I doubt that an uncertainty defining old time has anything to do with its surviving as a musical form. It might be interesting to see what others say. I don't believe the form is disappearing.

Maybe as time progresses it will find its own centre of gravity. Maybe the title “Old Time “ is an oxymoron because I’m sure there are young people bringing new life to it. I suppose even old ways can evolve.

Don't see where narrowly defining the genre benefits anyone, unless maybe it somehow makes someone feel better if the chosen definition reinforces their personal definition. My fiddle doesn't feel a need for academic validation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bacfire

Don't see where narrowly defining the genre benefits anyone, unless maybe it somehow makes someone feel better if the chosen definition reinforces their personal definition. My fiddle doesn't feel a need for academic validation.

---

Defining the genre more clearly benefits everyone who has any interaction with it. Without defining terms it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion, and that is where discussions about Old Time inevitably break down. There are a lot of people who suggest the "Do Whatever You Feel Like" approach, but this very quickly shows itself to be disingenuous as soon as something that isn't what they feel is right is presented.

There are plenty of books available about fiddlers or even some attempts to  typify regional styles, but there is precious little that goes into the identity of the genre itself. It's not too hard to find various explanations for the genesis of the style, but there is little consideration given to defining it. I think the excerpt on jazz definitions is interesting as a comparison because, as one can see from the articles and literary sources listed, jazz has been given a considerable amount of thought, both from the casual and the academic perspective. People have been looking to answer the question  "What is Jazz?" since its appearance, and even today it remains important to ask that question as a way to understand it better. As a result, jazz is in better overall shape as a genre, and it is widely known and recognized throughout the world. Despite the claims made here that scholarly approaches dilute the integrity of a genre, jazz has disproven that way of thinking over and over. 
 

"My fiddle doesn't feel a need for academic validation."

The nonsensical nature of this comment is obvious. The fiddle doesn't play itself; every nuance or lack thereof (excepting makng or setup issues) stems from the player. But in any case, whether one "feels a need" for anything is not an accurate measure of the actual need. A player with a bad ear may not feel a need to tune a fiddle, but that doesn't change the fact that the fiddle is out of tune and ruins the cohesion of the ensemble. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

quote:

---

Originally posted by bacfire

Don't see where narrowly defining the genre benefits anyone, unless maybe it somehow makes someone feel better if the chosen definition reinforces their personal definition. My fiddle doesn't feel a need for academic validation.

---

Despite the claims made here that scholarly approaches dilute the integrity of a genre, jazz has disproven that way of thinking over and over. 
 

 

---

There's an inherent contradiction in your idea. Your proposal to define the genre "old time" is by definition an historical perspective, trying to nail it down or put it under glass. But the music is generally different from jazz in that it developed freely amongst common folks. We can't really know to what degree anyone intentionally shaped the form the way we can follow the history of jazz music, where technical innovation was noted and encouraged. Your need to academically validate old time music treats it like an intentional form like jazz, but I see it as a simple form of social cohesion that evolved more or less organically. Many of us still approach it that way. That doesn't make it inferior or in need of academic blessing.

Modern times are to some extent accomplishing what you desire given the ease of recording and publishing. Old Time is being preserved in every way possible by technology. It doesn't require additional academic treatment. Let it breathe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian Wood

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

quote:

---

Originally posted by bacfire

Don't see where narrowly defining the genre benefits anyone, unless maybe it somehow makes someone feel better if the chosen definition reinforces their personal definition. My fiddle doesn't feel a need for academic validation.

---

Despite the claims made here that scholarly approaches dilute the integrity of a genre, jazz has disproven that way of thinking over and over. 
 

 

---

There's an inherent contradiction in your idea. Your proposal to define the genre "old time" is by definition an historical perspective, trying to nail it down or put it under glass. But the music is generally different from jazz in that it developed freely amongst common folks. We can't really know to what degree anyone intentionally shaped the form the way we can follow the history of jazz music, where technical innovation was noted and encouraged. Your need to academically validate old time music treats it like an intentional form like jazz, but I see it as a simple form of social cohesion that evolved more or less organically. Many of us still approach it that way. That doesn't make it inferior or in need of academic blessing.

Modern times are to some extent accomplishing what you desire given the ease of recording and publishing. Old Time is being preserved in every way possible by technology. It doesn't require additional academic treatment. Let it breathe.

---

No contradiction at all. I think the problem is that you're viewing an academic approach as one that divorces the music from its performance, whereas my argument is that an approach to definition is a step toward greater understanding and therefore currency in the music.

The scholarly approach has been the source of a treasure trove of music. We would not have our Western system of music were it not for medieval scholars doing their best to make sense of the Greek modes. Bach would not have seen such a great resurgence into the public eye were it not for a scholarly interest in it after it had lost popularity. Baroque music would never have experienced a resurgence were it not for the early attempts by academics to learn about the music and its instruments. I don't believe the revival of Old Time would have been possible were it not for a few people who took a somewhat academic approach to the music. Jazz was not an academic invention, but its study in academic institutions has helped it to remain alive and well and has elevated it in the public eye to the point that the jazz player is often characterized as an intellectual simply by virtue of playing the music.

In other genres, consideration of the definition has led to the establishment of subcategories that allow the listener to explore the genres in more granular detail. I think a lot of people could give a passable explanation if you asked them to define things like Hair Metal, Big Band, or Gypsy Jazz, but they'd all be scratching their heads to define Old Time because even the people who play it can't decide what it is.

If you want to argue that Old Time is a form of social cohesion, then that sounds more like it isn't really a form of music but rather an archaic version of social gathering that takes its cues from rural culture that is mostly extinct. Playing in jams is a way to keep tunes alive and maintain a social connection, but it isn't a 1:1 equivalent of the lifestyle of the people who pioneered the music. It also gets confusing when you compare it to any other form of musical get-together that encourages participation. If the social gathering is the key for its definition, then we'd have to call Irish, Celtic, Blues, and Jazz Old Time as well.

It seems to me that this approach to its explanation would further blur the line between Old Time and folk music in general. The usefulness of the name would become debatable, and it might then be better to scrap it entirely since its meaning would have become too problematic to distinguish.

I like the choking analogy, so let's consider it more. Imagine someone lying on the ground gasping for air. You could choose to approach it by saying "Let this person breathe" or you could approach it armed with a carefully trained approach to define the problem, seek its cause, and ameliorate the situation. In emergencies like these, a functional understanding and decisive action are vital to survival.

There's a tendency here to ignore the problems and say that everything is fine and Old Time is doing just as well as ever. But that sounds very much out of tune to me when I hear that fiddle camps are canceled because of low enrollment, festivals and competitions are poorly attended, and I hear people who have attended suggesting that Old Time events are essentially turning into Bluegrass and erasing the Old Time identity. 

It all boils down to the idea that no musical genre could exist if nobody liked it... the only reason I can see for exact details of defining genres is for commercial purposes...I.e. radio stations that play this style or that, stores that sell this type CD or that, nightclubs or concert stages that play only this style or that. Other than those situations...who the heck cares? You either like it or you don't...you either play it according to scholars' directions or you play it your own way. There are no police.

quote:

---

Originally posted by groundhogpeggy

You either like it or you don't...you either play it according to scholars' directions or you play it your own way. There are no police.

---

You say that, but have you never seen a group object to a player who played a tune "wrong?"

Scholars don't make the directions for playing, they study to understand how to follow the original directions properly. When you just wing it with everything, you end up with drastically different results from those of the original players. To some players that's not an issue, but to those interested in preservation, it's a major complication. 
 

And if you're just playing everything your way alone, how reasonable is it to call it Old Time if you follow no conventions? If you follow some conventions, then there has to be some underlying conception of the genre for it to be consistent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

quote:

---

Originally posted by groundhogpeggy

You either like it or you don't...you either play it according to scholars' directions or you play it your own way. There are no police.

---

You say that, but have you never seen a group object to a player who played a tune "wrong?"

Scholars don't make the directions for playing, they study to understand how to follow the original directions properly. When you just wing it with everything, you end up with drastically different results from those of the original players. To some players that's not an issue, but to those interested in preservation, it's a major complication. 
 

And if you're just playing everything your way alone, how reasonable is it to call it Old Time if you follow no conventions? If you follow some conventions, then there has to be some underlying conception of the genre for it to be consistent.

 

---

Scholars trying to follow the original directions properly are free to do that. That's what you're trying to do. For many of us the "original directions" part is a bit mysterious. It's hard to find a starting point for a musical style. And when you do it necessarily lacks "original directions" because it's presumably unique.

Speaking for myself, reading scholarly works about musical styles can be interesting. But not because the scholarship is saving something. It's merely explaining something and can be interesting.

That's different from saving a genre through academic effort. I don't believe that's necessary. Society doesn't have to stand behind a scholarly definition of something to validate it. "Interesting" is not the same as "necessary". The style, as it exists today, is a result of all the people who ever played a part in it. In fact, it was never one thing, just people sharing similar musical interests, person by person, group by group. As I've said, modern recording technology has solved your worry and halted a disappearing past. From now on everything stays with us. If there's anything to save it is the actual folk process itself, people sharing tunes in a primarily non-academic environment, shedding for even short times the pressure of academic sanctions.

You mentioned that festivals are closing because of low attendance. That is something I wasn't aware of since I rarely get out anymore. If true, that's a real shame. The distinction between old time and bluegrass is always tenuous. They share many roots, but bluegrass being flashier I can see that it wins audiences that way. I don't think much can be done about that. Jazz shares roots with blues too, but they still retain their own identity. No doubt in the past styles have disappeared into history, but as I've said  modern people have unlimited access to recorded music since recording began. Anyone can still find tunes to hear and play in any style since then. What's so important about calling it "Old Time" with official sanctions as long as its devotees can find each other?

Sure, Rich. Some people just don't like to color within the lines, and they are usually the type that aren't necessarily bothered by criticism. Some people like to be neatly in the lines...human nature goes both ways. So what's the big deal? I wish I wasn't so overwhelmed and run over by much bigger worries in my life than that of wondering if OT is precisely defined or whether I can identify jazz progressions from something else...or whether if I feel like it, I can safely combine elements from both or even work in some Bach in there, without worry of being burned at the stake as some musical heretic. If you are doing it for a living, that could make you or break you...you'd have to be more careful about your following, and how they see things...you'd have much less artistic license if you were doing it for a paycheck. For us amateurs, the sky is the limit...we do what we love to do. It seems you are bothered by that fact, so I hope you can learn to just live and let live, and let's all go on and play what we love to play. 

Oh yeah, I remember one time, many years back, I managed to tune in to a radio station (we couldn't pick up diddly squat where we lived) and hearing John Denver as he was losing popularity in the U.S., after having once been considered a big musical star.  He was saying one of his problems was he didn't quite fit neatly into any category...not folk, not folk rock, not rock, not country...he said he just loved playing his own unique style, but commerically it started to hurt him at one point or other when other genres began to be more in demand.  He just didn't fit in anymore.  I think he pretty much just stayed true to his style...but he was at an impasse between financial gain and artistic license.  So what that has to do with the conversation...lol...just saying it reminds me of that, and must be one of the hassles of making a living at music.  

The John Denver story is relatable. One of my own violin heroes, Florian ZaBach was a fantastic player who carved out a niche mostly for himself. He studied under the great virtuoso and teacher Vasa Prihoda as a boy wonder violinist (I’ve seen the poster from his debut performance with a major orchestra in Europe) and then made a career playing in America. He had the ability to be a great classical violinist but saw a chance to do something unique by playing his own versions of classics and popular melodies. He performed in the Army during WWII and wrote some pieces of his own, then achieved stardom when his arrangement and performance of “The Hot Canary” went golden. This led to his making several albums, concertizing extensively, and hosting his own TV show (for which he scored all the arrangements himself). However, as the British invasion happened, the public taste shifted away from what he was playing and his career faltered. He made a comeback attempt about a decade later with an album of music that was more popular at that time accompanied the Nashville Country Strings, but it never materialized into a solid return to the spotlight. He, a bit like John Denver, was hard to fit neatly into a category. Some call it Easy Listening, some call it Light Classical, some Folk. He continued playing concerts for the rest of his career and had the rear axles of his station wagon reinforced to handle the weight of all the sheet music he carried around on tour. There was a European counterpart, Helmut Zacharias, but Zacharias faded even more into obscurity. ZaBach is still known to some especially because of “The Hot Canary” and the tune somewhat sadly showed up on Muzak occasionally, as well as in the occasional encore at a recital. Andre Rieu or David Garrett might be the closest in kinship to ZaBach now, although the former is more of an orchestra director who happens to play the violin and the latter is more focused on rock (he did emulate ZaBach in going for the Guinness World Record for performance of The Flight of the Bumblebee,” although not nearly as masterfully played as ZaBach’s performance). Rieu has remained popular in Europe by focusing more on classical works with a pops feel. Garrett has faded in popularity despite his starring role in a Paganini movie.

I add this to the tangent to say that I’m not against the idea of playing in one’s own style at all. ZaBach will always be a hero to me. However, the topic was more about genres of music. I see Old Time as a precarious one. As Brian points out, there are plenty of recordings preserved to add to the historical record (although I would suggest that recordings alone are not enough to establish the record concretely), but the disparity for me comes in listening to players of Old Time music nowadays. No one actually sounds like any of the old recordings, and the style often seems to morph based on the venue (stage vs. dance vs. competition vs. workshop vs. jam). So it doesn’t seem to me that, despite the information being available for synthesis, that many people are participating in the preservation of the music. Now that old recordings are more widely available through Spotify or YouTube, listening is more possible and widespread, but it doesn’t lead to playing in the same vein.

R. Crumb’s little book of heroes in Blues, Jazz and Country contains a section that includes a lot of the quintessential Old Time players. He uses the term “old-time” here and there, but not as a genre. Instead he includes all of them as early players of Country music. His choice of that nomenclature intrigues me and I wonder if it would be a reasonable solution to allow the Old Time name to die and just let the style be subsumed by the larger and more popular title of Country.

"Old Time", as a label for a type of music, was first used as a marketing strategy by Okeh recording company in 1923 to sell records.

I'd "double like" Mobob's post if I could. I'd add that "old time" was only one of the terms, others being "Old Familiar Tunes," "Songs of Hearth and Home (or"Hill and Range") used to try and differentiate the music from what was "popular music" at the time, so consumers could find it. They all shared the notion that it was music of an older time, which it often, but not always, was, with the charm and nostaglia that implied. The term "old time" was also also used to describe other things with the same intent, like "Old time religion," "Old time singing school," or even "Old timey stack cake."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mobob

"Old Time", as a label for a type of music, was first used as a marketing strategy by Okeh recording company in 1923 to sell records.

---

Yes, I'm aware of the term originating from record companies. They needed a term to describe the music, so they came up with one that resonated. Since then the name has stuck. I don't see any of that as a problem. In fact, I think that helps to set a timeframe for establishing the genre, especially given that it developed as the result of the confluence of various other historical traditions. It might have ended up being "Old Timey" or "Mountain Music," but the idea of an appeal to older times was compelling and perhaps unintentionally rather illustrative of its actual origins. I think the name stuck for good reason, not simply convenience. And now, in an age where a new young audience is desperate for things that are about a century old, the time is ripe for Old Time to be passed along responsibly. I think a failure to accomplish that would lead to the genre becoming unintelligible or its disappearance into footnotes until academics attempt to revive it in the future without a living link intact anymore. Baroque music had to muddle through an awkward period where no one really understood the music or the instruments before the functional understanding improved and the scholars did enough digging to uncover more of the methodology of playing. Old Time wouldn't necessarily have to go through the same thing in the future if it could be passed directly, and there would be a chance to reduce misinterpretation. One of the problems that faces revivals is that you can never know whether they truly bring back the spirit of the original or whether they're just shadows. For comparison, the Irish tradition never experienced a break, and as a result, it has remained quite strong. There was a critical mass of excitement in the 90s and early 2000s which led to a bit of apathy afterward, but interest in it has been steadily increasing since then. You can find a session in many cities, several in any large city. Old Time is much harder to find overall, and I think a lot of this stems from uncertainty.

It was novel to the audiences in big cities who had never heard the music and needed a way to identify it in the 20s and 30s when it hit its peak, and it was in turn novel to the young players who picked it up after hearing some of the players who carried the torch before they died during the folk revival period. But it's not novel anymore, especially now that it's reached the century mark in age, and now that it can be said to be a traditional form of music. To learn a traditional style one is expected to do more than just repeat the notes, but to also understand the style of the music and how to perform it. In order to get that sense of the tradition, some form of study is necessary.

The Violin Beautiful:

"the disparity for me comes in listening to players of Old Time music nowadays. No one actually sounds like any of the old recordings, and the style often seems to morph based on the venue (stage vs. dance vs. competition vs. workshop vs. jam). So it doesn’t seem to me that, despite the information being available for synthesis, that many people are participating in the preservation of the music. "

That's an interesting observation but I don't know what point it makes. You seem to want to use early recordings as a basis for freezing the style to be called "Old Time". You want to preserve the era of the early recordings of the music. I could be wrong but I think there are many players who agree with that and copy those recordings in their playing in just that way. Another way the style is being preserved is by the tunes themselves somewhat independent of the earlier versions. I've been listening to (and transcribing) a lot of the younger players and groups lately and, while I realize there's a bit of a different take to it, it's something I like. Jazz has developed many forms that can live under the term. Bluegrass has earlier and later forms, too. Why can't old time be the same? I'm trying to understand just what you would do to meet your goal of preserving the music. To be specific, what do you fear the style is losing now, and why? What needs changing and how would you go about it?

It seems any change toward preserving the early tunes would involve some degree of financial investment, like starting clubs, camps, or schools. Or finding a way to publish defining recordings with an authoritative organization like the Smithsonian. It surely can't be done by proclamation.

One more thought. By your definition I would be wise stop saying I play old time, and that's fine with me. I use the term because it's handy and I guess another could work as well. What would you propose calling this newer version of the tunes? We wouldn't want it to die for lack of whatever it is that keeps a style relevant, either. 

Who cares what anybody calls it? It's like the argument over Nashville Shuffle...like, no somebody named it that...or bum Diddy...it was never called anything before...people named it that. I guess it's easier to talk about anything with a name than having to go through illustrating it every time you end up talking about it. Simple as that. You could say, "That great big animal with big feet and a big trunk and a little tail that never holds still..." or you could say, "Elephant," realizing there are at least two kinds (that I"m aware of) but elephant pretty much makes the conversation easier. Who cares?

This is why I just call my own music "folk music, " hoping that doesn't conjure up Peter, Paul, and Mary images, but just hoping it gets the idea across that it's mainly old stuff that's fun for us amateurs back porchers to fiddle around with in the roadside stores or court house lawns or sitting beside the fire among friends and neighbors. During times I've had when I've been lucky enough to play before an audience, which has been rare...lol...anyway, during those times I just let the person who introduces me say what they want. This happening only in the Eastern parts of KY for me, they normally refer to it as Bluegrass. I let it go. Who cares what they call it? It sure ain't BG but as far as I've seen the people in the audience didn't seem upset by it. One guy misread my name as "Peppy," which I went along with and sorta even liked...lol. Who cares? You play music you love...you like to play it like you like to play it...you're allowed. Until they send out the OT police or the Jazz police or the Bach police, we're free to do what we want. I think this obsession with name or historical preservation has it's place only for musical history or heritage...this is today...that's interesting and anybody can choose to keep that thread running true to history. Like Eddie Pennington in Western KY...he's like the true-to-life Merle Travis picker...and we all know there are dozens of "Travis Pickers' in the world... most of whom do absolutely nothing near what Travis himself actually did. I mean...who cares? They pick a nice guitar, and it's good we also Eddie Pennington who has worked his whole life to preserve that historical style and heritage....we need both. But today is today and there ain't no musical police on patrol as far as I know.

does the below definition from internet seem adequate enough to explain to “outsiders”?

“Old-time music is a genre of North American folk music that originated in the rural Appalachian Mountains before the 1940s, blending European fiddle traditions with African-influenced banjo styles. Primarily played on acoustic instruments like the fiddle, banjo, and guitar, it was historically for community social dances.

Key characteristics of old-time music include:

Instrumentation: Core instruments are the fiddle and 5-string banjo (often without a resonator), commonly called a "string band," sometimes joined by guitar, mandolin, or upright bass.

Function: It is primarily dance music, associated with square dancing, contra dancing, and buck dancing.

Sound: Known for its rhythmic, often droning, and melodic quality, reflecting a blend of African and European musical sensibilities.

Origin & Context: It was developed in rural America for personal entertainment in the home, predating commercial radio and recordings.

Distinction from Bluegrass: Unlike bluegrass, which is more commercial and features individual solos ("breaks"), old-time music is characterized by all members playing together, creating a shared, rhythmic sound.

Origin: The style developed largely from Anglo-Irish fiddle tunes and African-American banjo playing, alongside ballad traditions from Scotland and England.

Commonly played for community, the genre was, and often still is, passed down orally, contributing to the development of many variations of the same tunes.”

Edit to add: I'd probably also list some of the standard tunes and popular players.

Also adding that the margins of every genre are blurred by players who straddle across and blend genres…and I think that’s a good and natural thing!

quote:

---

Originally posted by groundhogpeggy

Who cares what anybody calls it? It's like the argument over Nashville Shuffle...like, no somebody named it that...or bum Diddy...it was never called anything before...people named it that. I guess it's easier to talk about anything with a name than having to go through illustrating it every time you end up talking about it. Simple as that.

---

You answered your own question here. Having names and clear definitions makes it easier to have a sensible discussion. That was exactly one of the points I made earlier. Who cares about what it's called? I'd say the majority of players. Imagine the reactions if I were to post a recording of a classical piece as an Old Time tune. I don't think you'd hear anyone defending the argument that no one cares what you call it then. 
 

Everything is NOT permitted. 

I really like groundhogpeggy’s post above. She says she thinks of what she plays as ‘folk music’ not PP&M. I tend to think of what I do as ‘traditional folk music,’ or in the case of fiddle music, ‘traditional folk fiddle.’ Definitions are fine but they are a lot like opinions in that everyone’s got a slightly different understanding of what the definition means for them. I know that my last sentence can be argued with as a definition is by default supposed to have a finite meaning. Obviously because of this discussion that isn’t the case. Even my own definition, using the term ‘traditional folk fiddle’ has immediate arguments, but it allows me to play fiddle tunes from Appalachia, Pennsylvania, Danish tunes from South Dakota, Irish waltzes, Missouri tunes, original fiddle tunes composed by folks that appreciate old music but didn’t necessarily grow up in a tradition, etc. etc. If someone else wants to come up with a hard definition fine, but I find that I just say I’m a traditional folk fiddler and try to make the source/origin known (if folks listening are even interested. Haha)

quote:

---

Originally posted by NCnotes

does the below definition from internet seem adequate enough to explain to “outsiders”?

“Old-time music is a genre of North American folk music that originated in the rural Appalachian Mountains before the 1940s, blending European fiddle traditions with African-influenced banjo styles. Primarily played on acoustic instruments like the fiddle, banjo, and guitar, it was historically for community social dances.

Key characteristics of old-time music include:

Instrumentation: Core instruments are the fiddle and 5-string banjo (often without a resonator), commonly called a "string band," sometimes joined by guitar, mandolin, or upright bass.

Function: It is primarily dance music, associated with square dancing, contra dancing, and buck dancing.

Sound: Known for its rhythmic, often droning, and melodic quality, reflecting a blend of African and European musical sensibilities.

Origin & Context: It was developed in rural America for personal entertainment in the home, predating commercial radio and recordings.

Distinction from Bluegrass: Unlike bluegrass, which is more commercial and features individual solos ("breaks"), old-time music is characterized by all members playing together, creating a shared, rhythmic sound.

Origin: The style developed largely from Anglo-Irish fiddle tunes and African-American banjo playing, alongside ballad traditions from Scotland and England.

Commonly played for community, the genre was, and often still is, passed down orally, contributing to the development of many variations of the same tunes.”

Edit to add: I'd probably also list some of the standard tunes and popular players.

---

I think that definition is one that has become somewhat common, and it covers a good deal of it, although I'd say it's a bit too imprecise.

I like the pre-1940s distinction because that helps to establish the transition from Old Time to Bluegrass. However, I think it would be helpful to set a rough period of origin as well, and the above definition just suggests it started as a combination of styles without any indication for when it came into being. How far back should we look? That's a question that has never been adequately answered.

I think it also misses the distinction that the recordings that made the genre known were not themselves the old music of the rural communities but a sort of vaudeville version that harkened back to those days, similar to the Barbershop style that became popular again in the 1960s.

Describing it as group music can be misleading as well, because there have been many solo players of the music, and dance music requires no more than one fiddler. Many of the early recordings were of bands, so that instrumentation is common, but it does not encompass everything. Other things that might be considered part of the culture like humor, animal calling, or telling lies, are left out.  

Pmiller's post makes me think of one reason explicit definitions might be a bad thing. I've heard so many guitar pickers talk as though they are somehow illegitimate pickers because they came from "Up North." Or claw hammer banjo players...they aren't from the areas known for clawhammer so they feel out of step...illegit. I even heard a song about this one time...can't remember the name of the song, but the lyrics were something like this...being from up north but my thumb still goes back and forth, pertaining to "Travis Picking." It seems wrong all around to me to exclude people from feeling that they have a legitimate right to play any style of folk music. Or even classical...I think I mentioned I have played a few classical guitar tunes in my own hokey picking style...and I even did all the instrumental music plus vocal choral backgrounds for an opera my daughter produced and sang in that she put up on her YouTube. Yep...groundhog, common ordinary ol' groundhog, bustin' into the classical world by doing an opera with her opera sangin' kid.

What kind of music do you play, Rich? I don't believe I've ever heard you play, even with all the arguing about who should feel good about sharing their stuff on the Sound off Forum. What kind of stuff do you play? Are you keeping the thread true or do you get a little bit wild with the creativity once in a while? It's ok...I'm not the cops...I live and let live. Everyone's invited in my circle.  Come on and join in.

It’s unclear to me what Rich wants, exactly. I guess it’’s just talk, which is fine. I like that well enough to engage in it. But is there an actual proposal here? Like do this and we’ll have that? Or is he just airing his frustrations?

Define it for us, Rich.

Here's a good one about airing frustrations for lack of sticking to defined standards...yes, I actually sorta sympathize with Rich when I think about that...I have the same issue with grammar. I mean, you wouldn't know it to hear me talk, because at the same time I believe that local color sure has it's place in grammar and personal expression, as it does in music. But...yes, it irks me to no end when supposed educated officials use bad grammar in public communications. Like, " Me and her went to the bakery to buy a cookie for she and I." That's a big one...lol. That just drives me crazy. What about currently, what officials are talking about..."We got problems in the Straits of Hormuz." No...no, you might be in "dire straits, " but the problems are in the "Strait," not straits, of Hormuz. Yeah...that talk from high falootin' officials gets on my nerves. "We are doing this for we the people..."no, no...can't you just say, "We are doing this for US, being, we the people?" It would sure help my nerves, my grammar nerves...lol. I don't know how I got that way, but I've been absorbing and reacting to various butcherings of grammar since I was so little I can't remember, all the while using horrible grammar myself, at will...lol. So yeah...maybe lack of adherence to standards, or unspecified standards, can get people riled up. For me, it does not occur with music, because to me, music seems so far beyond something like speech...it seems more direct...more stream of consciousness that actual stream of consciousness in writing...it seems so meta-language...leaving language behind in the dust...so...for that reason, I enjoy the artistic license and freedom of expression of music. Words...yeah, for some reason, I just grew up upset about language usage...lol...figger that'n out. Is this what happens to you with various forms of music, Rich? Can you relate? Am I off base here?