 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. |
|
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.
-Joe Offer- joe@mudcat.org |
|
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? |
| Share Thread: |