>Of course, I find it hard to imagine why people wouldn't like bluegrass <g>,
>but I'm not sure that the, um, stringency with which some people offer
>pretty narrow "definitions" of bluegrass actually drives many people off.
>I'll be interested to see what folks who are more peripherally involved
>in/interested in bluegrass - enough to have run into some of the folks
>Phil's talking about - have to say on the subject.
I've never actually run into a bona fide bluegrass purist; I've only
encountered bluegrass musicians and enthusiasts who talk about bluegrass
purists and how difficult they are to please, and who quickly distance
themselves from the purist attitude. So I haven't been put off by anyone's
purist attitude. Besides, I've always wondered if the attitude developed
out of defensiveness in response to widespread indifference to bluegrass--a
sort of "who cares if most people aren't aware of bluegrass; it's too good
for them anyway." I'm not condoning that attitude anymore than I'm
condoning indifference to bluegrass, but I think it's there. At the same
time, though, I don't think it's implausible that some potential bluegrass
enthusiasts have been put off by the attitude of some purists--I don't
think that explains why bluegrass hasn't found a huge audience, but I think
it may have kept a small audience even smaller.
--Amy
