Froots Board?

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:56 PM

Of course it's important to 'take a stand'. You never know when those who believe a person who plays for money should possess a certain level of skill will organize, run for government office and be elected in such numbers that they pass laws to keep you from singing in your shower.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 02:05 PM

"you sanctimonious asshole"

Yeah. That was me, Ellison. Why? Why not. This is why I was banned.


In response to the thread title, "Does fo*k need professionsals?" I asked, "Does custard need eggs?" Maybe yes and maybe no. Depends on the menu and the dietary habits of the eaters. Of course, it's an analogy once removed, but not offensive to anyone. Diane Easby even remarked in response--a clever remark, btw and imo. However, that single post is gone to troll heaven because it was perceived to be trolling. It wasn't. What's his face decided to castigate me on this thread--and I think I know why. It was then that I said 'sanctimonious asshole'.

Music does not belong to editors of magazines or editors of forums. It belongs to musicians and writers and singers. It is not the domain of an elite or select few. It is the inheritance from people gone who created art and memories for the generations that followed. We are of those recipients, and there are none regardless of the style in which they play who have not been influenced by the works of others. As to the graymalkin guest, he's a real pussy for sure, but I'd guess his familiar didn't want to be found out. Remarks like his appear on the fRoots board, but it does come down to who strokes whom.

Line forms to the right. Have a nice day.

PS I think fRoots is a good magazine. There are some excellent writers there and reviewers also. I hope graymalkin isn't one of them, because he seems unable to hold his booze. Likely plays that way, too. BFN.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 02:33 PM

People interested in folk roots, would be well advised to listen to Reels and Ragas,RTE Lyric fm 96-99khz,700pm tuesday,Thursday 700 pm,[][imo]you learn much more about World Music,listening to it than ,reading someone elses opinion.[and yes they do have English Singers of traditional songs too]
Jeri,If Ian Anderson comes on here whingeing about all the work he does,I have a perfect right to ask him, why do you do it then?,as far as I am concerned, FROOTS is of little importance,whereas his guitar playing going back to his days with ,Maggie Holland was good.the folk scene is my business/.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: GUEST,bliss
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 05:02 PM

Just in case anyone has been misled by the above (Richard refers to me but not by name, and as a solicitor I'm sure he'd want me to have right of reply).

I do not always agree with Diane (As she will confirm).

I didn't answer the question she posed on froots, but for the record I don't think folk NEEDs pros, but it's always had them, because that's what the people have always wanted and still do.

And when money's changing hands people should behave accordingly, and match price with perfomance. Music for money takes nothing from music for other reasons, and it's counter productive to claim otherwise.

I played for love before I made this my job, and I still play for love. and I am a real person too

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 02:48 AM

First of all they turn up on this forum - insulting us.

Secondly, if we hadn't on many occasions paid out our hard earned brass for Froots and been bitterly disappointed at the contents, we should have a more positive view of that organ.

Mudcat has done more to unite the disparate elements of the acoustic music scene in the UK than anything else I can remember since the folkscene of the 1960's. Diane, or the Countess and I may not agree - but we do have dialogue on Mudcat.

The reason the debate is bitter Joe, is that it is class based and it is something we ALL deeply care about. We haven't suddenly all got nasty. Froots has this very middle class audience, and boy does it get up your nose. Up to the internet, this was all we had

By the sound of it, Froots has worked its subtle magic on Diane as well. For once, we are in sympathy.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 03:59 AM

First of all there IS a very nasty element within the English Folk Cirlce I'm afraid. Believe me, because I have had to endure their witch hunt for a very long time...and even Mudcat has given in to them.

Lizzie, your posts have been deleted because you repeatedly abused your postiung privileges here and then said you had left Mudcat forever. If you wish to change that and post under restriction, please contact me by e-mail.
-Joe Offer-
[e-mail]

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: martin ellison
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 03:59 AM

Well, I joined this board only very recently and now regret it. Apparently I'm now just called "Ellison". Never been referred to like that since the playground. So, "Peace", I don't really care if your dad is bigger than mine, I'm off.
Sheesh.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 04:23 AM

What I cannot and will not forgive about that self-important, bragging, woman is that most of the rest of us are, she tells us, not good enough for her. It is a huge shame, for she has much useful information and knowledge. But her conceit is so huge that she will keep trying to make the world over in her own image.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 04:37 AM

Yes, I confirm what Tom Bliss says; we do not always agree. Nor do I agree that much with WLD, nor indeed with Ian A all the time. Yet we manage to discuss stuff without resorting to calling each other sanctimonious assholes.

Like WLD, Bob Davenport has this tinpot theory that folk music should be returned totally to the working class (whatever that is) and people like us (yes, all of us behind computers) wouldn't be allowed to have anything to do with it as it's not "our music".

And what would that mean? Just that the majority of quality trad music would disappear and we'd be left with the jolly singalongs, the dirty choruses, the music hall and Cushy Butterfield dominating the traditional repertoire. Ewan MacColl spent his artistic life trying to give 'the working class' back its cultural heritage. And what did these workers say? 'Stuff it, we'd rather listen to Tom Jones and boy bands and spice persons'.

Southern Rag, the forerunner to fRoots (which is emphatically not a 'glossy', Anahata!) published a lengthy interview with Peter Bellamy in the early 80s in which he quoted northerners with mud on their boots criticising the Coppers for allegedly removing all songs of discontent and protest from the family repertoire. And that it wasn't representative enough because Bob's grandad Brasser wasn't so much a labourer as a farm foreman. Yes, it is, all about class - in the form of inverted snobbery and wilful ignorance.

It defeats me why this thread is here, on Mudcat. It exists purely to slag off a magazine which no-one is forced to read if they don't want to, even though it is far and away the best we have currently on the market. No, fR doesn't cover every musical type or it would be the size of the Argos catalogue and may as well change its name to Mojo 2.

This mag has a forum which is currently running a thread entitled 'Does f*lk need professionals?' intended as an update of an insult hurled at one such 'professional', the agent Jean Oglesby, nearly 30 years ago. In other words, an industry review really. A 'where are we now'? Mudcat could have that debate too, if it wanted. Instead it is vilifying some of those taking part in a debate elswhere in cyberspace without even reading or comprehending what they are saying but churning out their old, tired prejudices. Weird.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 04:42 AM

Martin Ellison, take it as an accolade to be referred to by your surname only. Like a ballerina. Ellison, the finest box player in the world (or in the North West anyway. The biggest and best cheese there is.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: peregrina
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 04:49 AM

Abusive and ad hominem (or ad feminam) invective damages the reputation of this whole community. Namecalling is for the playground--no, not even there. I ask myself: why.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 04:53 AM

In answer to madlizziecornish (not that it matters as such a nonsensical post won't survive for long), the matter under discussion on fR at the time was those who hijack music for their own nefarious purposes. She (or her plagiarised website) came under criticism because it does just that.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 05:02 AM

. . . and the context in which she needs to be stopped is because of the damage she causes to artists' careers, the professional damage and personal harm.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: KeithofChester
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 05:06 AM

The thing that amuses me is that just this Mudcat thread has attracted 58 posts in 2 days. During the same time the fRuitcakes-R-Us "letters section" has attracted 2.

That says more about the value of that place than any number of words.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: KeithofChester
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 05:13 AM

My, 12 more posts here in the time it took me to sing American Pie in the shower.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 05:51 AM

I never said folk music was the total preserve of the working classes. However many traddies and the yoghurts and nuts/world music set over at Froots make feel we've been totally excluded.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 06:12 AM

I have rather little interest in this discussion, but the pointer to the fRoots board did show me a thread I wanted to comment on.

If I'm registered there, I've forgotten the name and password I used, it was that long ago that I last looked at it. So I tried to register.

Apparently I should be emailed an activation code. 12 hours after registering, it hasn't arrived. Is that normal? Are they examining requests individually because of abusers? (If they are, I wouldn't blame them).

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: GUEST,Chris Murray
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 06:21 AM

Jack, the same thing has happened to me. I'm always forgetting my name/password. The activation code often takes a few days to arrive. I don't think it's just you.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Emma B
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 06:25 AM

At the moment there is much better reading than this in the BS section!

Check out the expression of feelings in the "Poems that speak to you" the good natured banter and humour in "Old Farts Thread" and "Those handy UK expressions..."

Oh! and vote for Jeri as World President :)                         certainly my vote for most sensible post!

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 06:43 AM

I would not usually claim to have "seen the light". It would be self-aggrandising, and also suggest more than I mean.

One of the nice things about the English (and even the English middle class) is their usual modesty and slightly self-mocking self deprecation. Hence the very English "Good enough for folk" - it doesn't, truly, denigrate the music. It is the artist mocking himself lest anyone think him conceited.

I am reminded of a chap I once asked whether he fancied a game of squash. I was captain of the university team at the time, not because I was any good but because I was the only person who would take the job. His reply, seeking to decline, contained the expression "I'm quite good" - which I took then for a conceit, in that many competent players would have said "I get by" or "I'm not too bad".

I discovered later that he was being nicely English and modest: he was the then English UAU number 3 (the third best university age squash player in the country).

Don't assume I'm on your side, Lizzie. I am (I think) on the side of the music - the "folk" music that can and does evolve, but by absorption rather than invasion (hence my opposition to calling music that is not "folk" by that name no matter how good it may be. I also sometimes play mandolin in a rock band, but I don't call it folk. Not that I want to turn this into a "what is folk" thread, you understand.

That's why I have to oppose those who say we have to be good enough for them. Time will judge. They have no right to do so.

Equally, I will oppose the "prolier than thou" argument.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 07:07 AM

the very English "Good enough for folk"

This was coined by Alex Campbell when tuning (and failing dismally to do so). A very non-English, very Scottish self-aggrandiser.

Richard Bridge has still not read (or at any rate grasped) the original concept of "Does f*lk need professionals?" which refers to an attack on an agent, not performance standards though these must necessarily enter into the discussion.

Rephrase it, if you like, to "Do we need movers and shakers or will tthe music move and shake itself? I think it doesn't and won't. You may argue otherwise, if you can, and yes, without resorting to 'prolier than thou' or indeed dragging in other musics which are irrelevant to the topic.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 07:17 AM

What I dislike about many magazines[and here I include Folk Roots or whatever it calls itself these days]is there imagined self importance, there biased reviewing,there attempts to control the folk scene and/ or to mould it in their perceived image,and their lack of encouragement to musicians who do not fit into their perceived formula of what they should promote.
IT does not affect me much these days, as I gig alot in Ireland,[Iam singing tonight at An Spailpin Fanach,Cork City]where thank god no one takes English Folk/Roots magazines seriously,we realise that these magazines particuarly Froots,merely illuminate the editors tastes and opinions,and in no way give a comprehensive picture of what is really happening on the uk folkscene,I am in total agreement with WLD.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 07:21 AM

Alex Campbell was a fine raconteur,and an extremely funny man,he regularly packed folk clubs,and was a superb entertainer,pleasedonrt besmirch his reputation.DickMiles

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 07:30 AM

a comprehensive picture of what is really happening on the uk folkscene

. . . is absolutely not what fRoots (not hard to get the title right) sets out to do. I'd leave Ian A to answer this but he's pissed off to Seville.

He said so above "fRoots does not claim to be a "folk" magazine (whatever that is) but traditional music is a major part of its content". It has a clearly defined editorial policy about what it will cover and what it does not.

And as I said above but Dick has apparently missed: "fR doesn't cover every musical type or it would be the size of the Argos catalogue and may as well change its name to Mojo 2". Maybe Comhaltas publishes a comic surveying th Irish showband scene? I know not.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 07:34 AM

It is well-known that Alex Campbell was frequently pissed and thus unable to tune and that "good enough for folk" was his supposedly funny catchphrase. Yes, when he was good he was good but that was all too infrequently.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 07:47 AM

1. How do you know it was originated rather than used by him?
2. The Scots too seem to have the concept of non-self-aggrandisement, some of the time. It escapes some others.
3. Your objection to the phrase has hitherto mostly been its adoption not its origination.
4. You use the phrase to attack many - mostly not those who act as managers or agents, and if you re-read your original post, after your suggestion that agents are not parasites (maybe symbiotes?) you re-use the phrase and the FLA (Four-letter-acronym) you create, "GEFF", for a general swipe at many.
5. The idea that artist management and agency are professions, rather than trades or businesses, is innovative. It does not wash as a way to wriggle out of the general thrust of your post, which is elitist, sneers at many folk performers, and is therefore offensive.
6. Most of us already know you don't or didn't like Alex Campbell. Yet, in the sense of a professional (ie paid) as distinct from an amateur (ie unpaid), he undoubtedly was a professional performer, sometimes indeed often of folk music, as the recordings bearing his name bear witness. He also wrote at least one good song (So Long) which survives and seems to be starting to be carried into the tradition, with modifications.
7. Your apparent suggestion that being a professional connotes permanent excellence may not be supported by the evidence - as you might suspect seeing the number of Chuck Berry live solos that staggered to a finish on a totally bum note and had belatedly to be slid into key. Indeed many from the 60s could testify that the agents and managers they used, although charging considerable fees, were not in fact competent or even honest. I know of one folk agent, not long ago, who intentionally inveigled herself (so I will make it clear it wasn't Jacey Bedford) into doing a hosting gig that one of the acts she represented was sought for. "Professional" and "Good" are not identities.
8. Even if they were, the amateur is the wellspring of folk music. Sneer at us and condescend to us and we will respond appropriately, even if it is not "civilised" to do so.
9. You don't seem to have got the point I was making about "prolier than thou". The mere fact that something is working class or even from the underclass doesn't necessarily make it "folk" and doesn't necessarily make it good. Nor does it necessarily make it bad.
10. Many of us object to the fact that the movers and shakers often think that they should get to keep most of the nuts. It isn't necessarily a zero-sum game, but if too much of the heat is taken out, the reaction becomes endothermic. They can be good catalysts, or they can be inhibitors.
11. If agents and managers are so virtuous, why do some even of your supporters prefer to adminster thier own affairs?
12. And if your objective was to praise agents and managers, why bother to take a gratuitous sideswipe at the majority of the performers - the amateurs?

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 08:10 AM

Alex Campbell was a friend who stayed occasionally at my house after gigs. He would not have done so had I not 'liked' him. He was however frequently unprofessional. As far as I am aware, he invented the phrase in question. He certainly used it enough.

I was referring to its probable (almost certain) origin which you supposed was English. I would very much prefer it not to be adopted at all. My view is that only excellence is good enough for trad music.

[Getting bored with answering such gratuitous rubbish point by point, so in conclusion . . . ]

. . . my 'objective' was to reappraise what was said in Folk News 30 years ago (about an agent) and assess how much (if at all) professionalism in several senses was being achieved. It isn't, as long as the wilfully ignorant continue to confuse 'amateur' with 'amateurism'. If and when anyone can do this, I imagine they'd be welcome to register and post at fR as long as they stay on topic and sane.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 08:39 AM

I have been a professional singer/musician for 31 years,I have never used an agent for folkclub/ festival gigs,either solo,or with the New Mexborough Concertina Quartet,or when performing in a duo with Richard Grainger,Idont need to,if other people want to use them, that is their concern
Alex Campbell[imo],frequently[not infrequently] gave good performances.
F roots,gives the impression it covers folk and roots music ,that is partially true,but what really happens[IMO] is that only those acts that Ian Anderson deems worthy of promotion,get written about.
Thank god for the internet,musicians can set websites up,people can hear their music ,make their own decisions,without the likes of FROOTS,trying to tell people what they should or should not like .
http://www.dickmiles.com

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: RTim
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 08:51 AM

Dick Miles doesn't need an agent - he seems pretty good at promoting himself - All The Time.

Tim Radford

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 09:17 AM

DE, you frequently use Campbell as an example of everything you think wrong with folk. Indeed unless I confuse you with another (which is possible), your remarks about him went rather further, on a thread about comments on the dress of women in folk clubs. I think the word "Neanderthal" was used by someone with little appreciation of the time or context. But perhaps that wasn't you.

The apparent objective (as, it seems, always) of your posting was to have a cheap sneer at others. That was apparently why the original thread here (the deleted one) was originally put here and your thread criticised as it was.

Maybe you confuse "amateurism" with "amateurishness". The concise Oxford makes the same mistake, although it correctly identifies "amateurish" as meaning "having the faults of an amateur".

Amateurism, correctly, is the belief in the value of doing something for the love of it (or for approbation or accolades) rather than for money reward. It was an epithet formerly widely used of the British civil service (and British tennis). In that correct sense, I rather approve of amateurism. I do not approve of conceit.

Why don't you use your knowledge constructively? When I see your posts, they are almost always seeking to damn, and rarely do they recognise any good, any value, any merit in others. Equally, it is rare for you to prescribe a hypothesis that can be tested. Mostly, you just criticise.

I suspect that you are a rather competent performer. But, you say, for 20 years you have not played in public. Where would we be if everyone else did likewise? The point was recently made on Radio 3 (or was it 4 - 93.5) in a programme about the glens of Antrim, by a player from the apparently well-known Johnny-Joe's pub, that by learners going to those sessions, and playing, the pieces are learned and preserved, and the learners improve. He did not add "altered" but he might have done.

We have to adopt and support the amateur if the music is to have roots from which to grow. We will be amateurish, at first. Some may improve. If that chance is not there, if all there is is sneering at real or imagined faults, little will grow. The cult of professionalism is damaging. Sneering at the self-effacing is both socially unpleasant and creatively destructive.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 09:17 AM

Tim - chortle!

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 09:36 AM

Many professionals also play for the love of the music,they could make much more money playing wallpaper music in pubs,or playing in another genre.
I agree with Richard Bridge ,the amateurs have to be encouraged,most professionals were amateur floor singers at one time.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: evansakes
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 10:43 AM

"You won't find any navel-gazing singer-songwriters in it, even if that's what some people call 'folk'..."

This is not true, Anahata. Firstly there are many people who recognise singer-songwriters as at least part of what they call 'folk'. Secondly your point illustrates my main gripe with fRoots in that they tar everyone with the same brush. If someone writes songs they are almost always perceived as "navel gazing" by fRoots. Especially if they happen to be American.

This is carved in editorial stone in the form of a regrettable 'Cultural Boycott' in effect a treaty seemingly aimed at all things American. The assumption is that all American singer-songwriters are standard bearers (or at least apologists) for American government policy.

This smug and superior stance is annoying enough but more galling is the magazine's hypocrisy. Take for example the case of Devon Sproule who graced the fRoots cover only a couple of months ago. She's without doubt American and a singer-songwriter. It's also not difficult to discern a confessional tone in some of her material ('navel-gazing' to some). This is not intended to be a criticism...I'm a big fan of Devon and her songs but it serves to illustrate grave double standards at fRoots.

Gerry

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 11:06 AM

fRoots Cultural Boycott (which is not aimed at "all things American" but at US cultural colonialism), states:

Where American music is concerned, it's partial cultural boycott time. We will continue to cover - but not disproportionately to other parts of the world - local or regional musics: blues, Cajun, conjunto, Appalachian, musics of immigrant communities, musics made by current writers if they are rooted in those traditions or address the problem. We will no longer give space to music that has no sense of roots, place or community."

Devon Sproule's music fits this criterion. Navel-gazing singer songwriters do not because their output has 'no sense of roots, place or community'. Moreover, to include them in some nebulous, wifty-wafty definition of 'f*lk' is a large part of the reason why I and others avoid using the term which has become all but meaningless.

How like the Cabbage-Patched cowardly cowboy of Twickenham to launch this miserable, inaccurate and unfair attack on fRoots the moment its Editor has departed for WOMEX. And what a reflection of his lack of grasp on reality for it to have not the slightest bearing on the topic currently being discussed on the fR forum which has landed here in a garbled form unintelligible to man nor beast.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 11:20 AM

Well strap me to a tree and call me Brenda, I'm off to listen to Richard Thompson at the Roundhouse!

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 11:48 AM

Life was very much better before "communities" reared their ugly heads!

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: treewind
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 12:19 PM

Wow, so many knee-jerk reactions to things I didn't actually say.

"Firstly there are many people who recognise singer-songwriters as at least part of what they call 'folk'"

I know. My post indicated that quite clearly. It also repeated Ian's assertion that fRoots in NOT A FOLK MAGAZINE.

"If someone writes songs they are almost always perceived as "navel gazing" by fRoots. Especially if they happen to be American."

Not necessarily: the distinction is clearly addressed by Diane's quote above, re fRoots policy on "roots-based music"...

The assumption is that all American singer-songwriters are standard bearers (or at least apologists) for American government policy.

You seem to be alone in making that assumption. I've just read (re-read, actually) the "cultural boycott" article and it doesn't say that at all.
What's closer to the truth is this: if you start covering American style introspective singer-songwriter material in a magazine, there is likely to be so much of it that everything else will be drowned out.

"This smug and superior stance is annoying enough but more galling is the magazine's hypocrisy. Take for example the case of Devon Sproule"

Great! Damned if they do and damned if they don't!

I should perhaps have said "you wont find much..." instead of "you wont find any..." but I can't comment with authority on that detail as I haven't heard any of Devon Sproulle's music. Your assessment certainly suggests it's an exception to the rule.

Anyway it boils down to Ian A. covering what he knows about and (as somebody said earlier) what he likes. I don't see that as a criticism. Mostly he is consistent with his stated policy, and if he isn't, why should we care. If you like it, buy the magazine, and if you don't, don't.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:05 PM

Anahata wrote 'Anyway it boils down to Ian A. covering what he knows about and (as somebody said earlier) what he likes.'

Hmm, I'd agree with this to a certain extent, but Ian himself would be the first to admit that he relies hugely on the legion of fRoots contributors to suggest ideas for coverage (and he also possesses an almost unreal depth of memory in relation to subjects previously covered by the magazine). In terms of Irish music articles, all my suggestions have been accepted unless the subject has previously been included and Ian would be the first to admit that Ireland is not near the top of his personal knowledge list.

Captain Birdseye wrote 'F roots,gives the impression it covers folk and roots music ,that is partially true,but what really happens[IMO] is that only those acts that Ian Anderson deems worthy of promotion,get written about.'

This is so utterly untrue regarding Ireland as to be laughable and [IMO] generally inaccurate about the magazine's overall content.

The good Captain also wrote 'What I dislike about many magazines[and here I include Folk Roots or whatever it calls itself these days]is there imagined self importance, there biased reviewing,there attempts to control the folk scene and/ or to mould it in their perceived image,and their lack of encouragement to musicians who do not fit into their perceived formula of what they should promote.'

Apart from the obvious fact that Cpt. Birdseye hasn't read a recent copy of fRoots, he is clearly labouring under a massive set of preconceptions which, in this case, just don't fit the bill at all. Nobody at fRoots has any intention to produce some kind of vade mecum or deliberate set of guidelines regarding its purchasers' listening and gigging habits. The music press in general can only make suggestions and recommendations, not set down guidelines delineated by stone walkways. Sure, all magazines by their commercial nature are always looking to tap the mother lode or identify the next 'big thing', if only to generate advertising revenue to keep the magazines going, but that doesn't mean that the editorial content is umbilically connected to said ads (unlike a certain Irish magazine I might mention) nor that their readership is regarded as being equivalent to Pavlov's dogs.

As for 'biased reviewing' in fRoots, there is no editorial dictat whatsoever given to the magazine's reviewers about what should be favourably reviewed or otherwise [there are guidelines regarding how much should be written, but that's a different matter]. If I think something's a heap of detritus or the best album since whatever, I can write such without any fear that my contribution will be amended except to correct grammatical or factual errors. Personally, I have no axes to grind so any suggestion that my reviews are somehow 'biased' would be off the wall.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:16 PM

how would that work out Diane if you applied the same set of standards to Alex as you do to that set of doddering old gits, the traditional singers. I NEVER heard him as bad as them.

Apart from one time, when he had a mandoline player with him who did very long solos, I always thought Alex did a decent gig. I mean it really doesn't matter for some people - they have personality and charm. They tell better stories than most people sing songs, without being categorised as 'a teller of stories'.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:24 PM

Richard, I'm genuinely confused.

May I ask you to clarify your position re professionals? Do you agree with those who think it is wrong per se to make money from folk / traditional music? Is your objection based on the fact that, to make money, professionals have to promote themselves, and you object to promotion? Do you feel that professionals are de facto not workers so should not sing folk songs because thy don't live 'normal' lives? Do you only object to middle class professionals? Do you object to people who write new material in a trad style, because this debases and dilutes the real tradition?

I know people like me offend you and I'd genuinely like to know why. We're not so different in terms or musical skills, social grouping or even appearance. So what is it that makes you angry with us?

You see, I see a wonderful enriching symbiotic relationship between the professional and amateur elements of folk - which I believe has existed for centuries.

I don't see it as an either/or black/white situation either. It's a greyscale with people moving up and down at different times of their lives and in different activities, and I see creativity, promotion, gain, integrity and emotion bursting out at every point of the scale.

I belive that professionals enhance the music and enjoyment of amateurs, and vice versa.

I responded to Diane's post on fRoots because I'm genuinely perplexed by this resistance to professionalism I see from the likes of your good self, and also by the sniping I get from the likes of WLD and Dave Sissons because of how I was raised (something over which I had no control, incidentally).

I love what I do and I think I do it quite well, but threads like this really do make me feel I should find another job.

If your views are in the majority I'm wasting my time and depriving my family of my time and income for nothing.

You see, I can appreciate even the most dire perforamce for non-performance reasons, while also admiring the flashiest git on the block for his very flash. I can love even bad old songs for their antquity, and equally admire bad new ones for their originality. I can find quality wherever it lives, and all is fascinating and worthwhile to me.

I believe there's room for all, as long as the behaviour and the performance is suited to the occasion.

If money is changing hands (as it always has, sometimes literally sometimes in kind, in folk and tradarts) then the show should match the price, and all parties should behave professionally.

But if people are playing for love or fun, then rules still apply - but now they are about manners and respect - which would include being sensitive to how your performance is really going down.

After that, for me, its all about history and music and stories and community.

Am I in the wrong business, Richard?

Tom

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:39 PM

I posted in another thread that Alex Campbell was asked for more times than any other singer by the audience at the folk club I helped to run and in my time was never booked.

He got a booking at the University folk club in the same town. He arrived pissed, did about three songs in each half, the rest of the act was incoherent ramblings. We never got asked for him again.

I do not deny he had been a great talent and was a well-educated and articulate singer. Not that night.

WLD to compare compare tradition bearers and Alex Campbell takes us as far as trying to compare apples and oranges. Alex was a professional performer (some would say unprofessional performer). The tradition bearers were simply (often near the end of their lives) recording to pass their songs on. They mostly sang in pubs and in their own houses and to their peer group rarely to the general public.

And anyway - Joseph Taylor, Arthur Howard, Frank Hinchcliffe, Phil Tanner, Harry Cox, Sam Larner were great singers. Jeannie Robertson was probably one of the finest tradition bearers that ever lived. Joe Heaney was an amazing singer. Many a modern day singer will admit to having been inspired by them.

I doubt if even Alex Campbell himself would have thought he was better than them - and he did have a bit of an idea about his own position in the scheme of things.

Subject: RE: Froots Board?
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 01:44 PM

This would be the same Lizzie Cornish who posed as a child on The Session pages to promulgate more nonsense about Show of Hands - 'im 11 years old and come from dorchester. i play the violin and have played for about four years now. i enjoy playing folk on my violin and listening to it. in fact im probably the only person in my school who likes folk music!!!'

She also wrote - 'And they're the judgemental prats who'll lop off yer head if you don't talk in the right accent for them...read the right newspaper, go to the right school, live in the right house, in the right area of course.'

Oh, well, that's me caught bang to rights, then - wrong accent, wrong newspaper, wrong school, wrong house and wrong area - but, hang on, I write for fRoots so who on earth is this silly person describing?