Comparative Bluegrass

As a birthday gift last month my wife got tickets for a Bluegrass concert tonight in a nice theater in a nearby town. I’m not going to mention the band’s name but I will describe them a little bit. They’re considered one of the top acts in the business. They’ve had Grammy nominations, IBMA awards and SPGMA awards. And they’ve been around for quite a long time. The group consists of a bass, mandolin, banjo, fiddle and two guitars. The lead singing is divided between two fellows and the bass player sings harmony on most songs. They’re very good.

Everyone who knows me knows that my favorite Bluegrass group is the Gibson Brothers. Some folks think that I’m not objective enough in evaluating the appeal of their music and their live performances. In fact some say that I like the GB’s mostly because they’re nice guys from the North Country. Nope.

Hearing this other band tonight brought into clear focus why the Gibson Brothers are a cut above so many other bands on the festival and concert circuit. So here’s a little bit more about the show we saw tonight. All of the instrumentalists were technically excellent. They took solos and really dazzled with their picking skills. The harmonies of the lead singers were also first rate and when the third part singer came in it was really nice. The songs played were a mixture of hard driving standards and a few old time ballads along with some original material. There was one kind of non-denominational gospel song I’d call more of an inspirational piece. Every song was delivered with energy and professionalism. But something was missing. On only one or two songs did I feel like these fine musicians cared about the music. They enjoyed performing and were good at it. But they weren’t emotionally connected.

Every time I see the Gibson Brothers play, or listen to one of their CDs, I sense that they really love each and every song they play. The instrumental work serves the song. The vocals serve the song. And the harmonies always serve the music. When Joe Walsh or Clayton Campbell or either of the brothers take a solo it’s not about showing their considerable skills, and their skills are as technically sound as any band in the business. The solo enhances and emphasizes the song being played. Mike Barber’s bass is technically sophisticated and precisely right. But he always provides the solid foundation for the song and never swerves from that purpose.

Another thing that the Gibson Brothers have is clarity. The band we saw tonight had a fine sound system and they were pretty tight in their arrangements. But they sometimes stepped on one another in transitions and seemed a little muddy in their vocal and instrumental delivery. I’ve seen the Gibson Brothers play with some sound systems that were barely adequate and yet their clarity of tone in voice and instrument was clean and crisp. They achieve that result through coherence of the band members that shows the humility of each member as they serve the song and the whole concept of the performance.

Making Art is what I’m talking about, I guess. The band we saw tonight may consist of some fine musical artists. In fact I’m sure it does. But they didn’t all seem to share the vision of what that art should be as a musical organization. The Gibson Brothers band really knows that they’re creating art as individuals and, when they’re together, as a band.

So there you have it. This should be just one more reason for you to pick up a copy of the new Gibson Brothers CD “They Called It Music” available through their website or Compass Records or Amazon and other outlets. But this also should give you a good reason to catch the band when they perform live at festivals and concerts over the next several months. They’re worth a whole lot of driving.

Now have a fine day.

Taking Sides

Friends, did you ever think that you were just a breath away from a real insight, a real epiphany? That’s how I’m feeling right this second. In my mind I can almost believe that if I write out, in some logical way, my thought processes as they’re occurring then I’ll have one of those moments of discovery. So bear with me as I try to describe this effort at explaining why it is hopeless to ever believe that consensus or compromise or harmony will ever exist in our society. Hell those things might not be possible anywhere in the world outside of a monastery.

Today I was reading the newspaper editorial page. On the page were two letters to the editor, one supporting stringent gun control and confiscation of all weapons owned by individuals and the other stating the argument for constitutionally guaranteed gun ownership. Each of these letters referenced the same set of facts; guns are used by bad people to kill other people, it’s easy for bad people to get guns. The anti-gun folks see those two facts as a call to get guns out of the hands of everyone thereby, logically, getting them out of the hands of bad people. The pro-gun people see the facts as a logical impetus for good people to have guns so they can stop bad people from killing good people. Of course this is a simplistic presentation of the argument but my point is that no matter how each side presents its argument to the other side there will be no agreement. Why not, I ask myself? There will be no agreement because each side has a set of core beliefs that are never going to be reconciled.

It doesn’t matter which issue we look at. And we all know the modern media is capable of looking at dozens of issues every minute of every day. In fact we are battered with information about how divided we all have become. Immigration, abortion, gay marriage, energy development, education, health care and many other issues can elicit a highly predictable response from people who have those firmly embedded core beliefs. Each group thinks the other is basically wrong. They don’t think that the other group is just a little bit in error. There isn’t any room, on either side, for tolerance. Each member of each side of any issue thinks that they are right and the other side is dead wrong and pretty much a bunch of idiotic imbeciles. Some lip service may be given to tolerance and compromise in the halls of political debate. But, really, when does compromise happen?  One side will win and create laws to solidify its position. The other loses and harbors resentment and anger.

Years ago there may have been some negotiation on issues that resulted in compromise. I’ve read some history and can find a few instances where that happened. But usually issues are decided when one side wields enough power to wrangle the other side into submission. Compromise often is a name given to adding an amendment to a bill that sends some money for one project or another to those on the losing side.

True believers have a hard time compromising or making concessions. In fact, true believers by the very nature of their beliefs see any variance from their core values as error. Error by definition is wrong. Wrong won’t do.

It’s easy to label the sides in today’s battles over issues. A few minutes with a newspaper or with any news and commentary television program will define the sides and provide the standard labeling. Left and Right are the biggies. Then there is a vaguer and more poorly defined group called Moderate or Centrist. When arguments get heated the pejorative labels – Radical Left, Right Wing Christians, Fringe Left, Right Wing Extremists – all get tossed around stirring things up even more. When labels start flying people stop listening. Other labels – Racist, Anti-gay, and Anti-religion – may come out and any semblance of orderly discussion is completely lost. Compromise becomes a faded dream.

True believers feel that they have the right to tell those who are indifferent on an issue, or those who disagree with them on an issue, that they, the true believers, should be the ones to make the rules and policies. Yes they should make the rules and policies and handle the enforcement of those policies. Disagreement should not be tolerated. Those who disagree will be denigrated, ridiculed and sometimes prosecuted for their recalcitrance. And friends, it doesn’t matter which side we look at, the true believers are an intolerant bunch. Or are they?

Can we see any signs in either the Left or Right of more tolerance for disagreement? Or perhaps, just as importantly, can we see any signs of tolerance on either side for indifference to their arguments on issues? After all, in a free country even the indifferent need to be tolerated. Folks on the Left like to think that they’re tolerant. But many of the Left leaning leadership people are quick to label those who disagree with them as ignorant, illogical and just plain wrong. By the same token those who are considered leaders on the Right have little tolerance for their opposites and toss out similar epithets. See what I mean? It’s hard to find a reasoned, reasonable way to discuss the whole problem of conflict over issues. Frankly, I don’t have a solution.

Maybe there shouldn’t be a solution. Maybe the arguments should continue, long and loud. When one side or the other is in a position of power then let them try to champion the side of the issues they believe in. And let their opponents oppose. Bring the arguments to the public. Generate discussions and media coverage. If some of the indifferent are swayed, finally, one way or another then let their voices be heard. That may tip the balance to one side and something will either get done or get set aside. Perhaps we worry too much about the inability of government to do anything. Perhaps that inability is a safety feature that prevents the powerful from exerting too much power over the vast majority of us. Perhaps it is one way of keeping the true believers from trampling the rights of their opposites. And maybe it keeps the true believers from imposing their will on the non-believers.

Well, crap. There wasn’t an insight in all that discussion after all. That’s what happens sometimes when I talk to myself. No progress.

Have a fine day anyway whether you’re a true believer or just an innocent bystander.