Commerce v Folk

Subject: Commerce v Folk
From: GUEST,the 'Observer's Observer
Date: 11 May 08 - 04:23 PM

Commerce pulls any pursuit towards the interests of the commerce and it's protaganists.

The question is how much dare we let it? And we are in control.

Cecil Sharp controlled a healthy organisation, but his motivation and results speak for themselves.

Not so a lot of commercial interests that abound on the Folk scene today. On the fringes of it, in reality, in a lot of cases.   Hoping to ride on Mr Sharp's legacy.

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: Folknacious
Date: 11 May 08 - 06:00 PM

Sorry, could you repeat that normal English? It seems to have come out in garbled Troll!

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 11 May 08 - 07:04 PM

The running dog capitalist lackies who serve the beer and burgers to sustain the folk singers should give their wares freely presumably? And what about the corporate whores who make the instruments? And the petrochemical giants who give us enforced mobility at a price.
I'll see your bucolic arcadia and raise you a tankard of mead.

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: Mr Red
Date: 12 May 08 - 07:46 AM

Methinks there is a distinction being made between earning money (as per previous threads) and making money (as per certain Festivals) - but I could be wrong.

The pop music industry is a case in point. Commerce would fit there I think.

Who knows.

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 12 May 08 - 08:09 AM

The answer to those who milk the folk audience is not to buy. While ever market economics of supply and demand hold sway on events like Cambridge, The Man will be want his cut. Folk is singularly well equipped to ply its wares elsewhere: a pub, a field, someone's back garden. The acts at Cambridge or Glastonbury are entirely virtual to me, I'd no more hang on the phone for one of those events that I'd play bingo on the seafront. Especially when lower profile do's offer quality without paying for someone groovy's helicopter ride.

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: Peace
Date: 12 May 08 - 10:19 AM

"It's" means it is or it has. The possessive is "its". No offense intended.

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: Peace
Date: 12 May 08 - 10:21 AM

I reread the first post. Is this thread about pornography?

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 12 May 08 - 11:17 AM

"It's" means it is or it has. The possessive is "its". No offense intended."

Is that for me? I have a high apostrophe count and suffer from irritable vowel syndrome.

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: Peace
Date: 12 May 08 - 11:38 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: DonMeixner
Date: 12 May 08 - 02:37 PM

I have long felt that performance and music is all about communication. That first posting was certainly not.

However the subject is a good one.

I get paid to play in a market and venue that can't afford to pay me as much as the venue or I would like. I defray a bit of the payment from the venue by having the ability to sell some CD's, with or without the apostrophe. That is commerce and marketing. And everyone bennefits from the transaction. This is good.

Last year at Old Songs I paid $8.00 for 2, two tomato slice, spinach, and cheese wraps that were dull, skimpy, tasteless, and burned. I allowed two Hippie Kids to rip me off for lunch because I was in a captive space, the advertised product sounded better than it was, and the floor show of the girl bouncing around, braless, in a halter top in the heat was pretty OK. Thats commerce of a type as well.

This shouldn't be Commerce vs. Folk but Commerce/Folk in support of Commerce/Folk which is also a good thing.

Don

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 12 May 08 - 03:25 PM

I have come to the conclusion that "oberserver" knows not what he/she is talking about.
Personally I have no problem with the commercial potentional

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: Snuffy
Date: 12 May 08 - 07:09 PM

"potentional" - not a word I have ever come across before. Google offers no definitions, but gives "about 108,000" examples on the net. Is it the same as "potential"? If not, what does it mean?

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 May 08 - 04:59 AM

potentional

adj - The deliberate act of milking the cash cow?

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 13 May 08 - 05:51 AM

Potentional sounds like polari. Kenneth Williams might say, 'Ooh, that ones got a bit of potentional. Bona ecaf and nice cartso.'

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: GUEST,Sue
Date: 13 May 08 - 06:21 AM

Oooh Glueman, what a bona omi you are! Wish I could vada your eek, but if you're in your Glueman persona you only leave your lattie at night don't you?

Utterly off-thread, but A Canterbury Tale is my all time favourite Powell & Pressburger film. What with that and loving Round the Horne, I guess we're both showing our age!

Subject: RE: Commerce v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:55 AM

Ooh Sue, ogles yer willets, I'm no omi-polone.
First saw A Canterbury Tale as a nipper in the 60s but it blew my mind. Then spent years telling everyone about it and they didn't want to know, now people say how they loved it all along! Bunch of dizzy crimpers the lot of 'em.