Entertainment v Folk

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,The Mole catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 07 May 08 - 03:21 PM

"There seems to a conflict between folk and entertainment, in the eyes of some contributors to these Mudcat threads. Can anyone explain? "

I could but I won't, because it'd mean buying into yet another chain yanking thread created by GUEST,The Observer

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: topical tom
Date: 07 May 08 - 02:02 PM

All folk is entertaining but to varying degrees.If it isn't, a hell of a lot of audiences are punishing themselves and going back for more.Masochistic? I think not.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 08 - 02:01 PM

It has survived because not all people like the same things.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,Jonny Sunshine
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:57 PM

If folk music isn't entertaining, how has it survived all those years?

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Mr Red
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:31 PM

perhaps we have been using the wrong words.

Folk has to be entertaining, and that depends on what each listener/looker/(smeller?) expects (discuss).

But entertainment pre-supposes nothing about "Folk" (whatever that is - though I could expound at length and still find disagreement).

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: fat B****rd
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:16 PM

'ello, friendly outsider fB here. Evening, Bruce.
Isn't it the case that some artists are entertaiming without wearing 'cap and bells' and some artists would be crap if they were fired out of a cannon. Everybody has their own righteous opinins about 'entertainment' but surely in the Traditonal, or any other, musical performance world there are only good and bad, although the ear of the beholder syndrome is, I believe relevant.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:04 PM

Songs that are not 'entertaining' make the audience snore.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Mr Red
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:01 PM

Well I would quibble about always "writing of songs to entertain".

You musicians - especially those earn money doing it - how often do you practice? I've known those that spend 6 hours a day - probably while on tour, but a lot.

So don't songwriters practice? Self critique? Not sing-out the songs that don't quite fit snugly. Those songs would not normally find their way to the public domain but never say never. Irving Berlin wrote 15,000 - where are most of them now?

But I do agree that story-telling, poetry, and yes jokes are all part of the mix that folk did, and therefore grist to the mill. As is being paid to do those things. All entertainment and no roots makes folk a dull plaything.

I used to tell a light-bulb joke as a feature between my allocation of 2 songs in an evening at a vibrant singers' FC. It took 6 months for them to realise I was demonstrating "folk" in the modern idiom. And I had to tell them in the end. Throw-away two-liners that are a good joke analogy of the "Seeds of Love". OK it may take 100 years to prove me right - I can wait.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: irishenglish
Date: 07 May 08 - 12:36 PM

Tom, exactly. And let's combine the Observer's money vs. folk point as well with what you just wrote. There is no way, that anyone who writes, sings, or plays a song is not looking at it as some type of entertainment, and maybe even income as well. The history of this folk tradition is of story telling. Well, you don't tell a story to yourself, you tell it to others, as a moral, a comedy, a lesson, a harrowing tale, etc, whatever the case may be. It's all designed for something to pass on. If it weren't some form of entertainment, or lessons, etc, the songs probably would not have survived.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 07 May 08 - 12:15 PM

I think I've guessed who The Observer is...

But anyway - one point I fear is forgotten more often than it should be. The people who wrote the things we now call folk songs were certainly aiming to entertain, albeit on a domestic scale. There is no other reason to write songs - even angry and sad ones.

And though some might deliberately sing a weak song purely for demonstration purposes, most people usually sing to give pleasure.

So the Spirit of Entertainment is always present, welcome or not, even in dull songs and performances.

Tom

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,Val
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:54 AM

I'm entertained by much of this discussion, especially Sedayne's metaphoric post. So guess what? You're all entertainers.

Would TheObserver's question be a bit more clear or less controversial if it were phrased something like:

"Within the realm of Folk Music there seems to be conflict between those who focus on Entertainment and those who focus on Scholarly Preservation of Tradition. Do these two aspects need to be in conflict?"

Most of us who actually perform folk music - rather than restricting ourselves to sitting in the audience & listening or poring over scholarly texts - have at least a little interest in knowing the history of a piece, a little interest in keeping alive something old/"traditional", and also some desire to enterain our audience (even if that audience is merely ourselves). So it's a rare person indeed who is entirely at one end or the other of that spectrum. But we each may find a different balance between.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Grab
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:36 AM

George, to rephrase your question, how many performing musicians would be unhappy if an exit poll of their audience revealed that they were all completely indifferent to what he/she had been doing? Your guess translates directly to the performer not caring whether his performance touched any of his audience at all. And I say you're wrong - my guess is, all of them would care.

"Entertainment" doesn't mean the old-school "vaudeville/music-hall entertainer" of the Les Dawson school. A quick check online shows a good definition of "entertainment" from WordNet: "an activity that is diverting and that holds the attention". So by definition, if the performer has held their attention with the quality of performance, that means the performer has entertained them. They don't have to be doing a tap-dance and juggling...

And if anyone is getting up on stage *without* the intention of keeping the audience absorbed in their performance, please let
us know who they are so that we won't waste money on tickets to those shows!

Matt, re your comment about Bert Jansch, my dad was one of those disgruntled audience members at Bristol Uni back in the early 70s. By his report, Jansch turned up pissed, drank some more, and the "performance" consisted of quarter of an hour of drunken strumming and incoherent bawling before stumbling off stage. Anyone who *didn't* feel cheated after that needs their head examining! ;-) They certainly did - the whole crowd demanded their money back, and got it too! There's a big difference between "not providing what they were expecting" by playing a different style of music but still playing skillfully, and "not providing what they were expecting" by simply being crap and unprofessional. As Jansch's biography makes clear, he stopped touring because alcohol addiction made it impossible for him to perform even semi-competently and no-one would hire him any more.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Andy Jackson
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:31 AM

Mike of N got it about right for me:-

"A folk scene without professionals would be far less interesting than the one we now have. But an amateur-free folk scene wouldn't be a folk scene at all - just a specialist niche in the world of show business."

I would rather watch a friend attempt a new song than hear a perfect rendition on a CD.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:27 AM

Good folk, in the sense of true folk is about that most unfolkie of things charisma. It comes in many forms, the guy in a corner singing through - but not necessarily about - a lifetime of pain, the loony girl hunched over her Martin, it might even carry a three pin plug. It may hey nonny no, it may not, but it will always light up a room like an arc lamp.
So much folk is off the peg despite its credentials and performed with the kind of cod authenticity we know and love/hate. Perpetuating a tradition is no substitute for keeping it alive and neither have much to do with entertainment.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Acorn4
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:25 AM

If there is no humour in a singaround I always feel like I've attended a prayer meeting. The humour doesn't have to be in the songs -it can be in the bits between as long as it's there somewhere.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:23 AM

Bye.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,The Observer
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:18 AM

just trying to get serious answers to serious questions treewind. And the answers do matter to me. I think Sedayne has produced the most eloquent reply and one that has given me a lot to think about.

If these questions are irrelevent I apologise. They will now cease. I will go back to my little club and allow you to retire to yours.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:12 AM

Whatever the genre of music you favor, if the audience is not entertained, it will vote with its feet. The best folk singer/performers I have seen always had a "presence" that kept people focused on them as they performed. This doesn't necessarily equate to "schtick" or "patter," but it does require some self-awareness in terms of how others perceive you while you are singing. I have watched introspective, self-absorbed coffee house "folkies" die agonizing deaths on stage. Singing is all about sharing. Keeping audience attention is a great part of it, like it or not. An audience of one is the ultimate waste.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: treewind
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:00 AM

Money v. Folk
Entertainment v. Folk
what next?

Ladies and gentlemen, we are being trolled.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Leadfingers
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:54 AM

You arent here to Enjoy Yourselves , this is a FOLK Club is a comment I heard in a club a LONG time ago , and sadly , the speaker was NOT joking !
There HAS to SOME element of 'entertinment' or people wouldnt come back - the thing is getting the balance right twixt 'Pure' Folk and the lighter stuff !

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: matt milton
Date: 07 May 08 - 09:23 AM

I think the word entertainment gets a bad press sometimes. Everyone likes to be entertained, one way or another. Some people, for instance, might find only find dour and po-faced stuff entertaining. Me, I generally like my entertainment to be a bit of a challenge.

That said, it's still a pertinent distinction with regard to folk music. Sometimes (note the sometimes) you'll attend a folk night where a performer feels a need to apologize for the lack of singalong choruses, often as not when their performing their own material – you sometimes sense that an audience is really looking forward to an evening of songs to sing along to, songs to accompany drinking and sometimes eating.

Nothing wrong with that of course, only there can sometimes be a bit of a mismatch.

(Recently been reading Dazzling Stranger, the book about Bert Jansch and the Brit folk scene of the 60s, and it's something that came up a couple of times in anecdote there: that some folk audiences occasionally felt a bit nonplussed, disgruntled or in rare cases even cheated by Jansch not providing what they were after from a night out to the folk club.)

I have a sort of "Love/Irked" attitude to this . (Love/Hate would be too strong.) On the one hand, I love the informality and inclusive, everyone-takes-part aspect of traditional folk club music-making. It's genuinely warming and participative and ego-free, and it distinguishes it completely from other forms of live music experiences (eg most classical music concerts). It dispenses with all those ideals of stars and celebrities, such a turn-off in pop music.

On the other hand, sometimes I feel it can be a little conservative, a little too cosy, like glorified karaoke. Too much of it and musicians end up forgetting that music is an art form, neglecting to push themselves.

But it's on a case-by-case basis – not really something it's possible to generalize about. There's really good art and there are really fun nights out, and sometimes they are one and the same thing.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 07 May 08 - 09:22 AM

Entertainment is the baggage that folk has to carry in order to make a living. It's the hump on the back of an otherwise comely lad or a beautiful girl. It's the necessary evil, if you want to expose more people to the world of folk - or just evil, if you don't care if a single new person is attracted by folk.

It's like a museum being open to the general public, rather than the exhibits being preserved only for serious study. Entertainment is the gift shop by the entrance that generates much-needed income, the animatronic models of dinosaurs that bring the kiddies (and their parents) in.

I wonder how many of the folk stars that rose to higher skies would be happy with the label "entertainer"... My guess is, none.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Mr Red
Date: 07 May 08 - 08:24 AM

There are those who post here who regard the "entertaining themselves" aspect as necessary in order to justify the "Folk" appelation when they are making money out of entertainment.

Like most aspects of such a nebulous concept the middle ground is where the bulk of Folkdom resides, happily. It is just that when commerce comes into it, it can be heavily weighted on the side of entertainment. And that pre-supposes fashion changes at a rate that folk finds uncomfortable. And, as we are finding, nervousness at the profit line, especially in an uncertain economic climate. And there is plenty of evidence for nervousness, it makes people ratty. And a few cancelled events, or a downsizing, or like Burntwood FF, a rest year with no promises as to the future.

One thing you do get, as discussed at Crediton (I am told), is a tipping point, in folkie minds. The event gets too big and ........... OH! Don't get me started on the other things, we will be here all day.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Grab
Date: 07 May 08 - 08:08 AM

Where are the Billygoats Gruff when you need them...?

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Midchuck
Date: 07 May 08 - 07:26 AM

Got to the very end of this thread and was going to compose a post and found that M of N had made all the points I was going to make.

Sorry to deprive you all of my wit, but it's his fault.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: MikeofNorthumbria
Date: 07 May 08 - 07:20 AM

Folk is doing it for ourselves - entertainment is paying somebody else to do it for us.

Paid professionals provide us with a more polished performance - that's why we think they're worth paying. But actually doing the thing (even when it's not done brilliantly) gives us an entirely different - but equally valuable - experience.

A folk scene without professionals would be far less interesting than the one we now have. But an amateur-free folk scene wouldn't be a folk scene at all - just a specialist niche in the world of show business.

Some Mudcatters seem to regard the showbiz professionals and the amateur folkies as two rival football teams, whose supporters must inevitably be at war with each other. But I believe both groups have their own distinctive virtues, and both have a part to play in a healthy musical environment.

Wassail!

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Mo the caller
Date: 07 May 08 - 07:13 AM

But! But! But!

It's both of those.
If they wear their fairy wings to a barn dance I'll wear my flowery waistcoat and call some ('if you've done it before this may be a different version') folk dances, while the band plays happy tunes.

But woe betide anyone who tells me what I have to wear down the pub playing my wrong notes.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 08 - 07:03 AM

Entertainment at no time is required to contain any element of honesty or history.

Maybe we should debate, as the rainbow example leads, the meaning of "green", and how the goats Gruff knew what colour Green was (or whether they learned it from a man in Sussex who never existed)

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:55 AM

Sedayne

True folk is like true football - a grey game, played on grey days, watched by grey people.

No! No! No!

Folk is populated by bright, sparkly people wearing swirly, panchromatic, floral trousers and fairy wings playing happy tunes on their stylophones.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Doc John
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:54 AM

'Entertainment' is a sneering word applied - often tongue in cheek - to something which the speaker considers unworthy, beneath him or her, trivial, not 'serious' ...etc. Not just in music but art, films, books etc. Opera and the theatre are never considered entertainment being for the elite - except G&S, pantomimes etc. Is there an element of the emperor's new clothes here? You have to suffer, be intellectual or annoy people to understand non-entertainment. Jackie Collins is entertainment: James Joyce certainly not. The Beatles were entertainment: chain gang songs as recorded by Allan Lomax not.
Doc John

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:44 AM

It's easy. If your aim is entertainment, you'll do whatever is required to entertain. That may or may not include folk. If you want to do folk, there will be some point (which will be different for each performer) that you don't want to pass. Read the History of the Excluded Myddle, by Richard Gough, or reflect that when you look at a rainbow, there is no point at which one colour changes to another. Therefore all colours are the same.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:40 AM

There is no correct answer to this, because it's different for different people and that's as it should be.

Sedayne will be told he is both gloriously right and terrifyingly wrong.

And the usual suspects will arrive shortly to say the exact opposite, and will be told likewise.

Asking this question is the same as asking of an antique if it's age or the skill of the maker which matters most.

Pointless.

To some it will be all about age and provenance and patina, to others all about artistry and craft, while to most it'll be a balance of both with different values on different occasions.

Only a plonker would suggest than anyone in either of the other two categories is a plonker.

But they will.

Tom

What's that green thing poking out from under the bridge?

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:30 AM

If I didn't find folk music entertaining, then I wouldn't listen to it.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:04 AM

If folk musicians become too entertaining they turn into Carrots and Connollys.


G

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 May 08 - 05:04 AM

True folk exists in the murky substratas of societal dysfunction; hidden away from the glare of the spotlights it provides a haven for the terminally unfashionable and unrepentantly content; if it serves any agenda at all it is one of absolute egalitarianism whereby what is served up will always be an acquired taste. It is hard won, cranky, curmudgeonly, and at times downright autistic.

True folk does not serve Mammon, put passion sweet & pure; it is served by erudite enthusiasts hell bent on the authentic; there are no egos, no rewards, no kudos. True folk is like true football - a grey game, played on grey days, watched by grey people. True folk is neglected, and dirty; it is a vault, an archive, a cultural oubliette; true folk is superstition and detritus; true folk is everything people say it is - balding heads, grey beards, pewter tankards, shaky-eggs, badly played bodhrans, and all; true folk is rust and grime; true folk is the beggar in ditch by the motorway verge.

True folk is all these things and more, but, God Forbid, it will never be entertainment!

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: greg stephens
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:55 AM

Well, one could state the bleeding obvious, that a lot of performances labelled as "folk" are not very entertaining. But whether I am up to explaining why this should be so? Possibly not.

Subject: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,The Observer
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:46 AM

There seems to a conflict between folk and entertainment, in the eyes of some contributors to these Mudcat threads. Can anyone explain?