Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 05:49 AM

Excellent Fido!

You make my point perfectly.

As you say, I define words. As you say, I am "better off than yow." As you say, I am the master and you the servant.

Actually, you aren't.

I prefer my servants to be literate, sensible and had their chip surgically removed as their shoulder is better served helping make me richer and them poorer.

I'm an uber something or other too eh? Humpty Dumpty had a good point in that quote you have given. I call something folk and it is just that. At least in my opinion. You call something folk and it whatever you want it to be. if enough people turn up in a pub on a Friday night and sit graciously giving polite applause to a person singing a song, then that is lots of peoples' opinion of folk. See, a pattern is emerging?

Elitist is something I, like many don't hold much truck with. That's why Steamin' Willie has to prick the bubble of pomposity. the real me is far too unassuming.... In fact the real me indulges self styled elitist idiots (to their face at any rate.) Then goes home of an evening and thinks "What a tosser."

Sorry everybody else, some pillocks like to bring their bullying of anybody who isn't an armchair revolutionary away from the BS threads and onto the music ones.   You can't disagree with fantasy Utopia merchants without them trolling you around other threads. A pity, but there you go. Just wait for Dick the Shit to join in and we will have gone full circle.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: GUEST, Fido
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 04:50 AM

What, the ubermensch Willie talking to a pingbot?

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

I suppose that fits with his assertion elsewhere that all that matters is being "better off than yow" - so he can be elitist with cause, and define words. That way, reverting to Humpty, he can be the master and we and words the servants.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 04:29 AM

Folk is different wherever you go, so I have problems joining this debate.

Then I looked at some of the BS threads, and some of the threads here on "what is folk?" Many of the regular contributors come over as being elitist, although not with any reason to be so...

My mate won't touch a pint unless it is "real ale." I prefer my beer less gassy and cold too, and love many brews that he raves over. However, I also call huge tankers of mass produced stuff "beer" as that is the word to describe it. When he says that isn't beer, I point out that internationally, Coors / Bud etc outsells "Firkin Old Growler" / whatever, by about a million to one each and every day, so at the risk of sounding pedantic, I reckon they have a right to the word if that is the word they use to describe their brew. Don't say I drink it much, but it is beer all the same.

Folk is similar. I sometimes state on these threads that if it played in a folk club, I reckon it stands a chance of being folk. At least by my definition. Others then rattle on about a 1954 interpretation. Huh, no. My interpretation is the real one! At least it is for me, same as yours is for you. So the elitist brigade are on a non starter because the word folk itself is subjective.

In fact, using my beer analogy, I notice in iTunes, when I buy an album, itunes has already inserted a genre. Well, as huge corporations own the world, perhaps Dick Gaughan is "celtic" on one album but "folk" on another? I smile at the thought of Dick being classified by the huge corporations he moans about...

Circular argument in my opinion, so this thread might not resolve itself.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Amy_Florence_Nthants
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 08:24 AM

In relation to music...

Even though folk can't (debatably ) be defined

Folkies are elitist, but each in their own special way.

Some keep to one time period

Some favour some artists over others i.e Carthy over Rusby

Some love modern comic songs, and can't get enough out of parodies

Some won't sing a song or call it folk unless the author is unknown

Some refuse to acknowledge that blowing in the wind has the status of a modern folk song

Some will openly grown in Whiskey in the jar is sung because its too common

Some don't think you can properly understand or feel a folk song unless you are over the age of 60 and insist on giving positive criticism (Not that i'm sour or anything :-P)

Some won't go to a barn dance unless its Playford only

It is a very rare thing to find a folky that openly embraces all types of 'Folk' music and treats them all as equal, Tunng, Kipper, carthy, charp, child, , espers , Lakeman, LAU, Plainsong, DBR, Musical hall, greenday, dylan...


By the fact we have made it a genre in its self it is folk is by definition elitist. Only by scrapping all music genre's and treating all music as equal can you avoid the risk of becoming elitist. And i don't see anyone doing that soon

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: TenorTwo
Date: 29 May 09 - 05:26 AM

Look, Crow Sister and any other readers, why don't the rest of us creep away, leaving these gentlemen to carry on comparing the size of their dic................tionaries.

Shhhhhhhhhhh!

Do you think thesaurus?

T2

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 May 09 - 05:23 AM

What intelligent and helpful contributions I make when leathered!
I really wouldn't want to move in ANY circles today cheers So'P...

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 29 May 09 - 04:52 AM

What interesting circles you must move in, Crow Sister!

Crop circles I'll be bound! After all, circles don't come any more interesting, or genuinely folkloric, folk-arty, or yet wondrous to behold and ponder the method, terrestrial or - er - otherwise. Stone circles, magic circles, lunar cycles, solar wheels and unbroken rainbows...

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 May 09 - 06:03 PM

"What interesting circles you must move in, Crow Sister"

I wish Shimrod! This year has been the epitome of fecking shite in my life! Though the local boys have been right nice and all. Respec'

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 May 09 - 05:54 PM

Only if you play with your folk horn..
Though I only wanted to maintain the impeccable standard here of course. Y'know.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 May 09 - 05:53 PM

"I think all you 'gents' are into virtual gay bollock torture..."

What interesting circles you must move in, Crow Sister!

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 May 09 - 05:43 PM

With music by The Imagined Village People...

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 28 May 09 - 05:19 PM

Now CS has suitably raised both the tone and the bar, maybe this is the place for me to suggest that Mudcatters consider pooling their resources to make a pagan transgendered folkporn flick. We could call it "The Wicker Mangina"...

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 May 09 - 01:14 PM

I don't know, I think all you 'gents' are into virtual gay bollock torture... So if RB's top, who's bottom? I'm pretty sure there are non-family sites you could all retire to for this kind of rough role-play. Yours, charmed and delighted as ever Cx

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 May 09 - 12:30 PM

I can see the argument for saying "nadir" but thought it worked better the way round I did it.

Your phrase was the zenith of pretentious meaninglessness; if your have it the nadir of pretentious meaninglessness it means quite the opposite - i.e. that it isn't particularly pretentious or meaningless for that matter, on the contrary in fact. Stick to your guns there, Richard, otherwise you'll have the bastards walking all over you. Remember - on Mudcat - you are The Daddy.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 May 09 - 12:17 PM

I can see the argument for saying "nadir" but thought it worked better the way round I did it.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 May 09 - 08:42 AM

And all my nadirs have zeniths - even on this bastarding diet, like perfecting my porridge recipe...

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 28 May 09 - 08:19 AM

All my zeniths have nadirs.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 May 09 - 07:41 AM

Wouldn't "nadir" be more appropriate than zenith?

Don't dare diss The Bridge, Ringer - the man has spoken & henceforth it shall be written in the stars! Besides, if it was the nadir of pretentious meaninglessness then that would cancel out Da Bridge's negativism. Dig?

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Ringer
Date: 28 May 09 - 07:26 AM

"...each time I think you have reached the zenith of pretentious meaninglessness, you outdo yourself."

Wouldn't "nadir" be more appropriate than zenith?

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 May 09 - 06:25 AM

And perhaps I should add that couching your purported communications in the terms that you do, terms that will exclude the vast preponderance of the English-speaking world, surely demonstrates that whatever you are wurbling about is supremely elitist at least in terms of exclusion.

Your brain is obviously addled with too much folk & mandoplanking, Richard. Let me know which bits have you a problem with and I'll do my best to explain them in civilian terms. Otherwise I have no problem with elitism - God knows I wouldn't be a traddy if I did.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 May 09 - 06:02 AM

And perhaps I should add that couching your purported communications in the terms that you do, terms that will exclude the vast preponderance of the English-speaking world, surely demonstrates that whatever you are wurbling about is supremely elitist at least in terms of exclusion.

You will find however that folk song is expressed in ordinary words. They may in combination have an extraordinary effect, but there there is little attempt to exclude by obfuscation. There are of course the nonsense songs (like the Cutty Wren, or Nottamun Town - or Benjamin Bowmaneer) but even there what is said is in plain language even if the cumulative meaning is obscure.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 May 09 - 05:58 AM

If everything's 'folk' then 'folk' means nothing.

You're learning fast, Grasshopper!

Seriously, Pip - all folk is to me is getting pissed in a roaring singaround in a filthy back-room somewhere and communing with something that has undeniable potency. I wouldn't go so far as folk is nothing, but I feel that, like the Tao, its essence is unsayable:

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

Lao Tzu (trans. Gia Fu Feng)

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 May 09 - 05:55 AM

I am astounded SoP - each time I think you have reached the zenith of pretentious meaninglessness, you outdo yourself.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 28 May 09 - 04:42 AM

This doesn't make it Folk though, it's just the way things are.

I'll have to agree to disagree with Richard on your discursus into the Dao, i.e. I dug it. But it does strike me as sublimely irrelevant (as well as irrelevantly sublime) - a distinction that makes no difference, just like the one about being played by people. If everything's 'folk' then 'folk' means nothing.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 May 09 - 04:22 AM

SoP - can you hear the sound of one hand crapping?

I'm assuming that's an attempt at humour rather than a typo, but whatever the case one is reminded of an anecdote in which a young James Jacson sprung the old koan on Sun Ra, who answered: a breeze, Jacson! A breeze!.

That has got to be one of the most pretentious and meaningless things I ever read on here.

Pretentious? Moi? Meaningless? Well, to an inveterate folky (such as yourself) maybe it is, but I was brought up as much on Davie Stewart's Dowie Dens as I was on Cage's 4'33", and more important to me altogether were the sleeve notes to a record called Alchemy by the Third Ear Band where dualities are discarded in favour of the Tao and each piece is as alike or as unalike as trees, grass and crickets. My first musical love is Free Improvisation & even to this day much of my free time is spent optimising configurations on a drumkit I call The Obelisk (just yesterday I added the 4 antique Burmese kyeezee gongs my father-in-law picked up for £8 at a car boot sale a couple of weeks back) or else exploring the acoustic resonances arising from playing my old Hofner Congress in conjunction with Nepalese singing bowls. In such a music change is the organic constancy of the entire narrative aesthetic - and it's a principle I abide by in my storytelling & traditional ballad / folk song singing too. So once a Free Improviser, always a Free Improviser; and all sound is found sound after all, even that of a Dylan wannabe.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 May 09 - 04:08 AM

Can I have my magic chest in grandmas loft? The one with all the yellowed broadsides in.. That come alive when you read them and then draw you back in time right into the parallel songstory-world. Especially the magical ones with selkies and talking crows and stuff. I'd dig that as a grown up frankly, and probably more than is healthy. Radio 4 watch out...

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 May 09 - 03:50 AM

"People like you have put the music beyond the majority not through any deficiencies in the song but because of the corrosive little personalities who peddle it and make petty rules around it to maintain your own unpleasant fiefdoms."

More paranoid rantings!

There are no "unpleasant fiefdoms", 'glueman'. They're all in your unpleasant imagination.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 28 May 09 - 03:31 AM

Ian, I like it! A whole sub-genre of folkie-dokie "Wicker Man" type films. Samantha Morton must star in one of them.

Stuff aimed at kids too... who is making the equivalent of "Children of the Stones" today?

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Ian Fyvie
Date: 27 May 09 - 10:28 PM

Two points of the last 24 hours which I find most interesting are from Crow Sister (just after my last posting) and Spleen Cringe not long after.

Respectively:-

Folkiies of the older generation (most of us?) generally had good exposure to folk music and dance - whatever we thought of it at the time (English School context here, 1950s/60s ) Later generations didn't.

Influence of the 'Wicker Man' film.

Living now in such a media dominated era I suggest the following:

that supporters of traditional folk seriously try to get more 'Wicker Man' style films made that draw heavily on folk tradition. It could be for TV or low budget cinema - but why not aim high as well!

There are always Producers looking for new idea (alongside those turning out the Puntercrap) so why not get to know who's thinking about producing what, and make a few suggestions which would use traditional fol music?

This is decidedly off thread, though inspired by serious comments on this thread, so I'm going to raise a new thread on Getting folk music into cinema - or similar.

Ian Fyvie

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:47 PM

I think I'm with Pip on this. I suspect there is a difference between wanting to perform like the definitive recording and wanting to do stuff where the "original" could not even be recorded.

One that comes to my mind on this sort of thing is the use of the banjo. Maybe I'm wrong but with the 5 string and Bluegrass, most seem to want to get that definitive "Scruggs sound". On the Irish and the tenor where we are just playing tunes, it seems to me more a case of anything from Framus to Mastertone to whatever will do if the player likes the sound.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:39 PM

Well, the problem Gg, despite your immature abuse, is that I have yet to see from your postings any recognition of value in folk music, merely an intent to tear down and replace with nothing. I do however see that you are not polite, as you are neither rational nor constructive - and indeed I'm not at all sure that you actually have any idea what music I like since you seem fixated on the fact that I know the difference between "folk" and "not folk" whereas it seems you refuse to accept that there is any such difference (save possibly stylistic).

SoP - can you hear the sound of one hand crapping? That has got to be one of the most pretentious and meaningless things I ever read on here.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:29 PM

I think something definitive of 'folk' gets lost if the folk artform itself isn't continually evolving and changing - which is almost bound to be the case if you're using traditional material, but not if you're trying to sing the words Dylan wrote the way Dylan sang them.

Everything is change; it's in the nature of the Tao - nothing stays the same & no rendering of a song can ever be the same as any other, especially if you're trying to sing the words Dylan wrote the way Dylan sang them. There will always be a shortfall between the intention and the result; this is the empirical manifestation of the thing; not only is it empirical, it is also ephemeral.

This doesn't make it Folk though, it's just the way things are.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: glueman
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:22 PM

What you're unable to accept Bridge is people like the same music as you for completely different reasons, indeed despise your cod histories and hearty clubbishness but see enough value in the music to admire. People like you have put the music beyond the majority not through any deficiencies in the song but because of the corrosive little personalities who peddle it and make petty rules around it to maintain your own unpleasant fiefdoms. It has always been so but most are too polite to say. As you see, I'm not.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:11 PM

"Troll" to me implies people who try to stir up a fight for the sake of it, especially in situations where there are really no differences that make fighting appropriate. Nothing to do with whether they are members or not.

I can't see any genuine differences in this thread which would make fighting appropriate. Except the differences between people who want to exchange ideas and those who are here to pass out and invite personal abuse.

I suppose if you want to do that it's safer doing it here than down the pub.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 27 May 09 - 06:00 PM

Folk is the simple fact that people do such things, seasonally, ceremonially, festively, ritually, by way of observance, remembrance, celebration, recreation, entertainment and devotion.

Folk as folk performance - that might work. But it would mean that lots of things that most people call folk aren't, and lots of things are folk that most people - including the people involved - don't call folk. (The Dylan night I went to last week was almost entirely folk by this definition.)

I think something definitive of 'folk' gets lost if the folk artform itself isn't continually evolving and changing - which is almost bound to be the case if you're using traditional material, but not if you're trying to sing the words Dylan wrote the way Dylan sang them.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 May 09 - 05:50 PM

"You lot really are a complete bunch of cunts aren't you?" 'glueman'

Such 'charm', such 'eloquence'! Such petulant immaturity.

I've never called you names like that,'glueman' - merely challenged some of your opinions. Why is that wrong?

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 09 - 05:47 PM

Oh no, glueman, the word "cunt" should really not be used as a term of abuse. You came from one and usually spend the rest of your life trying to get back in. What's your problem with cunts?

Also, you have sought to abuse the concept of "folk" pretty much since your arrival, and heaped insult on all who tried to find any rationality in your gibberish. What's your problem with "folk".

You came, you offered insult, you sowed the seed and reaped the harvest. Good to see that traditions still inform your life.

You STILL have not offered any rational argument to establish that folk arts are elitist.

It seems to me that you are as much a troll as any non-member.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 May 09 - 05:47 PM

The post brings up an interesting point. Is the study of folk arts elitist because of the image that people have for it in their minds?

Folk Arts cover a broad area of research and history.

I think that there are elitists in the folk music field but the study itself is anything but elitist because it deals with the national fabric of history and legend. People who created this form of expression were not themselves elitist but representative of various cultures, many who were working-class and some at the poverty level. The study of this form of expression is
analogous to the study of any social science which in itself can hardly be called elitist although there are academic elitists in every field.

I get it that there are folkie practitioners who are snobby or exclusive in their interest but to generalize like this makes no sense whatever.

The common denominator of the folk arts expression to me is that it reveals the cultural life of the people from where it comes. It is also an accessible form of expression which makes it anything but elitist.

For example, it takes not too much rigorous discipline to sing the chorus of a folk song.
It is available to any who enjoy it. This is more basic then the skills it takes to sing opera,
classical music or sophisticated jazz.

The question should be "are folkies elitist"? and I would answer some are and some are not.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 27 May 09 - 04:36 PM

I'd laugh if it all wasn't so sad. Jim Carroll and Shimrod never fail to disappoint and once more have done themselves proud, congratulations "gentlemen"!

Our bass player has just suggested we add Sandy Denny's Late November to the repertoire (at least it's not folk, but the lyrics are appropriate)

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 09 - 02:49 PM

Glueman
Didn't really expect any examples to your hoi-polloy accusation or an explanation to back up your denial of being patronising. Ah well - suppose I'll have to make do with the pleasure of seeing the mask slip.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 May 09 - 02:17 PM

"I love the word snide." 'glueman'

Why am I not surprised that you love that word, 'glueman'? According to my Oxford Dictionary it means: "Counterfeit, bogus; insinuating, slyly derogatory, ..."

If the cap fits and all that ...? Under the circumstances it looks like I have picked exactly the right word. Has your Aunty Pat ever applied it to you, by any chance? It could be that she's a very perceptive woman!

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 May 09 - 02:13 PM

Sorry to continue my OT bit with SOP but, my parents have had interests in churches round Norfolk (even when I was in primary school in Wales and we used to visit grandad in Norwich). Salle is Pip's/mum's favourite.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 27 May 09 - 02:07 PM

I think I'm on a different wavelength to you but if you like Christmas lighting and ever found yourself in North Norfolk at that time of the year, take a look at Holt.

Sounds beautiful, Jon. I've been to Holt - once anyway, a couple of years back when we staying in Tatterford, near Fakenham. I remember some antique shops with vintage shop dummies. Hard to think of Norfolk in winter though; my ideal summer is steeple-chasing around North Norfolk churches (Salle is my favourite). They used to do clear lights in Staindrop (nr Barnard Castle) and the effect was absolutely stunning - one night we were driving out that way listening to a tape of classic Rolf Harris & Jindabyne came on as we hit Staindrop - clear lights in the trees a the snow was falling. I was naturally transported! These days, alas, it's all colours - even blue!

It has been my experience that some of the best things in life are those that one stumbles upon by accident. It's unfortunate that once those things become popular there is a tendency for them to be dumbed-down, diluted and commodified.

Amen to that as well!   

As Lloyd sought to demonstrate, there can be industrial folk-stuff too. You deprive the word of any meaning, but why should that surprise me.

A little hyperbolic I admit, Richard, but even Lloyd's industrial stuff takes on a cosy glow when viewed through the retro-rosy folk-lens, especially as he made much of it up to suit his own folkish fantasising.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: GUEST,Jom
Date: 27 May 09 - 01:59 PM

Funny thing about that is I don't believe anyone wants to keep it a secret in that way. I'm not one but I do know a number of superb musicians. I can't think of one who would not raise a smile if they see someone sat at a table enjoying the music and would struggle to find any would would not bend over backwards to help someone who wanted to get started.

Sometimes (although I can't claim to always have been lilywhite on this myself and shudder at some of my own playing in thrashes in the past), I think "folk" can be it's own worst enemy.

The all free to join in together idea does not work out if the budding bodhran player will not accept his vague resemblance to a 4/4 rock beat does not fit say The Cliffs of Moher (a 6/8 jig).

I'd not dream of attending someones unaccompanied trad songs night armed with guitar expecting to do my Dylan number or to go to a contemporary singer songwriters night armed with melodeon ready to do my morris dance set...

But some will have it that because it's all folk, all of the above should be fine.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: glueman
Date: 27 May 09 - 01:54 PM

RB - No!

Shimrod - I love the word snide. Only you, Kenneth Williams and my Aunty Pat used it. Also the folk word - sniving, meaning to creep around or insinuate oneself.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 May 09 - 01:43 PM

"Or, the music of the people was better as our little secret, hmmm?"

That's your snidey little gloss on what I wrote, 'glueman'.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 09 - 01:36 PM

Nonsense SoP. What I said cannot possibly be bucolic for there is no relevant referent. As Lloyd sought to demonstrate, there can be industrial folk-stuff too. You deprive the word of any meaning, but why should that surprise me.

Glueman, I have I think figured out that whatever it is you are against it, but is there anything (apart from long trotting among obstacles) that you approve or agree with? And why are you having this discussion if you think that anything that people do since people are folk, is a folk-thing? It would follow from that that folk arts were not elitist, for they would be universal. I say that folk arts are not universal, but are still not elitist. Are you reminded of any other parts of Gulliver's Tales?

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 May 09 - 01:22 PM

Back to lights... SOP, I think I'm on a different wavelength to you but if you like Christmas lighting and ever found yourself in North Norfolk at that time of the year, take a look at Holt. There may be others like it but it seems unusual to me in that (at least the times I've been there) the town only uses clear lightbulbs, no colours. I think it is very effective.

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 27 May 09 - 12:47 PM

Competitive Xmas decoration, however (to take an example) is consumerism in display, and therefore not a folk art.

More bucolic fantasising I see, Richard! The key here is that FOLK is a secondary concept that has fuck all to do with anything - be it custom, tale, music, song, lore, film-making, art, or any of the other wonderful things FOLK might attach itself to as parasitical prefix. Folk is the simple fact that people do such things, seasonally, ceremonially, festively, ritually, by way of observance, remembrance, celebration, recreation, entertainment and devotion.

Anyway - I've sorted out my LUMINOS film which documents some of the non-competitive Christmas house lighting from in & around the Deerness Valley on the 21st December 2004, Wanking Santas and all. It's just as much about the darkness as it is about the light... a bit like Mudcat really.

Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBKpUHFe1BU

Subject: RE: Are 'Folk Arts' Elitist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 09 - 11:38 AM

"Not patronising at all JC. You continually remind us that once the hoi-polloi get their hands on things they spoil it."
If I have ever said that (can you please point out when that was?) it makes your comment no less patronising - in fact I find your whole approach on this thread patronising.
Jim Carroll