Option A: Wrong
This in itself is not a tangible way of repeating statements credited to the writer who has made it clear he/she needs a more divergent expression albeit retaining the originality of the statement meaning.

Option B: Wrong
Nothing short of a clear re-written script well defined, punctuated, spaced and logical to the hearing and sight. The connotations derived here were more of logic than they were of semantics. Unfortunately, its still bears much semblance with the contentious statement which means not much of changes has taken place.

Option C: Wrong
Here, we have of over-specified mentions. The actual action undertaken by the head-word Blue-grass musician would have passed better, the linguistic test instead of enumerating the actions one after the other. Could have been co-joined. It also should have used "with" when considering the word "comparison".

Option D: Wrong
The statement is linguistically confusing, it would not pass the simplicity test. It derailed towards the tail end of the discussion as the sentence became muddled up.

Option E: Right
This statement is the most correct because all of the active words here participated correctly in the sentence formation. The tenses especially "were" and "was" followed the consecutive proportions and aptly fits in.