UC Irvine

Bluegrass has simultaneously been recognized as an archaic folk music and a living, popular art form. Although what was to be later named “bluegrass” is played no earlier than 1939, the genre has been associated with archaic and romanticized symbols such as the banjo and fiddle. Bluegrass performers have also been given the responsibility of continuing past American traditions regardless of its lack of temporal connections to past tradition. Yet, if one thinks of bluegrass as a popular music designed for the evolving marketplace, it would seem to be in the bluegrass musician’s best interest to only allude to these romantic symbols when it is economically beneficial. The bluegrass musician then seems to be in a constant negation between historical weight and commercial pressures. The first person to confront this tension and to develop a definitive strategy was Bill Monroe.

Monroe’s extra-musical commercial strategies can be seen as connected to and inspired by the commercial strategies of record and radio industry leaders such as Ralph Peer and George D. Hay. This accounts for wanting to replicate Monroe’s commercial success, but it does not account for why people continue to adhere so strictly to his sound. This dedication to fidelity was inspired by the folk movement of the 1960s which saw folk music as a following of a societal ideal rather than the strict replication of songs. In emphasizing this, and Monroe’s dedication to his own synthesis which they took for timeless American folk music, it became expected of bluegrass musicians to continue his lineage. Instead of bemoaning this aspect, this paper hopes to illuminate how bluegrass, due to its connections with both popular music industries and the folk movement, should advertise itself as a unique musical genre with a novel extra-musical dimension.