Re: [Harp-L] Re: Harp in bluegrass (Ralph Stanley)

[Richard Hunter <turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Rick Dempster" wrote:
<from where I stand BG is one of the most musically
<conservative areas.

No argument from me.  Every genre has its stylistic conservatives, and 
harp fits in relatively few conservative definitions of traditional 
styles--just like saxophone, which dates from roughly the same era and 
geography as harmonica.  Once you start with the idea that it's got to 
sound like it did on the first recording of the style ever made, harp 
doesn't make it, unless you're talking about folk or blues.  (Just as 
sax doesn't make it unless you're talking about jazz/rock/R&B--ever seen 
a bluegrass alto saxophone player?  Ever seen two?)

I understand that some people just love a particular style as it sounded 
when it was new (even if was new 300-400 years ago).  There are lots of 
classical types who say you can't really play Bach on a piano, because 
the music was written for earlier instruments like the harpsichord.  You 
would have thought Glenn Gould put that one away with his piano 
recordings of the Goldberg Variations.  But no.

And beyond loving the style, some people approach music as a familiar 
comfort, not an adventure.  They don't WANT it to change.  They want it 
to be what it always was.  Maybe it's the only thing in their world that 
they can count on not to change.  And they react with great hostility to 
anyone who might make it different.

I try to stay away from people like that, because in general I think 
they've got it all wrong, and most of them aren't going to change their 
minds anyway.  And I really don't need them to reach an audience.  I can 
certainly find an audience that wants to hear what I do, if what I do is 
conceived and executed well enough to be worth hearing.  I don't need to 
go to every party in town to find a party where I can hang out.

Regards, Richard Hunter
hunterharp.com
blogs at myspace.com/richardhunterharp
Latest mp3s always at http://broadjam.com/rhunter