 sj |
||
|
||
Froots Board?
|
|
|
Subject: Froots Board? From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Oct 07 - 06:28 PM OK, who ate the thread about the Froots Board? The thread started over there by C*ntess Richard is important. Does the music belong to professionals (and how good is she anyway?) or to the folk she so despises? Lady Muck or what? |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Peace Date: 19 Oct 07 - 06:34 PM The fRoots message board is alive and well. That would be a good place to take this thread. Here's a hotlink: http://froots.net/phpBB2/ |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Oct 07 - 06:37 PM I've been there. A bit like some of the contributors' ideas about what folk msic is ----- it isn't working! |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Oct 07 - 06:38 PM Correction - it WASN'T working. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Peace Date: 19 Oct 07 - 06:48 PM I just joined and posted. It was to the "Does f**k need professionals" thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Oct 07 - 06:48 PM Well, it won't let me in (although I joined). I smell a conspiracy! |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Oct 07 - 06:51 PM Not, seemingly, under the name "Peace". |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Peace Date: 19 Oct 07 - 06:56 PM Richardm it sounds to me like there are some people who think they are "the last word" on 1) folk 2) music 3) what's good 4) what isn't In my world, opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one. Maybe some of those people need lives. I go work a club and I have to be good. People pay money, I play songs. If I suck or hand in a poor performance, I wouldn't blame folks for demanding their money back. I think that holds true for amateurs, wannabees, pros, semi-pros, etc. I have had people come and tell me a song I'd wrotten would be better if I did this or that. I usually listen, say thank you and move on. But I did have a person get in my face one evening and he was intending to tell me what one of my songs meant--not to him, but meant in reality. I told him to f##k off. I think what may be happening is that there are people who busy themselves with the lives and art of others. I'll put it this way: anyone wants to criticize my writing, that's their business. They want me to take their criticism seriously, they best be able to write better than me on a bad day. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:35 PM Richard, your post was about the only one in the deleted thread that actually talked about the subject of the discussion:
I appreciate your attempt to move the discussion to the topic, but the thread was already dead by the first post. It just doesn't work to start a thread with just a link - and the same goes for people who start YouTube threads with no comment (and sometimes not even a mention that the link leads to YouTube). Especially in the first message of a thread, people need to say something in their own words to start off the discussion. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:52 PM For me, Peace, it's more than that. Must drink less..... I'm very conscious that what I planned to say looks a bit like Mad Lizzie.... I've saved it and may prune it tomorrow.... |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Peace Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:56 PM I look forward to it, Richard. Because what I see beneath that brusque exterior is a man who is at once thoughtful and concerned about the 'state of the art' to do with traditional folk, so after our initial misunderstanding--rather, my misunderstanding of a post you made a while back, I have read your posts very closely and find I agree with many of them. Keep at it. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: GUEST,fRoots Board Admin Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:03 PM We are very happy to have additional posters on the fRoots board, but please note that we really don't welcome or need the kind of insulting language that, on the odd occasions I've visited this place, seems quite normal here. Join in the discussions by all means - all views are genuinely welcomed - but if you insult other board users or deliberately troll, you will not retain access for very long. That's why we have largely managed to keep it an L. Cornish free zone. It means it's less active, but we prefer it that way. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:13 PM Hello Frootie. Administrators have responsibilities as well as power. You don't seem to have a grip on that. That may be why a certain person (not me, and not Mad Lizzie) is about 30% of the traffic on your site. If she's so professional, why doesn't she get gigs? Is that why she wants to stop people with a sense of excitement rather than historianism playing folk song? Is that your axe, as a man with a great future behind him, to grind too? Welcome to my list of places like the bbc board, that are not worth visiting. Loadsaholyjoes. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:16 PM PS, thanks for that Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Peace Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:22 PM So, fRoots administrator, why is it that I who posted in answer to the thread title "Does f#ok need professionals?", seem to have had access restricted? I loosely fit the folk area of music, have published songs and released records. What gives? |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Peace Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:24 PM BTW, my one and only post to fRoots was TBMurdoch Joined: 20 Oct 2007 Posts: 1 Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: Does folk need professionals? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does custard require eggs? Back to top |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Oct 07 - 08:34 PM Looks like they might have decided to ban every mudcat member (apart from the C*ntess and one other performer who agees with her a lot). Shit, folkmusic for the folkies! |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: GUEST,fRoots Board Admin Date: 19 Oct 07 - 09:00 PM Sorry, which bit don't you understand out of "if you insult other board users or deliberately troll, you will not retain access for very long"? |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Oct 07 - 09:37 PM fRoots, I applaud you. It's a tough choice to decide what to cut and what not to. I sometimes wonder if we should be stricter here, but that hasn't been our tradition. Still, the tone of some discussion here makes me cringe. They weren't that way when I went to England and met them in person, but I get the impression online that UK folkies are a nasty lot. All they seem to do is squabble. One wonders if they have time for music. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Peace Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:43 PM "Sorry, which bit don't you understand out of "if you insult other board users or deliberately troll, you will not retain access for very long"? " I wasn't trolling. It was a valid comment. But you can keep your board you sanctimonious asshole. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Peace Date: 19 Oct 07 - 11:49 PM I had actually read many posts on the thread and the question about eggs and custard was a real one. Because it does equate to the question. But it don't matter now. PFO. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:32 AM And, BTW, the Frooty favourite (who, our one legged flautist friend thinks, we must not be allowed to upset, and who has indeed in the past bragged on this board about running a folk club in Alsace and having to teach the locals about their own folk music) does little but insult others. Her entire premise is that no-one else apart from her little circle of preferred young musicians is good enough, and indeed that folk music itself is not good enough. Who made her queen? The title of the deleted thread here, about pretentious bolleaux (to rhyme with gattocks) on the other board was right on the money. Whether or not music is at first traditional, it cannot osmote into the tradition unless the community play and sing it. If you exclude all who do not meet imposed criteria, you cut all except from your chosen ruling classes off from the music except as passive consumers. That is the antithesis of folk music (I hope we all agree, whether we all agree on the 1954 definition or not) and looks suspiciously like the "manufactured from the top down" world of the music industry. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:41 AM froots still going....bloody amazing! haven't seen it for years. No doubt still reviewing hottentot yodellers, s Zulu satirists (oh so telling!), Hawaiian conch shell music, the latest thrilling line up of Fairport Convention....always with its finger on the pulse of exactly what no one gives a shit about. How do we manage without it, that what I want to know. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:49 AM Now that pretty well spread my cornflakes on the keyboard, figuratively speaking, Al! |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: The Borchester Echo Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:02 AM If Mr Bridge is attempting to refer to me (and I think he is - attempting, that is) he may wish to be informed that I have never run a flamin' f*lk club, never mind in Alsace, a province of France. I have promoted English music in Germany, specifically not 'local' German music and especially not 'Celtic', (an important distinction referred to in the opener of the fR thread which is actually about all aspects of 'professional' in music, especially managerial and organisational, and not at all specifically about performance). This he might have realised had he bothered to read the post. Mr Bridge does not know me or else he would know that I have not gigged for more than 20 years, nor does he know who my musician friends are, still less their ages. Nor does he appear to know even who the fR Editor is. He does not play in a band named after the inventor of an agricultural implement but in one whose name resembles a fluttering giant cat. The fR forum is for serious musical discussion which, by and large, it achieves. Invasions by inane airheads and self-important tossers who come home pissed from the pub are neither useful nor helpful. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: martin ellison Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:05 AM "I loosely fit the folk area of music, have published songs and released records. What gives?" You should've added "And how dare someone have an opinion that doesn't coincide with mine?" Of course you can fling insults: "you sanctimonious asshole" "If she's so professional, why doesn't she get gigs?" "a man with a great future behind him" "pretentious bolleaux (to rhyme with gattocks)" "Lady Muck or what? " Etc, Etc but don't you think it would be more constructive to drop the infantile language and engage in a discussion. Are you claiming that the thread over on the froots board is more detrimental to the perception of folk music than your small-minded diatribe? I agree with your following comment: "Must drink less" - you're not doing yourself any favours with your alcohol-fuelled insults. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: martin ellison Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:10 AM "our one legged flautist friend " Only just spotted this - are you serious or am I missing some psuedo-intellectual joke? |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:24 AM Martin, check who said what first, OK? |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:27 AM Probably, Martin. Unless the editor of fRoots realy IS the front man for Jethro Tull? :D |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: treewind Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:29 AM Enough, already! Richard, if you wanted to discuss the professional-or-otherwise treatment of folk musicians you could have started a thread so titled. Instead you have barely exceeded the level of the earlier thread, by starting out and continuing to use it to sling mud at people. I don't know much about you, but for some reason I think you should know better than to descend to that level. Anahata |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 20 Oct 07 - 06:32 AM Richard and I are earthbound spirits. If we were ever going to the ascend to the lofty heights where Froots reviewed our lifetime contribution to folk music - we would have done it by now, It does us no favours, why should we do it the favour of taking its preposterous self important bollocks at face value. Half a mouthful of garbled abuse after the pub, before we throw up - I think maybe that's about the strength of it. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 20 Oct 07 - 06:35 AM the real qestion is, what's it doing here polluting the sweet air of mudcat? |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: John MacKenzie Date: 20 Oct 07 - 06:43 AM Sorry folks, without taking one side or the other, we are talking snobbery here. There's the perceived snobbery of the Froots board and it's contributors.Then there's the inverted snobbery of the people who think that all this po faced serio scholarly attitude adopted by some of the posters on that board, is anal. Some people set out their viewpoints too strongly, and are willing to entertain not one jot or tittle of the opposing viewpoint, to the extent of rubbishing it at every turn. Repeat the previous paragraph for those on the other side of this never ending, and extremely boring argument. Tolerance from both sides might be in order methinks. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:13 AM tolerance....we're stuck with the buggers. wake up Giok, the tolerance is all one sided. these buggers have created their own ghetto. let them bloody fester there til the arts council grants dry up. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: TheSnail Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:36 AM John 'Giok' MacKenzie There's the perceived snobbery of the Froots board and it's contributors.Then there's the inverted snobbery of the people who think that all this po faced serio scholarly attitude adopted by some of the posters on that board, is anal. Really? Are those the only choices? I can't identify with either of them. I just like playing and listening to folk music with my friends (amateur and professional). For a little calrity on Ian Anderson. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: TheSnail Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:43 AM Or even clarity. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:53 AM Interesting thread... It might be worth putting my first post from yesterday which stood without me receiving insults or threats of me being banned from the froots roots. Perhaps I am mistaken but I do not believe I was towing the "party line" (which as far as I can make out is, according to Mr Bridge, what Diane says). "PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:49 pm" Dainne Eeasby wrote: So nobody's arguing for the GEFFs. We all agree that lack of professionalism in public performance is a no-no. No. I don't believe perormance in a public place must be "professional". As far as folk clubs that are concerned, I believe there is room for pure amateur get togethers with no booked artists right up to concert style events which perhaps have no floor singers or are careful about vetting their singers as they feel a need to offer "value for money" for their more expensive door charges. I know nothing about leaning on artists in the small clubs. I've never been responsible for paying and also, I've never been one for bartering - either I can afford what someone asks or I can' t and my own approach if all guests were beyond my finances would simply be to have no paid acts - they are a smaller part in my own folk outlook than having environments where anyone can participate . Perhaps if artists are made to feel guilty about the fees they charge by some clubs, something is wrong but otherwise, I'm most likely see it as supply and demand. Overall, I believe in folk music at all levels and something that makes it special to me is that it is accessible to most people as participants if they wish. Remove that and folk might as well just become just a name for another form of entertainment. I might not enjoy the concerts style venues, you perhaps might not enjoy a "dire singers night" - that's fine. But my slight concern above aside, I think the most damming thing for folk is to slam other venues, their aims and policies for not agreeing with our own. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: The Sandman Date: 20 Oct 07 - 08:02 AM The music belongs to everyone,to play and enjoy. pesonally ,I dont take any magazines,very seriously[apart from musical traditions and living traditions]and good as these magazines are[they too have hidden agendas]. once upon a time the editor of folk roots was a committed bluesman,Ihope he still is,and I hope he still plays the blues. If I were him, I would pack up as editor of Folk Roots and spend more time playing music,[IMO]life is too short to be wasting time editing magazines.http://www.dickmiles.com |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: GUEST,greymalkin Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:32 AM ...'Is that why she wants to stop people with a sense of excitement rather than historianism playing folk song?'... I doubt anyone wants to stop people from playing anything they fancy. But folk -like it or not- is a style of music and performing. Owning and playing a mandolin doesn't automatically make you a folk music performer. And if that sounds elitist, it can also be said that just because you're a classically-trained singer, it doesn't mean you can or should sing jazz (as we have seen - sadly). ...'I loosely fit the folk area of music, have published songs and released records. What gives?'... To avoid confusion, maybe you should bill yourself as a 'loose folk' performer. Then you can have a 'loose folk' audience at a 'loose folk' venue - though I suspect anyone would have to be pretty tight to sit through one of your sets.... |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: RTim Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:36 AM Without really focusing my thoughts on the subject of this thread to much - It has always seemed true to me, and increasingly over the years it has got even more so - that there are several "Divisions", as in Grades, of Folk Music (and I am only talking about Traditional music and performers) Premier Division are the Professionals, First Division are the very good part-timers, etc, etc, down the line (until you get me! - who only perform when I want to, and on my own terms!) Tim Radford |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: GUEST,Ian Anderson Date: 20 Oct 07 - 11:44 AM Really, what I'm reading here is absurd. The fRoots board is open to anybody who is willing to abide by its basic rules - no insults, no trolling. We have a range of opinions appearing on it, many of which I don't agree with but then from what I gather above, the Mudcat proprietor isn't that keen on what certain people say here either. We have some forthright contributers to it, some of whom post over here too, but they have no other connection with fRoots than that. As for some of the sillier remarks above: fRoots does not have and has never had an arts council grant (more's the pity). It does not claim to be a "folk" magazine (whatever that is) but traditional music is a major part of its content. It has no great agenda other than what I said in the very first issue back in 1979, to provide "inspiration to enthusiasm" for a wide range of music that our many writers (all of whom have different tastes and opinions) think might appeal to our readers. Nobody has to read it if they don't want to. And on a personal level (since some of you seem to want to get personal) I do still play music for the fun of it, though I stopped doing it for a living 20 years ago when the magazine began to eat up most of my time, which it still does. A series of 18 hour days this week in fact, which is why self-admitted drunken invaders of our board get short shrift when I find at 1.a.m. that they've made offensive, insulting postings, and encouraged others to come and be silly. Life's too short. And as for the confusing link above, the proper one to my sort-of CV is http://www.myspace.com/vulturama By all means have a few more pints and think up lots of smart-arse, insulting remarks about it and use all the expletives you like, but I'm afraid you won't have the satisfaction of having me read them as I'm simply not masochistic enough to stick around. Outta here! |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: The Sandman Date: 20 Oct 07 - 12:30 PM Ian Anderson,I hope you dont think me impertinent,but why do you do what you do,do you not think your time would be better spent playing music,magazines like yours are become increasingly irrelevant [imo],would not your contribution to the folkscene be greater if you went back on the road, for a start you wouldnt have to put up with insulting postings anymore.Dick Miles |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Folkiedave Date: 20 Oct 07 - 12:45 PM I don't often buy Folk Roots very often - but I have followed its progress over a number of years and I think Ian makes a splendid job of producing it and I also liked Tiger Moth on the odd occasion I heard them. But there is no reason to believe that his contribution to the folk scene would be any greater than it is at present. And he doesn't put up with insulting postings, I thought he had made that clear. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: The Sandman Date: 20 Oct 07 - 12:59 PM FolkieDave,sorry, should have put, doesnt have to deal with insulting postings. I have never posted to FROOTS,Iwouldnt waste my time. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: treewind Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:04 PM However irrelevant you may think it is, it's the most successful magazine that covers traditional folk music. You can't produce an expensive full colour glossy mag like that without big sales. Though British folk music is only a small part of its domain, its focus is always on what's based on or derived quite obviously from traditional 'roots' music. You won't find any navel-gazing singer-songwriters in it, even if that's what some people call 'folk' - but then, as Ian has just said, fRoots makes no claim to be a 'folk' magazine. I'm not hugely interested in much of the material that appears in each issue, though some of the stuff about music in other countries is at least educational when I have a spare moment to read it, but the reason why I subscribe is because it's almost the only 'World Music' magazine or organisation that includes English or even British music. Some 'world music' organizations exclude anything English speaking which is bizarre. As for putting up with insulting postings, if Ian didn't get some vociferous disagreement with his views and editorial policies he wouldn't be doing his job right, but if insults are the best argument somebody can come up with it's not worth losing any sleep over them. I'm not entirely happy with fRoots - it would be nice if there was a magazine of similar quality that matched my musical and geographical area better. Living Tradition is struggling along doing the right kind of thing and EDS has made astonishing progress in the last few years. I also wasn't pleased with a CD review they published - I wouldn't mind it being in the 'and the rest' section, but it was clear from the text that the reviewer had looked at the track list but not listened to any of it. Anahata |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: The Sandman Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:13 PM Anahata,dont worry,It is much worse to be ignored than be given a bad review. FolkRoots gave Boxing Clever a fairly good review ,I have no gripes.what I dont like is Ian Anderson coming on here whingeing about his life,if he doesnt like it give up the folkroots job, and go back to fulltime music making,I always enjoyed his guitar playing.Dick Miles |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Jeri Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:15 PM If Ian Anderson weren't gone, he might tell you that you obviously have your hands full minding your OWN business and you'd be better off doing that and letting him mind his. Every last person bitching about what fRoots or I.A.A. do is coming off to me as a bit needy, boorish, weak and stupid. I'm not offended by much, but this need some of you have to piss all over everything other people care about offends me. People who join a website just to get involved in a figurative punch-up offend me, persistent whining offends me, and people who constantly search for excuses to debate with others just disgust me. This place would be a while lot better if you'd just shut the fuck up the next time you want to pick a fight just because you can. I wish we had members-only posting and could eliminate some of this bickering and backbiting. I think some on fRoots may get hit by friendly fire, but not many. Judging by the dedication a small number of our most prolific British posters seem to have to continually proving how selfishly nasty they can be, I can understand why they're more strict. Why people don't have the ability to rein themselves in, somebody has to do it for them. To the trolls and the biters of the bait: I see you. I NOTICE, and my opinions of people are based on what I've witnessed. I also know you probably don't care or you wouldn't have behaved like a petulant, spoiled brat to begin with. One other thing I plan to do when they put me in charge of the world is to come up with some sort of test to ensure people aren't too drunk and angry to be safe posting. The combination can lead to people gaining the reputation of a fool because all of us can do some stupid things on the Internet when we're having a bit of a melt-down. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Peace Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:22 PM "To avoid confusion, maybe you should bill yourself as a 'loose folk' performer. Then you can have a 'loose folk' audience at a 'loose folk' venue - though I suspect anyone would have to be pretty tight to sit through one of your sets.... " You were tripe in The Bard's play and you are tripe here. |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:27 PM Some stands have to be taken. One such is a stand against the idea that only those who have passed a test devised by the self appointed discriminati should be allowed to play folk music. Drunk, sober, high (not often these days) it pushes my buttons every time. You cannot properly disenfranchise the folk. Folk music is too important to allow it to be stolen by a self-loving elite. Aux barricades, citoyens! |
|
Subject: RE: Froots Board? From: John MacKenzie Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:35 PM Entrenched Intolerant Self opinionated Tactless Thoughtless Nasty Bitchy Smug Cowardly Know it all Offensive Prejudiced Snobbish Those are some of the polite words that spring to mind when I read threads like this! G. |
| Share Thread: |