Sorry myself. Couldn’t resist.

Not everyone will be drawn to bluegrass, just as they won’t be drawn to pop country or rap. Many of your friends may find the jamgrass world more enticing, but lots of folks are turned off by that scene and find bluegrass more welcoming.

To each his own?

And the reason they don’t come back is because they can’t connect with the performers emotionally. Bluegrass seems to get more and more rigid and formal: The Sportcoat Mountain Boys effect just seems to mount year after year, to the point where the performers are so robotic that we forget the rich wellspring of inventiveness and emotion that first birthed this music. It’s a shame, and it may just be what keeps bluegrass in a tidy little box and renders it inaccessible to so many…

Because you insult their integrity if they fail to intuit what you would have had them do?

I’m certainly not entitled to know anything, but why shouldn’t I be curious about the dissolution of a great partnership that spans generations? If that’s something Danny doesn’t want to discuss, that’s fine, but has anyone asked him? Are we so polite that we can’t express and disappointment?

Bluegrass comes under fire for being heartless and distant: From rigid stage posture to canned intros (“We just think he’s about the best mandolin picker in the world, make welcome, from Square Nut, Montana…”) to a much-documented and vigorous resistance to innovation…now human drama is off-limits, too. No wonder I can’t get any of my friends to go to a bluegrass gig with me more than once.

What makes you feel entitled to knowing anything about it other than that it happened?

Same question goes for the deets of brother Paisley’s record deals. The point isn’t that it’s “too inside for the general public,” the point is that it’s inside, period. And we are on the outside. It’s none of our beeswax.

The fact that people make music and seek to make a living by presenting it on stage and on records doesn’t constitute a license for anyone and everyone to pry into private aspects of their lives and careers. If they want to share, fine; if they don’t, that should be fine, too.

But you make a very, very good point: You can’t really investigate meaningfully in such a casual environment. My brain just went to what I wanted to know about Danny these days, and didn’t take that into account. I apologize.

…and yes, clearly these video chats are not for me and I won’t bother watching them going forward. There are more softballs here than at a Vassar picnic.

But short video interviews can’t cover all topics, and aren’t a good vehicle for the kinds of questions you raise. I was interested in the human element of father playing with son, just as father played with his father. If that’s too softball for you, you don’t have to watch.

But I still find the dissolution of the titanic Lundy/Paisley/Eldreth lineup to be of great interest, and something that has not really been adequately discussed. If anything characterizes the state of “bluegrass journalism” these days (if that is even a thing), it is a certain timid spinelessness born of the fact that everyone is friends and no one wants to rock the boat. Sure, it minimizes controversy and hurt feelings, but it also keeps things at surface level and leaves something of a disingenuous sheen on everything — making it read/sound more like label promo copy than thoughtful exploration/investigation.

I also have a pretty strong belief that asking the kinds of questions you suggest doesn’t count as fulfilling one’s responsibilities as a journalist. For instance, I don’t believe that the details of anyone’s contract with a record label are necessarily a matter of legitimate public interest. Investigative reporting might not be the right model for bluegrass journalism – in fact, I’m pretty sure that it isn’t.