Greg, a/k/a "Mr. Onus," says:
> Jon, would you say then that if a 'bad' bluegrass band gets booked at a
> festival, the potential bad impression that could be loosed upon an
> unexpecting audience is the fault of the promoter? Or does the onus fall
> upon the band itself?
Mostly the promoter, no doubt.
> Seems to me this is where Anon's arguments fail. I think Anon's beef is
> much more with the organizers, promoters, and marketers of SXSW,
> but all the ire falls on the bands.
I don't think so; after all, Anon says:
>>The MOST disturbing part of the whole SXSW experience was seeing music
critics, label folks and radio programmers also eating these bands up like
they were the new Merle Haggard [emphasis added].<<
Which pretty much echoes something that Bill Emerson, banjoist
extraordinaire, told Bluegrass Unlimited a few years ago (I'm hunting for
that Crowe rant):
"The problem with bluegrass is that there's too much unprofessional
bluegrass. It's a type of music that anybody can play anywhere. You don't
have to have an amplifier or an AC power outlet....That's not to say that
anyone who's doing it is ready to make records and compete for the jobs at
the bluegrass festivals. Anyone with a few thousand dollars can produce a
recording and send it to radio stations. Program directors, recording
executives and promoters should be careful about who they're putting out
there to represent the bluegrass idiom. To help it grow we have to
concentrate on the *best* music we have."
BTW, Erin, that "compete for the jobs" clause is the fly in the ointment of
your more-is-better argument. Half-assed musicians who figure that they can
overcome the deficiency of being half as good by charging a quarter as much
(an approach that promoters are all too often willing to sign on to) aren't
any help to working musicians.
Jon Weisberger, Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger
