Re: gilded script on the inlay

[Lori Cahan-Simon <l_cahan...>]

I'm in no way an expert on bluegrass, however, it seems to me that it 
owes more to evolution from the music that was brought over with the 
English settlers.  Am I wrong?

lipkowitz (at) aa(dot)edu wrote:

>Actually, Bluegrass does, in part, owe its drive and improvisational sense
>to Jazz.  Bill Monroe spoke of listening to Jazz on the Radio.  Bluegrass is
>a thoroughly 20th century music and its early practitioners were attempting
>to create a modern sound.  Jazz was part of that.
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Lori Cahan-Simon [SMTP:l_cahan (at) staff(dot)chuh(dot)org]
>>Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:34 AM
>>To:   World music from a Jewish slant
>>Subject:      Re: gilded script on the inlay
>>
>>Stuart,
>>
>>lipkowitz (at) aa(dot)edu wrote:
>>
>>>I think that they are not only modern catalysts, but, rather, the way in
>>>which music and art grows and changes--particularly as it crosses
>>>
>>borders.
>>
>>>
>>>Isn't bluegrass the "failure" of white, southern musicians to play Jazz
>>>"correctly."   
>>>
>>I'm not sure I understand you here about bluegrass.  It doesn't come 
>>from jazz at all, as far as I know.
>>
>>>Early Western, classical music might be thought of as a
>>>botched attempt to reproduce Islamic art music. 
>>>
>>Would you elaborate on this, please?
>>
>>>I'm not suggesting that
>>>anything is permissable.   Art needs stability and tradition as well as
>>>innovation.  But the agent of innovation is often error.
>>>Stuart
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From:       Seth Austen [SMTP:klezmusic (at) earthlink(dot)net]
>>>>Sent:       Friday, January 18, 2002 10:26 AM
>>>>To: World music from a Jewish slant
>>>>Subject:    Re: gilded script on the inlay
>>>>
>>>>on 1/16/02 11:17 AM, Joshua Horowitz at horowitz (at) budowitz(dot)com 
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Kick me for saying this, but there may be something to be said for the
>>>>>modern agents of change, which include
>>>>>
>>>>>mis-remembering verses; mis-learning tunes from written rather than
>>>>>
>>>>sound
>>>>
>>>>>sources; mis-interpreting texts and generally missing the point.
>>>>>
>>>>>All of these are genuine catalysts of change, and whether we choose to
>>>>>accept them as valid or not, they are an inseparable part of the modern
>>>>>musical landscape. And most of the "mis-whatevers" were probably
>>>>>
>>>>formerly
>>>>
>>>>>also catalysts for musical change and variance. Again, kick me for
>>>>>
>>>>writing
>>>>
>>>>>this Judith. Really.
>>>>>
>>>>Josh,
>>>>
>>>>This is a great point! I think there are many instances where we learn
>>>>from
>>>>a flawed source. Once people started recording music into a three minute
>>>>medium of 78's for distribution and sale in a commercial marketplace,
>>>>
>>that
>>
>>>>completely changed the tradition as it had previously existed. And yet
>>>>
>>we
>>
>>>>all gather around our coveted sound reproduction devices, hanging on
>>>>
>>every
>>
>>>>note of these reissues as wisdom handed down from on high. As well we
>>>>should, I might add. But our sources are not accurate resprentations of
>>>>what
>>>>the music sounded like at a Jewish wedding, or a Saturday night house
>>>>party
>>>>for that matter. They are accurate representations of what it sounded
>>>>
>>like
>>
>>>>in a recording studio, with a producer telling them, no don't do it that
>>>>way, do it this way instead. No, that song of your repertoire isn't
>>>>
>>Jewish
>>
>>>>enough, or blues enough...
>>>>
>>>>Many ethnomusicological recordings can also reflect the bias of the
>>>>collector. How many collectors didn't record something because it didn't
>>>>support a point they wished to make?
>>>>
>>>>OK, you can all kick me too.
>>>>
>>>>Seth
>>>>
>>>>-- 
>>>>Seth Austen
>>>>
>>>>http://www.sethausten.com
>>>>emails: seth (at) sethausten(dot)com
>>>>klezmusic (at) earthlink(dot)net
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
>