of his videos on you-tube....he has a great version of "July-Anne-Johnson" posted on there....the man can play period..he doesnt have anything to prove. I dont have anything against Jack White..perse...but I certainly didnt care for the mans voice...at least on this recording anyways.
I have found however what I believe to be the way "NOT" to sing old-time music....I recommend that all watch this link:
youtube.com/watch?v=kL20yh8mcC8
Edited by - erikforgod on 06/02/2012 13:17:26
R.D. Lunceford - Posted - 06/02/2012: 17:52:17
quote:
Originally posted by mojohand
Ok, woodchuck...we get it. You don't like his singing. Why do you always have to sound so self righteous in your posts?
Given the title of this thread: "How to play and sing old time music", and the OP's intitial post: "Jack White shows how it is done", strongly worded responses are not to be wondered at.
Take exception to his wording if you like, but for myself, there are few folks on this forum whose opinion I respect as much as The WoodChuck's. Justified by his knowledge and experience, Tony is not one to mince words.
Coonskin - Posted - 06/02/2012: 19:22:02
quote:
Originally posted by R.D. Lunceford
quote:
Originally posted by mojohand
Ok, woodchuck...we get it. You don't like his singing. Why do you always have to sound so self righteous in your posts?
Given the title of this thread: "How to play and sing old time music", and the OP's intitial post: "Jack White shows how it is done", strongly worded responses are not to be wondered at.
Take exception to his wording if you like, but for myself, there are few folks on this forum whose opinion I respect as much as The WoodChuck's. Justified by his knowledge and experience, Tony is not one to mince words.
While I don't necessarily feel the same way about Woodchuck as Ericforgod and RD do, hehehe, and there are basic chasms between our general musical philosophies in the OT realm(though I'm sure if we had a Flamenco chat it would be pretty good),
when Woodchuck says,
"Watching that video is like sitting through those American Idle try-outs where they bring out the people who should have been told by a thousand relatives to stay off the stage."
You can take that to the bank and trade it for a sizable pile of hundred dollar bills.
It's interesting to see how much loyalty the record companies buy for their corporate products. Honestly, when Madonna does come out with that oldtime album and some guy who can't see the difference between white and black says "this is how it's done", there will be more of this kind of commentary. Posers can not show you "how it's done", because they have no clue. Jack White is a poser, and obviously has no clue.
I agree with Woodchuck 100%; what an intriguing occasion. 
RG - Posted - 06/02/2012: 20:50:48
Just had to look up and see if the moon was falling...or had turned to blood...hahaha! Do agree with you (and Tony) though Clayton, he is spot on with that quote you posted in your reply...
Edited by - RG on 06/02/2012 20:52:13
Matt Buckley - Posted - 06/03/2012: 05:47:20
A few more thoughts.
In 2008, Levon Helm won a Grammy for "Traditional Folk Album of the Year". To my ear, it wasn't all that traditional, but Levon was no poser. Very talented, and a world away from Jack White (I'm with Woodchuck, btw). I'd be curious as to what others here thought about Helm's Grammy for Dirt Farmer.
In the world of Highland pipers, posers are countless, and create a terrible image problem for the pipes. Highland pipes in the hands of a fine piper can be perfectly tuned and can sound magnificent. Sadly, however, 95% of the general public's contact with piping involves a rank amateur, dressed in full-kilted slendor, cranking out the likes of Mairi's Wedding. Drones out of tune, wretched tuning on the chanter, and fingers playing slow, sloppy ornaments.
If you've never heard the real deal, Highland-pipe-wise, here's the late genius Gordon Duncan:
youtube.com/watch?v=Qurj6sSLig...e=related
Cheers.
Matt
Edited by - Matt Buckley on 06/03/2012 05:54:39
minstrelmike - Posted - 06/03/2012: 09:40:42
Exactly how old is 'traditional Old-Time anyway?
I just read a newspaper piece about the local 3rd Annual Old-Time Festival and realized the writer AND all of us here get it wrong.
They said Old-Time music was hundreds of years old.
Perhaps the music is but the tradition of banjo/fiddle is not.
The current banjo was invented in 1843. Before that slaves (Blacks) played banjo and fiddle together but the Old-Time traditional view of White people playing banjo and fiddle together didn't happen until after that, probably not common in family gathering until after the Civil War.
That means classic Old-Time banjo/fiddle duets by White Appalachian people are at most 100 years older than bluegrass music.
erikforgod - Posted - 06/03/2012: 11:10:16
quote:
Originally posted by minstrelmike
Exactly how old is 'traditional Old-Time anyway?
I just read a newspaper piece about the local 3rd Annual Old-Time Festival and realized the writer AND all of us here get it wrong.
They said Old-Time music was hundreds of years old.
Perhaps the music is but the tradition of banjo/fiddle is not.
The current banjo was invented in 1843. Before that slaves (Blacks) played banjo and fiddle together but the Old-Time traditional view of White people playing banjo and fiddle together didn't happen until after that, probably not common in family gathering until after the Civil War.
That means classic Old-Time banjo/fiddle duets by White Appalachian people are at most 100 years older than bluegrass music.
So in essence....the OLDEST or better yet...somewhat OLDER Old-time would be??....
plunknplinkntwang - Posted - 06/03/2012: 14:38:38
It has been estimated from census data that the pre civil war Appalachian population was 30% slaves. It would seem probable that there would be a permanent effect on the music through this sizeable cultural group of people.
I'd guess that this music became 'old time' when someone wrote those words on the wax cylinder labels
rgds
Chris
tonyelder - Posted - 06/03/2012: 21:52:41
quote:
Originally posted by plunknplinkntwang
It has been estimated from census data that the pre civil war Appalachian population was 30% slaves. It would seem probable that there would be a permanent effect on the music through this sizeable cultural group of people.
I'd guess that this music became 'old time' when someone wrote those words on the wax cylinder labels
rgds
Chris
I don't totally disagree with your premise - there most certainly was an influence. But you aren't offering any qualifications for your use of the statistics you have sighted, so - the implication of your statement would suggest that 100% of that 30% owned and played an instrument. And with the emphasis being placed on the amount influence (permanent effect) this population had on the other 70% - then it might also be suggesting that 100% of 30% were sufficently proficent at their playing to have had that kind of influence and that the cultural interaction at the time allowed for - or even promoted that kind of influence. Neither of which I would expect to be true.
Again - it would be silly for anyone to say there was no influence - there was, but how much and what kind is debatable.
tonyelder - Posted - 06/04/2012: 07:38:15
Also, you may have meant something else, but to me, it looks like you are saying that the population of folks living up in the mountains of Appalacia at a time before the civil war was made up of about 30% slaves. I don't see how that would be possible. I can only imagine that the greater majority (if not almost all) of the slaves during that time were not living in the mountains at all. From the documentaries I've seen and histories I've read, black folk were pretty much unknown through the mountains and hills until the railroads were being cut through - and, as the story is told, the folks living in the mountains could hear the songs and field hollers of the black railroad hands from a distance. But I can imagine there was some interaction - who, where, and how much??? Is there much of a record?
Maybe what I heard (or remember hearing) was wrong.
blockader - Posted - 06/04/2012: 08:34:40
quote:
Originally posted by tonyelder
Also, you may have meant something else, but to me, it looks like you are saying that the population of folks living up in the mountains of Appalacia at a time before the civil war was made up of about 30% slaves. I don't see how that would be possible. I can only imagine that the greater majority (if not almost all) of the slaves during that time were not living in the mountains at all. From the documentaries I've seen and histories I've read, black folk were pretty much unknown through the mountains and hills until the railroads were being cut through - and, as the story is told, the folks living in the mountains could hear the songs and field hollers of the black railroad hands from a distance. But I can imagine there was some interaction - who, where, and how much??? Is there much of a record?
Maybe what I heard (or remember hearing) was wrong.
i think it would depend largely on how exactly you defined "Appalachia." I live in the foothills within sight of the blueridge and my county had about 18% slave population in 1860. the county i'm from on the other side of the state, also within sight of the blue ridge, had less than 8%. technically both counties are currently defined as "Appalachia" but neither are in in the main Appalachian Chain. The county to the north or me, which is in the Blue Ridge itself, had a slave population of 13%.
But the slave population even in the smack dab middle of the mountains varied pretty widely. Murray county Georgia, for example, had a pop of 20% slaves while the next county over had only 2.5%. banjo hotspot Surrey County, NC had 13% while across the border in banjo hotspot Carrol Co. Virginia the pop was 3.3% slaves.
its important to note that there was also an antebellum free black population, and in the mountains it tended to be much higher than in the lowlands, where it was often close to nonexistent.
in general, i think people underestimate the number of african descended people in both "appalachia" and the Appalachain Mountains in the years before and after the War. Often people say there were none, which is not true. There most certainly were pockets where there were none, though. and a lot mountains folks (of any skin hue) often didn't travel very far from home until after the 1900's, limiting social interactions outside their immediate community.
that being said, i don't think you could come up with a way to make the slave population average out to as high as 30%. that number seems pretty inflated and i'd like to see a source for it.
here is a great source i used:
historicalcharts.noaa.gov/hist...e/CWSLAVE
i knew that history degree would come in handy someday!
-justin
Edited by - blockader on 06/04/2012 08:45:36
tonyelder - Posted - 06/04/2012: 10:42:46
Yes. When you are referring to the area that was included in the Appalachian Regional Committee's charter, then you have added a much larger area of land than the Blue Ridge mountains (relative to our discussion of traditional OT music origins) and would also include a much larger population. But viewing the map you have offered - against a map of the area included in the ARC's charter (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia ) shows that the population of slaves even in those areas was at that time - as you have said - smaller than 30%.
Very interesting. I knew there were black folks who were free from slavery. And it does make sense that - if they were living in the south before the civil war - that most of them would have probably lived in the mountains and not the lowlands (obvious reasons). And I agree, the percentage would have probably been small - relative to the other ethic and racial groups living there. And I would expect that the "social" interaction between them would have been fairly limited, with a few exceptions. And I would expect that those exceptions were probably due in large part to music (and other physical necessities).
Thanks for your comments and resource.
erikforgod - Posted - 06/04/2012: 13:55:04
quote:
Originally posted by tonyelder
Yes. When you are referring to the area that was included in the Appalachian Regional Committee's charter, then you have added a much larger area of land than the Blue Ridge mountains (relative to our discussion of traditional OT music origins) and would also include a much larger population. But viewing the map you have offered - against a map of the area included in the ARC's charter (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia ) shows that the population of slaves even in those areas was at that time - as you have said - smaller than 30%.
Very interesting. I knew there were black folks who were free from slavery. And it does make sense that - if they were living in the south before the civil war - that most of them would have probably lived in the mountains and not the lowlands (obvious reasons). And I agree, the percentage would have probably been small - relative to the other ethic and racial groups living there. And I would expect that the "social" interaction between them would have been fairly limited, with a few exceptions. And I would expect that those exceptions were probably due in large part to music (and other physical necessities).
Thanks for your comments and resource.
Well actually George R Gibson talks about in eastern Kentucky the "Melungeons" as they were called were of a mix-race african american, american indian and possibly even Portuquese in some cases...so I dunno I am going to suppose that maybe alot of the mtn folks didnt have so much of the prejudices that maybe some of wealthier white land-owners of the Piedmont and other places had...especially in areas where their was alot of heavy agriculture. In the mountains most of the folks were quite poor and it was a difficult life to had by all...so slave ownership was probably very very low...at least in E Kentucky in the mountains. Eastern Kentucky had mostly a mining and lumber industry... George R Gibson seemed to lead on that the white and african-american folks in the E Kentucky mountains mixed quite a bit and got along pretty well.
Edited by - erikforgod on 06/04/2012 13:57:41
tonyelder - Posted - 06/04/2012: 14:52:14
quote:
Originally posted by erikforgod
quote:
Originally posted by tonyelder
And I would expect that the "social" interaction between them would have been fairly limited, with a few exceptions. And I would expect that those exceptions were probably due in large part to music (and other physical necessities).
Thanks for your comments and resource.
In the mountains most of the folks were quite poor and it was a difficult life to had by all...so slave ownership was probably very very low...at least in E Kentucky in the mountains. Eastern Kentucky had mostly a mining and lumber industry... George R Gibson seemed to lead on that the white and african-american folks in the E Kentucky mountains mixed quite a bit and got along pretty well.
Yeap. Hard living conditions do have a way of bringing folks together, and that's pretty much what I had in mind when I mentioned "other physical necessities". But when these things are being considered within the context of the larger regional area, I would consider this situation to be unique - and the exception rather than the rule. And even in this smaller cross-section, I don't know how common the interaction was considered.
For example - in today's society, there are probably more mixed marriages in America than ever before, but how common are they - relatively speaking?
plunknplinkntwang - Posted - 06/04/2012: 15:52:39
Blockader - This is the link to the site that i'd been reading
filebox.vt.edu/users/wdunaway/...ery09.htm
Tonyelder - I hope I haven't created the impression that I know any of this stuff as facts it's simply considerings of some of the possible cross pollination methods that have influenced the music to make it distinctive from it's old world roots. Your doubt about instrumental ownership & proficiency is completely understandable but music isn't limited to instruments. Humans sing, chant, clap, stomp, dance in rhythmic ways; which were probably the more normal expressions open to slaves who didn't have rights to possessions.
As to the social interactions, again I don't know, but it's worth remembering that many of the British Whites sent to the Americas were plantations with indentured and bonded labour which was class derived and very akin to slavery. How separate they would or could hold themselves from African slaves when the land owners saw both peoples as beasts of burden is an interesting question.
rgds
Chris
blockader - Posted - 06/04/2012: 17:20:34
quote:
Originally posted by plunknplinkntwang
Blockader - This is the link to the site that i'd been reading
filebox.vt.edu/users/wdunaway/...ery09.htm
rgds
Chris
Hmm, what she writes is:
"Contrary to popular myth, 1 of every 3 Appalachian farm owners held slaves, and nearly three of every ten adults in the region's labor force were enslaved."
However, 3 of every 10 adults in the labor force does not equate to a slave population of 30%. It is essentially saying that 30% of adult males were slaves, i guess. she doesn't clarify her terms. I don't know if that is accurate, though i have heard of Dr. Dunaway and i believe it is possible. I'd love to read her work, i'll have to see if i can get it on interlibrary loan. i think some of her stuff is seen as controversial, but in academic history some of the best stuff starts out that way!
The link i posted is the actual census data for slave population, its pretty firm evidence. Census data was very accurate for slave population because, as per the U.S. Constitution, each slave counted for 3/5ths of a person in the determination of congressional representation. I'm not sure what popular myth Dunaway is referring to but the census numbers aren't exactly mythological.
heres a different representation of the numbers (hyperlink not working??):
lincoln.lib.niu.edu/fimage/ima...hp?id=438
i fail to see how with those census numbers you could come up with "1 of every 3 Appalachian farm owners held slaves" but i couldn't say more without reading her work, footnotes, and checking out her sources.
-justin
tonyelder - Posted - 06/04/2012: 18:12:19
Chris - Thank you for giving us the source behind your statements. Just reading through some of what is offered there is very painful, and difficult to imagine. NO amount of "spin" will ever remove the ugly from those events in history. The facts and personal accounts given are reason enough to condemn it all as a terrible sin against a race of people and against all of mankind as a whole - and when it comes to those things - the numbers or percentages are not the issue.
That aside - I would still question just how much influence slaves had upon Appalachian music - or what we call Old Time. Certainly it is there, we have the banjo thanks to Africans, as well as a number of tunes that carried over. But is there a real way to quantify the influence? It's all pretty much speculation and opinion based. I would suggest that if the African slave trade had never been a part of our history and the banjo had never been introduced - we would still have old time music and in a form not to far removed from what we know today. Nevertheless, I'm very pleased and thankful for the banjo. Nothing more beautiful than a fretless banjo being frailed.
I think the African culture had a much bigger influence in other genres of music.
blockader - Posted - 06/04/2012: 18:23:23
quote:
Originally posted by tonyelder
That aside - I would still question just how much influence slaves had upon Appalachian music - or what we call Old Time. Certainly it is there, we have the banjo thanks to Africans, as well as a number of tunes that carried over. But is there a real way to quantify the influence? It's all pretty much speculation and opinion based. I would suggest that if the African slave trade had never been a part of our history and the banjo had never been introduced - we would still have old time music and in a form not to far removed from what we know today. Nevertheless, I'm very pleased and thankful for the banjo. Nothing more beautiful than a fretless banjo being frailed.
i disagree with ya there. i don't think OT would be anywhere near the same without african and african-american influence.
tonyelder - Posted - 06/04/2012: 18:31:19
quote:
Originally posted by blockader
i disagree with ya there.
...different opinions are expected and appreciated.
edit in red.
Edited by - tonyelder on 06/04/2012 18:36:52
maryzcox - Posted - 06/04/2012: 18:44:30
Well, I had to look that one up:
Heyoka
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The word Heyókȟa (alternative spellings "Haokah", "Heyoka", "Heyokha") refers to the Lakota concept of a contrarian, jester, satirist or sacred clown.
Heyókȟa are thought of as being backwards-forwards, upside-down, or contrary in nature. This spirit is often manifest by doing things backwards or unconventionally—riding a horse backwards, wearing clothes inside-out, or speaking in a backwards language. For example, if food were scarce, a Heyókȟa would sit around and complain about how full he was; during a baking hot heat wave a Heyókȟa would shiver with cold and put on gloves and cover himself with a thick blanket. Similarly, when it is 40 degrees below freezing he will wander around naked for hours complaining that it is too hot.
____________________________________________________
LOl :) thanks for looking this up and posting this--it helps explain the last 30 years of living with my twin children.
They are most certainly Heyokhas!! They wore shorts in freezing winter days, big winter coats in August, disagreed on everything--my daughter even announced she was a vegetarian, but hated all vegetables :)
:) Mzc
OldTimeGal - Posted - 06/04/2012: 18:53:57
Currently sitting in a Dunn Brothers coffee shop in Minnesota reading this thread and listening to the young members of "The Silver City Millers" live playing traditional and a few original 'Folk, Blue-Grass and Old-Time' music. It's wonderful to listen to.
Banjo bliss, everyone.
Old Time Gal
oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 06/04/2012: 21:00:34
quote:
Originally posted by mojohand
Ok, woodchuck...we get it. You don't like his singing. Why do you always have to sound so self righteous in your posts? You can not like his music or care for his singing, but when you repeatedly come out and emphatically state in your ultimate REAL musician authority that he is not even a musician, it's kind of laughable. I guess We'll all have to watch on of your videos to see what A REAL musician sounds like.
I have opinions - they tend to be strong - especially when I hear good music being mugged in an alley. No matter how bad a singer is however, I do keep my opinion to myself until they have reached the stage where they have CDs being sold by Amazon or Elderly, or have been on a National TV broadcast. Once they have passed this demarcation line, I feel they are fair game. I literally cannot understand how anyone can listen to that guy sing without holding their hands over their ears - and perhaps leaving the room.
I also differentiate between Pop Star and Musician. I think I have the right to express my opinion about that here on a Music related forum, especially given the "This it the REAL DEAL" attitude of the original poster. I KNOW THE SINGER IS FAMOUS. Being famous does not make anyone good. If this was a Rap arrangement of an old time song, even if it were done considerably better, there would have been a dozen posts calling it garbage - because people who don't like rap don't care how well it is done - they just hate all rap. I don't care what a musician's actual style is - I simply demand that there be quality in the performance.
And Yes - were this a video of some kid from this forum taking his first shot at a song, I would have posted nothing at all.
So I'm not being self righteous - or if I am - that is hard cheese. No one is making you read my posts on this, or any other subject. I will never change my Avatar so it should be easy for you to spot my posts and simply move on. Or if you wish, by all means read the posts - and then make your own "self righteous" comments upon them. Whatever. I can't say I care what you think about my opinion, any more than you care what I think about yours.
PS I've just "Liked" posts by people I rarely ever agree with who on this occasion have taken the time to post that they agree with me. A tone deaf singer does indeed make for some strange bedfellows.
And as ever, to RD - Thanks. I know you are sometimes only defending the First Amendment and that I tend to be rather "difficult". You are THE man!
Edited by - oldwoodchuckb on 06/04/2012 21:12:52
oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 06/04/2012: 21:21:42
I'm finding it hard to wrap my head around that 30% figure for slave-holders in the Appalachians - I wonder if they are including a lot of flat land. Nothing I've read or heard seems to indicate slave holding was practical in the mountains - any more than it was in snow country. Perhaps they are counting full states as being Appalachia. There is a lot of flat area in Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, Tennesse and the Carolinas.
tonyelder - Posted - 06/05/2012: 07:41:27
quote:
Originally posted by plunknplinkntwang
...the pre civil war Appalachian population was 30% slaves.
...not slave owners.
There were areas in the deep south (not Appalachia) that had slave populations that were better than 50%. The map Chris linked to has some good information.
I didn't want to carry this discussion forward any further - it really doesn't have anything to do with the subject matter of the OP. A separate thread on how much influence the culture of African slaves had over what we know as Old Time music would be an interesting topic to discuss, but I recognize the potential for things to get ugly over such an emotionally charged subject. That would be a sad thing to see happen.
Evan C - Posted - 06/06/2012: 15:57:22
quote:
Originally posted by JTRoberts
Here is the bottom line......The purists have their time and then become irrelevant, because things always change whether they like it or not. Just remember Pete Seeger muttering "heresy" as he tried to unplug Bob Dylan's amp when Bob went electric at Newport. The purists called him a traitor and booed him at several concerts. Shortly after that, the folk revival faded, and Bob Dylan went on to become a mega- star with one of the biggest careers in show business.
I'm afraid you've missed the entire point if you think the purpose of making music is to become a "mega-star" or achieve "relevance" (whatever that is supposed to mean). If you can sit down with your son or daughter and pick some tunes, or if you can pass the time on the porch playing old-time with some good friends, that's about as relevant as it gets. There's not much more to it than that, and I'm afraid that if you lose sight of that, then you're completely lost.
R.D. Lunceford - Posted - 06/06/2012: 18:00:00
One of traditional music's most important purposes is to serve as a genealogy in sound... to preserve the memory of the folks that have preceded us. If you change it too much too fast, that is lost.
minstrelmike - Posted - 06/07/2012: 09:44:25
R.D. just opened my eyes to why this is such a touchy subject.
The _purpose_ of music is to entertain, not to inform.
Go to some academic presentation of historically true music and see the difference. They aren't playing for a square dance or for hundreds of regular folks wanting a break from the daily grind.
Traditions do serve as a genealogy of changes in sound but that isn't the _purpose_ of the music at the time it is being played by the people who actually are transmitting it.
I still go back to the question: exactly _when_ did the tradition of banjo/fiddle playing ancient Scottish songs start?
Before it started, there was a different 'tradition.' During the the 1800s, new songs were continually entering the 'tradition.'
And imo, if you skip a generation and say we aren't allowing any new songs or instruments or anything to enter the tradition but are going to keep it the way the grandfathers played, then you skip the generation of fathers. (In other words, if it is a genealogy, then it has to be modified each generation.)
OldTimeGal - Posted - 06/07/2012: 10:37:38
@ minstrelmike - A very nice thought. Music as the structured organization of silence: an audible pattern in time.
This reminds me of the difference between civil law and traditional "common law" from my (Scottish father) legal background. Civil law is codified and is a rigid, comprehensive structural set of laws.
Traditional, or "Common Law", is uncodified - there is no comprehensive compilation of rules. It is largely based on a precedent, meaning that which came before, and maintained over time. However, the tradition, or common law, is only considered in new situations, it is not the rule. The resulting decision from the new situation then becomes part of tradition. As such, over the passage of time, tradition organically fluctuates and changes with the needs of society.
Edited by - OldTimeGal on 06/07/2012 10:51:39
R.D. Lunceford - Posted - 06/07/2012: 16:30:19
Perhaps then when viewed in the context of larger society, traditional music is and has been dead for years now, or at least has morphed into something that is wholly unrecognizable.
I see the point that the "tradition" must be flexible/adaptable/ever-changing to be classified as a living entity rather than as a museum piece, but disagree to a large extent. Traditional music is alive, and does change albeit much more slowly. I think this music does have a relevance to people's lives even in this day and age. My opinion is that the instrumental music is perhaps more timeless because it is pure musical expression and is not tied to a bygone era by virtue of the lyrics which may describe past events in an unintelligible vernacular. Even so, many of the songs do express timeless human issues and emotions and are relevant from that perspective.
I think that Traditional music is capable of operating on multiple levels simultaneously. It is and can be entertaining, maintain a sense of continuity, and serve as an historical anchor all at the same time. The reason traditional music played in a traditional manner has survived is that at its core it is good music that evokes a positive response in its listeners.
A lot of the reason that trad music is not so popular among the masses is that it is not pushed on them by the modern music industry. Trad music is homemade by regular folks, and as such is largely impervious to exploitation by the music execs. Since it can't be turned into profit, it is ignored.
We've all played our banjos on the park bench and witnessed the positive reaction by folks who are totally unfamiliar with the music. This is because there is something innately moving and attractive about it. Stripped of the stereotype, and given the chance, trad music is received positively by nearly everyone who hears it.
Even after a couple hundred years, this music is being played and enjoyed in a form very close to what it was that long ago. This music has traveled many miles across many years to be here today, and the fact that it is still so well received speaks to its continued relevance and universality.
minstrelmike wrote:
>>>And imo, if you skip a generation and say we aren't allowing any new songs or instruments or anything to enter the tradition but are going to keep it the way the grandfathers played, then you skip the generation of fathers. (In other words, if it is a genealogy, then it has to be modified each generation.)
Perhaps, but it wasn't our generation that arrested its development if you will. This music was termed Old-Time 100 years ago. There were fiddlers who called their tunes old-timey at the beginning of the last century, and S.S. Stewart in the 1880's, referred to the stroke-style (clawhammer) as the method of the "pugilistic, ham-handed bangers" of a bygone era!!! Apparently our great-grandfathers saw value in passing this music down in a comparatively unchanged condition, and it was not for academic reasons but for the excitement and enjoyment the music afforded in its traditional form.
Edited by - R.D. Lunceford on 06/07/2012 16:36:22
erikforgod - Posted - 06/07/2012: 16:39:32
quote:
Originally posted by tonyelder
Yes. When you are referring to the area that was included in the Appalachian Regional Committee's charter, then you have added a much larger area of land than the Blue Ridge mountains (relative to our discussion of traditional OT music origins) and would also include a much larger population. But viewing the map you have offered - against a map of the area included in the ARC's charter (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia ) shows that the population of slaves even in those areas was at that time - as you have said - smaller than 30%.
Very interesting. I knew there were black folks who were free from slavery. And it does make sense that - if they were living in the south before the civil war - that most of them would have probably lived in the mountains and not the lowlands (obvious reasons). And I agree, the percentage would have probably been small - relative to the other ethic and racial groups living there. And I would expect that the "social" interaction between them would have been fairly limited, with a few exceptions. And I would expect that those exceptions were probably due in large part to music (and other physical necessities).
Thanks for your comments and resource.
Actually their were known communities of free blacks in Maryland and Virginia in the Chesapeake area...
whyteman - Posted - 06/07/2012: 17:49:11
Subsitance farming has for the most part disappeared as well. But that doesn't keep a lot of us, even city people, from having backyard chickens and turning our lawns into gardens. And for many of the same reasons that R. D. gave concerning the current day playing of trad music.
I also feel that most of us are "amateur academics" insofar as we do have to "research" what we decide to play these days. Whether it's Digital Library of Appalachia or taking notes at a jam as per tunes, keys, etc., we all do our homework in order to keep this ball rolling.
If Jack White was my prof, I'd drop the class.
RG - Posted - 06/07/2012: 19:07:21
Originally posted by erikforgod (quote in blue)
quote:
Originally posted by tonyelder
Yes. When you are referring to the area that was included in the Appalachian Regional Committee's charter, then you have added a much larger area of land than the Blue Ridge mountains (relative to our discussion of traditional OT music origins) and would also include a much larger population. But viewing the map you have offered - against a map of the area included in the ARC's charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia) shows that the population of slaves even in those areas was at that time - as you have said - smaller than 30%.
Very interesting. I knew there were black folks who were free from slavery. And it does make sense that - if they were living in the south before the civil war - that most of them would have probably lived in the mountains and not the lowlands (obvious reasons). And I agree, the percentage would have probably been small - relative to the other ethic and racial groups living there. And I would expect that the "social" interaction between them would have been fairly limited, with a few exceptions. And I would expect that those exceptions were probably due in large part to music (and other physical necessities).
Thanks for your comments and resource.
Actually their were known communities of free blacks in Maryland and Virginia in the Chesapeake area...
Interestingly, there was a very large population of "freemen of color" (the contemporary term) in New Orleans prior to the Civil War, and oddly enough, many of them owned slaves...
Edited by - RG on 06/07/2012 19:09:02
mbuk06 - Posted - 06/07/2012: 23:32:51
quote:
Originally posted by minstrelmike
R.D. just opened my eyes to why this is such a touchy subject.
The _purpose_ of music is to entertain, not to inform.
Go to some academic presentation of historically true music and see the difference. They aren't playing for a square dance or for hundreds of regular folks wanting a break from the daily grind.
Traditions do serve as a genealogy of changes in sound but that isn't the _purpose_ of the music at the time it is being played by the people who actually are transmitting it.
I still go back to the question: exactly _when_ did the tradition of banjo/fiddle playing ancient Scottish songs start?
Before it started, there was a different 'tradition.' During the the 1800s, new songs were continually entering the 'tradition.'
And imo, if you skip a generation and say we aren't allowing any new songs or instruments or anything to enter the tradition but are going to keep it the way the grandfathers played, then you skip the generation of fathers. (In other words, if it is a genealogy, then it has to be modified each generation.)
Isn't it entirely possible to agree with both 'sides' of this debate? Primarily entertainment, music also has many complimentary functions. A sound genealogy is one. But minstrelmike makes a powerful point. Sympathetically and consensually absorbing the 'new' shouldn't imply a lack of focus on the roots or the 'old'. After all this process was what formed the 'old' in the first place. The 'old' informs the new. Surely this is central to any creative activity? Put a bunch of creative people together and new stuff will inevitably happen and trying to keep any musical form entirely fixed and creativity 'separate' is to stand 'Canute-like' expecting the tide to stop turning.
mojo_monk - Posted - 06/08/2012: 05:23:17
Old is old. Once it absorbs the new, it becomes...well...new
Too repeat what has been repeated throughout this (very interesting) tread, the old ways are still immensely valuable. Old Time tunes have remained virtually unchanged for decades, if not centuries. And for good reason (RD explained this wonderfully in the middle of this page). It if ain't broke, don't fix it.
In my opinion, creativity is still a big part of playing old music in the old way. It's like memorizing a poem, or a passage from a religious text. When recited, the emphasis most certainly changes depending on the tenor of the day or how I'm feeling. I certainly find this to be true. What I don't do is add modern colloquialism to the words of a Walt Whitman poem. One could stay busy for a lifetime unpacking the words (and art) of poet William Blake - without adding anything new to them. When I think about playing Old Time music, this is kind of how I think about it.
In the same way, Bob Walters, Uncle Dave Macon, Riley Puckett, etc. have given us all enough to stay busy for quite a while. I know I'm a freak for what would classify as Old Time music in its strictest sense. This is because, for me, the music itself is (or perhaps 'should be') newly discovered each time it is played. I don't feel any need to put my mark on it. I'm just trying to 'recite' it with sincerity and respect for the language. This requires a great deal of creativity, in my opinion - especially when trying to catch a tune I've never heard before! What it doesn't require is a chromatic solo, or whiny vocals.
Thanks to everybody for a great discussion, by the way!
-Sean
Edited by - mojo_monk on 06/08/2012 05:28:37
OldTimeGal - Posted - 06/08/2012: 08:07:49
quote:
Originally posted by mojo_monk
Old is old. Once it absorbs the new, it becomes...well...new
Too repeat what has been repeated throughout this (very interesting) tread, the old ways are still immensely valuable. Old Time tunes have remained virtually unchanged for decades, if not centuries. And for good reason (RD explained this wonderfully in the middle of this page). It if ain't broke, don't fix it.
In my opinion, creativity is still a big part of playing old music in the old way. It's like memorizing a poem, or a passage from a religious text. When recited, the emphasis most certainly changes depending on the tenor of the day or how I'm feeling. I certainly find this to be true. What I don't do is add modern colloquialism to the words of a Walt Whitman poem. One could stay busy for a lifetime unpacking the words (and art) of poet William Blake - without adding anything new to them. When I think about playing Old Time music, this is kind of how I think about it.
In the same way, Bob Walters, Uncle Dave Macon, Riley Puckett, etc. have given us all enough to stay busy for quite a while. I know I'm a freak for what would classify as Old Time music in its strictest sense. This is because, for me, the music itself is (or perhaps 'should be') newly discovered each time it is played. I don't feel any need to put my mark on it. I'm just trying to 'recite' it with sincerity and respect for the language. This requires a great deal of creativity, in my opinion - especially when trying to catch a tune I've never heard before! What it doesn't require is a chromatic solo, or whiny vocals.
Thanks to everybody for a great discussion, by the way!
-Sean
Mojomonk, you're not a freak:-) I use a lot of old material in my art "as is" - because it already has a history all it's own. I don't put my mark on it, but use it in a new combination such that its history is preserved, but it can also be looked at from other perspectives. I recently came across an old book of old-time songs at my local library - songs that had been collected in person by someone visiting old-time players in person, and writing down the songs as they were heard - recording devices were not available at the time. So when I have time I'm going to explore and play some - as is, a lot fun tunes I've never heard before. But I'm also an innovator by nature, so some day when I'm a good 'nuff player, I might make some changes and create something new... You're so right about " What it doesn't require is a chromatic solo, or whiny vocals." I recently heard a two-person band playing Old-Time tunes - great songs, but thought it was a screetchy cat behind the microphone...ouch!
But you know, music is interpretation as well, so when I try and play the songs recorded only in writing from that old book, with no audio to go by, I'll be using my tools currently at hand - and very likely the sound will be different. I guess that will have to fall under "new interpretation of old" :-)
Edited by - OldTimeGal on 06/08/2012 08:23:43
mbuk06 - Posted - 06/08/2012: 12:37:37
quote:
Originally posted by mojo_monk
Old is old. Once it absorbs the new, it becomes...well...new
Too repeat what has been repeated throughout this (very interesting) tread, the old ways are still immensely valuable. Old Time tunes have remained virtually unchanged for decades, if not centuries. And for good reason (RD explained this wonderfully in the middle of this page). It if ain't broke, don't fix it.
In my opinion, creativity is still a big part of playing old music in the old way. It's like memorizing a poem, or a passage from a religious text. When recited, the emphasis most certainly changes depending on the tenor of the day or how I'm feeling. I certainly find this to be true. What I don't do is add modern colloquialism to the words of a Walt Whitman poem. One could stay busy for a lifetime unpacking the words (and art) of poet William Blake - without adding anything new to them. When I think about playing Old Time music, this is kind of how I think about it.
In the same way, Bob Walters, Uncle Dave Macon, Riley Puckett, etc. have given us all enough to stay busy for quite a while. I know I'm a freak for what would classify as Old Time music in its strictest sense. This is because, for me, the music itself is (or perhaps 'should be') newly discovered each time it is played. I don't feel any need to put my mark on it. I'm just trying to 'recite' it with sincerity and respect for the language. This requires a great deal of creativity, in my opinion - especially when trying to catch a tune I've never heard before! What it doesn't require is a chromatic solo, or whiny vocals.
Thanks to everybody for a great discussion, by the way!
-Sean
I completely agree with you Sean. I don't see the debate as about changing traditional tunes. I see any idea of change as relating to the process (if it exists) by which new tunes are assimilated. Your poetry analogy makes this point perfectly; who would think of changing a single syllable of a poem by Walt Whitman or William Blake? We love them for what they are and what they represent. But poetry as a creative discipline 'lives' because contemporary poetry is added to the canon. ok there's more experimentation and stylistic variation in a field as wide as poetry but the principle is the same. And my point about the 'old' informing the 'new'...any half-decent writer is influenced (even if unconsciously) by those that came before him/her.
Maybe this process just doesn't exist? But my guess is there are many talented and creative individuals within old-time music who, if events and circumstances take them, might be moved to compose a tune and lyrics that equally, others might then relate to and be moved to learn and play.
RG - Posted - 06/08/2012: 13:17:10
What Sean & R.D. said...great posts and a really great topic this evolved into, much more interesting than most on here...!
riverstein - Posted - 06/09/2012: 00:42:05
Can’t agree with the poetry analogy. Holding up Blake and Whitman as exemplars of The Traditional also seems wide of the mark. These were two of the most forward-looking artists of their times, ardent proponents of free expression – with respect for the work of the past, certainly, but also with awareness of the need to change it, to adapt it.
Whitman said, “The priests and poets of the modern, at least as exalted as any in the past, fully absorbing and appreciating the results of the past, must indeed recast the old metal, the already achieved material, into and through new moulds, current forms.”
Blake said, “Poetry Fetter’d Fetters the Human Race” and elevated personal vision and perspective: “Every man’s genius is peculiar to his individuality.”
As for not changing a syllable of either of these poets’ works – they seem to survive pretty well in translation. Most of the good stuff does.
Ditto for old time music. It can engage with new forms or be incorporated into them and retain its autonomy. First time I heard “Old Joe Clark” was in the 1960s, on a free jazz album, Ornette Coleman’s “Change of the Century”, where bassist Charlie Haden plays the melody in his solo on the tune “Ramblin’”. I loved it and was curious to know more about the source …
Personally I’m against barbed-wire fences around Old Time or any other genre. A lot of what is now “Old Time” was once somebody trying to do something new. The first American musician to play folk music of the British Isles on a banjo – was he (or she) a traditionalist or an innovator?
mbuk06 - Posted - 06/09/2012: 01:16:32
Riverstein, with respect I don't think the poetry analogy was meant as an in-depth analysis of Whitman's and Blake's work! Sure they were mavericks and free-spirits who pushed the boundaries of the form in their lifetimes. But today their work is part of the traditional canon. We can read or recite one of their poems in the same way we can play and sing for example 'Soldiers Joy'. Unchanged and with all it's implicit historical associations. But the difference is we also (if we choose) get to go on amazon and click-to-buy the latest collection hot-off-the-press by say, Lavinia Greenlaw.
I think we're both coming from the same place though as your last sentence is my point exactly
Edited by - mbuk06 on 06/09/2012 01:21:29
riverstein - Posted - 06/09/2012: 04:20:18
quote:
Originally posted by mbuk06
I don't think the poetry analogy was meant as an in-depth analysis of Whitman's and Blake's work!
Understood, of course. Just thought it strange to invoke precisely the two poets who did not do things the old-fashioned way. Re "Soldier's Joy", that's not a poem (except when played by Tommy Jarrell/Fred Cockerham, Hobart Smith or Bill Monroe maybe) and it's not a piece of classical music - there is no single, original "text" to be "recited" - that's lost in the folk process - and to my mind the work only comes alive when the player puts his or her stamp on it. I want to hear the individual imprint of the player.
Edited by - riverstein on 06/09/2012 04:25:43
tonyelder - Posted - 06/09/2012: 11:12:25
quote:
Originally posted by erikforgod
quote:
Originally posted by tonyelder
Yes. When you are referring to the area that was included in the Appalachian Regional Committee's charter, then you have added a much larger area of land than the Blue Ridge mountains (relative to our discussion of traditional OT music origins) and would also include a much larger population. But viewing the map you have offered - against a map of the area included in the ARC's charter (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia ) shows that the population of slaves even in those areas was at that time - as you have said - smaller than 30%.
Very interesting. I knew there were black folks who were free from slavery. And it does make sense that - if they were living in the south before the civil war - that most of them would have probably lived in the mountains and not the lowlands (obvious reasons). And I agree, the percentage would have probably been small - relative to the other ethic and racial groups living there. And I would expect that the "social" interaction between them would have been fairly limited, with a few exceptions. And I would expect that those exceptions were probably due in large part to music (and other physical necessities).
Thanks for your comments and resource.
Actually their were known communities of free blacks in Maryland and Virginia in the Chesapeake area...
... didn't say "all" - I said most "most". Of course my point was that most of them would be living in a location where they would have less chance of having to deal with the social issues of being black and living in the south as free men.
mojo_monk - Posted - 06/09/2012: 11:40:39
The poetry analogy was an attempt - perhaps a poor one - to illustrate the integrity of the tune (poem) before the creative license of the musician (reader). Poetry and music may be apples & oranges (maybe peaches), but my point was that we have no right to change what the poet has written when doing a public reading. Perhaps adapting or changing (or deconstructing) what has come before is what some poets/musicians feel is required to "make their mark" on this world. I'm not sold.
In music, tunes are real. They have certain characteristics that make them memorable and identify them as being what they are. When they are changed (as with poetry), they become something else. Soldier's Joy has been around in written form since at least the mid 1700s and has shown up in many different countries under a whole slew of names. During it's years of aural-transmission and trotting the globe, it has experienced slight shifts in rhythm and syntax but has essentially remained the same tune for nigh-on 300 years. Pretty incredible, if you ask me! The fact that John Hatcher (Mississippi) and Tommy Jarrell (N. Carolina) play a tune like Buffalo Gals differently, is absolutely fantastic! I revel in the diversity of regional and individual styles in Old Time music. This is proof for me that Old Time music is lacking in nothing and requires nothing new.
These days I think we see these tunes as something we can mold and cast in our own image - adding djembe, Theremin, whatever, because...what the heck...IT'S ONLY MUSIC!!! We're free to do whatever we want in the interest of self-expression, right? The sky's the limit! This is where I (and a few others) disagree with the thrust of popular culture.
For good measure, here's an expansion of the verse from William Blake as quoted above:
Poetry Fetter'd, Fetters the Human Race! Nations are Destroy'd,
or Flourish, in proportion as Their Poetry Painting and Music,
are Destroy'd or Flourish! (Jerusalem: The Emanation of the Giant Albion, To the Public )
Maybe what Blake meant by ^this^ is a topic for a different discussion!...
-Sean
FWIW: I am fully aware of the context/character of Whitman & Blake as "maverick" poets/artists. They are my favorite poets. I was simply attempting to argue that their works stand on their own and require no "adapting", "changing", or "imprinting".
Edited by - mojo_monk on 06/09/2012 11:43:25
JTRoberts - Posted - 06/09/2012: 11:47:13
Rivertsein said:
"Personally I am against barbed-wire fences around OT music or any other genre. A lot of what is now "Old Time" was once somebody trying to do something new".
Exactly right. Many of the players of OT, Western Classical music, blues, etc. were innovators and perhaps ahead of their time. They were willing to go beyond the norm and the status quo. However, at least in the US, much of the OT community looks through the rearview mirror, and does not embrace innovation. Music and all life evolves and moves forward. No one can hold it back.
Edited by - JTRoberts on 06/09/2012 11:55:59
tonyelder - Posted - 06/09/2012: 11:49:08
quote:
Originally posted by RG
Originally posted by erikforgod (quote in blue)
quote:
Originally posted by tonyelder
Yes. When you are referring to the area that was included in the Appalachian Regional Committee's charter, then you have added a much larger area of land than the Blue Ridge mountains (relative to our discussion of traditional OT music origins) and would also include a much larger population. But viewing the map you have offered - against a map of the area included in the ARC's charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia) shows that the population of slaves even in those areas was at that time - as you have said - smaller than 30%.
Very interesting. I knew there were black folks who were free from slavery. And it does make sense that - if they were living in the south before the civil war - that most of them would have probably lived in the mountains and not the lowlands (obvious reasons). And I agree, the percentage would have probably been small - relative to the other ethic and racial groups living there. And I would expect that the "social" interaction between them would have been fairly limited, with a few exceptions. And I would expect that those exceptions were probably due in large part to music (and other physical necessities).
Thanks for your comments and resource.
Actually their were known communities of free blacks in Maryland and Virginia in the Chesapeake area...
Interestingly, there was a very large population of "freemen of color" (the contemporary term) in New Orleans prior to the Civil War, and oddly enough, many of them owned slaves...
There is a French and Spanish history that made the situation in New Orleans possible, and it was unique from other cities in the south. It could be said that a population of 10 "freemen of color" might be considered very large relative to most any other city in the south during that time.
And the fact that any of them owned slaves doesn't really mean anything.
I think our steering mechanism must be broke - seems we are getting further and further away from our Jack White vs old time music commentary.
banjo bill-e - Posted - 06/09/2012: 14:15:25
I have to admit to being delighted to find a discussion of William Blake here! He is one of my favorite artists and poets. If he was around today, I'm sure that he would both play the banjo, AND be a big fan of Jack White! (sorry, could not resist).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
