Bill Silvers says:
> Like I said about pop music last week, there's always a lot more
> mediocre or worse bands than good or great ones. Do those bands,
> in whatever genre, drag that style of music down for the other
> people playing it? What makes "the roots music movement" different?
>
> Anonymous asserts:
>
>> The saddest part is the proliferation of these dime a dozen
>> Americana bands is what killing the whole roots music movement.
>> The pie is only so big for musicians, clubs, labels, and the more
>> slices there are the less there is for the folks who really love
>> this music and deserve an opportunity to make a living playing it.
> >
> So is this really true? And if so, why more so for this music
> than any other, where nobody mentions how the lesser-quality bands
> are spoiling it for everybody else?
I think it's true, and it can be heard, though usually not in public and
usually not for attribution, from a lot of pro-level bluegrassers as well
(synchronistically, someone on
folkdj-l recently posted in passing a short comment from another
unidentified musician saying exactly the same thing with regard to
bluegrass; as it happens, I know the guy who made it, and he's definitely a
higher-quality type).
As for why the "roots music movement" is different in this regard, the short
answer, IMO, is unfamiliarity. People's exposure to bluegrass, or
alt.country, for instance, is a lot smaller and a lot chancier, hence the
greater likelihood that hearing someone who, pardon my French, sucks will
turn the first-time observer off; s/he's more likely to take the lousy
performance as typical of the genre.
Jon Weisberger, Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger
