"'The aging Folksinger steps out of the music store, his 1930's Gibson slung low on his hip to be confronted by a brash, young, singer-songwriter, armed with an Ovation and an effects box. The brash, young singer-songwriter assaults the aging folksinger with 20 minutes of intensely personal, highly metaphorical verbiage. The aging folksinger swings his sunburst Gibson L-OO around, and responds with a verse and a chorus of RED RIVER VALLEY. The brash, young, singer-songwriter drops, stunned by the simplicity of an un-authored folksong!'"
I like U. Utah Philips, but I don't find this fantasy particularly convincing. Would a brash young singer-songwriter really be stunned by "Red River Valley"? I think not. I'd rather have a Gibson than an Ovation, but having had to make do with what I can afford for a long time has cured me of instrument snobbery.
I don't think criticizing "singer-songwriting" as a genre is either "whining" or "bitching" and I'm quite able to say what I don't like about it, as well as what I do. The point of this thread is to discuss, like every other thread here. Why shouldn't the music of singer-songwriters be criticized, as long as its civil and not below the belt?
Last night the program I mentioned was about Donovan. I lasted 50 minutes before finally switching off. It was kind of interesting to hear what he had to say for himself. While I sometimes like nonsense poetry, I don't like nonsense poetry pretending to be "meaningful". This is one of my main criticisms of singer-songwriters --- especially Bob Dylan.
Another thing I don't like is the unbearable self-righteousness and preachiness of the songs of some singer-songwriters. This is true of the German variety ("Liedermacher" = "song-makers"), too. Some singer-songwriters may be very admirable people, I may agree with their politics, and political activism may also be admirable, but it doesn't automatically make for good music. Having reached adulthood, I don't look to songwriters for information about politics.
I disagree about any musician who gets up on a stage and plays to a paying audience being "uncommercial". If you get paid, it's commercial. One may refuse to compromise or accept being unpopular or never be able to give up one's day job, but if money changes hands, it's commercial. Why this gets me riled up is so much due to musicians but to so-called "artists", where people who sell smears of paint or strewn-about rubbish for large sums of money are supposedly "non-commercial". (Full-length rant available upon request.)