 sj |
||
|
||
What fRoots thinks of Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,grumpy Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:20 PM Here's what the editor of fRoots thinks of some Mudcat contributors. Scroll down from the top of the page linked below. http://froots.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5381&start=135&sid=290a38f23c41e8d3809874c74c7dc33b Alternatively, just search for the word 'braindead' once you've open the linked. I wonder what Ian Anderson had for breakfast this morning. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:22 PM What a fool that man can be. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,Malcolm Storey Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:34 PM As Dick Gaughan once said "it's impossible to be wrong all the time". I'm just glad Ian A is still around. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: michaelr Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:46 PM "Apart from a few nutters and cranks on Mudcat, I simply do not believe that any particular group on the folk scene is trying to stop anyone in particular from doing anything in particular, or being outraged by what any of the newcomers are doing. The people who are the most likely to be offended are, as you say, the typical Mudcat braindead who think they know everything but don't really know anything about anything and have beans in their ears, the ones who rarely contribute anything to the scene other than the foetid air of kneejerk renta-opinions. Well, f*** the lot of them, they're as irrelevant and boring as these people who make stupid remarks about "purists" are, and generally of the same ilk, another side of the same coin. Boring young farts are just BOFs in training." Hear, hear, and amen to that. The element of ossified traddies Ian A so aptly describes has been getting on my nerves for a long time here on Mudcat. Time to step aside. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Tootler Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:50 PM You should simply treat his remarks with the contempt they deserve. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Les in Chorlton Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:51 PM "Mudcat braindead who think they know everything but don't really know anything about anything" For those too idle to follow the link. When you consider how many people post on here, the quote does describe some of us. Many threads turn to missunderstanding and often rudeness then abuse around post 20 so I think he has a fair point. These people are typical of nothing but they are not uncommon L in C# Brain cells short of a chorus |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,999 Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:58 PM It might be more accurate to entitle this thread `What Ian Anderson thinks of Mudcat.` |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:07 PM Or alternately, "Why I don't Give A Shit About What Ian Anderson Thinks." Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Rafflesbear Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:15 PM Doesn't actually say what he thinks about Mudcat, just some mudcatters. Some above recognise what he's talking about. Perhaps instead of responding with "kneejerk renta-opinions" we should look in the mirror and see if we can see what he sees. And if we look with open eyes and mind maybe some of us will. But of course, not me guv. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Will Fly Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:17 PM Discussion boards are so varied in purpose, aims, style and membership that it seems rather pointless for anyone from one board to take a swipe at another board. Mudcat is a wide-ranging and very free board with a very wide-ranging and varied membership. The fRoots board is an adjunct to a magazine and is more tightly controlled and moderated. if that's how Ian wants it, that's his prerogative. If you want to see a board that's screwed down tighter than a duck's arse (mmm... is it possible to screw down a duck's arse...), then take a look at the MIMF (Musical Instrument Makers Forum) which is run by the most severe Moderator I've ever seen. You get a really good telling-off at the MIMF! But to criticise one from the standpoint of another seems a waste of breath. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:30 PM Oh, I know I'm going to regret saying this. The principal folly of Anderson's remarks is that it is almost unheard of for anyone to say that so-and-so should not be played, or should not be played in a particular way (well, I hate pianos and banjos, but that's different). Stuff maybe called tripe, but that's a percipient's privilege. What does get said here is that stuff is not folk, or that if it is not folk it should not be called folk - and that is in no way a foundation for the one-legged fool's accusation. OK, I know he isn't the same person as the one-legger, but that's not the point. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Continuity Jones Date: 03 Oct 10 - 01:33 PM Well, I certainly recognise what Mr Anderson is talking about. I read this forum more than post on it, one reason being the self-righteous 'I am me and therefore cannot be wrong' nature of a lot of the posters. That soon degenerates to petty name calling and the like, whereas, it's perfectly easy just to ignore a person / thread if they get your goat - or at least respond with some kind of decorum. That FREED thread is a case in point - some of the 'banter' is simply childish name-calling / bear baiting - and the people who indulge in it? Well quite simply, you've lost any respect I may have had of you and your opinions when you turn up on a different thread. That's just my opinion though. As for fRoots forum being heavily moderated - in my experience, Mudcat is the most heavily moderated forum I've ever posted on. No forum I've ever experienced has ever had such a strict 'Though Shalt Not Discuss The Forum' policy. I mean - even this post could be deleted. Maybe Mudcat is hosted in China? Or maybe, I'm inexperienced with forums. A lot of Mudcat is very good, witty, fun and - for me the most important part - interesting and educational. Unfortunately, there are a fair few posters who feel that somehow being affiliated with the Folk World in some way makes them a better class of human being. It doesn't. If you're a bullying narrow minded arrogant ill-informed twat, you're still that twat even if you play concertina / run folk clubs / met June Tabor once / sing the same 6 songs week after week in some provincial folk hole. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Oct 10 - 02:13 PM Or even if you think you are somehow better than people like that... |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Oct 10 - 02:22 PM I don't think that was the principal thrust of the monopod's blurt. It is however much worse when the "twat" in question (that's a reference, not an insult, I remember being younger and I used to like twats) plays so badly as well as grandiloquently. I wouldn't stop them, but I don't want to be there when they do it. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Matthew Edwards Date: 03 Oct 10 - 02:53 PM Ian Anderson at fRoots has consistently practised bipedalism; and just as consistently he has championed a broad-minded approach to folk traditions. I'm one of the braindead Boring Old Farts who reads Mudcat and also subscribes to fRoots. Neither forum gives me all that I want, but I just ignore the bits that don't interest me without getting upset by them. Mudcat is a model of civility compared to some other boards, but there are still some parts of it which I don't feel compelled to read at all. Ian Anderson's comments on Mudcat and certain posters here were rather intemperate; if indeed it was his breakfast which upset him may I recommend a dose of Filboid Studge? Matthew |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 03 Oct 10 - 03:06 PM C'mon. It's abundantly clear that occasional Mudcat contributor Ian AA wasn't talking about Mudcat per se, just the usual small group of suspects who seem to think folk music should be placed in the hands of the Spanish Inquisition. (Yes, I know: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition...) Like Matthew, I subscribe to fRoots and, though I keep trying not to, read Mudcat. It doesn't have to be a polarised thing. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Vic Smith Date: 03 Oct 10 - 03:08 PM Continuity Jones said:- "No forum I've ever experienced has ever had such a strict 'Though Shalt Not Discuss The Forum' policy. I mean - even this post could be deleted." Well, it appears to be still here - and interestingly, Ian Anderson is taking flak on the fRoots Forum for his remarks about Mudcat - and that probably will not be deleted either. My own opinion is that in terms of moderation there has been much more tolerance of insults, backbiting and sniping on this forum than the other. There have been some fascinating discusssions on Mudcat, but too often threads come up against entrenched and frequently repeated opinions that hinder the natural development of discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Gervase Date: 03 Oct 10 - 03:49 PM I have to say I'm with Anderson on this. Read the whole thread and you'll see a level of discourse that only rarely shows itself here (with a few notable exceptions). |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Bonzo3legs Date: 03 Oct 10 - 04:24 PM Believe it or not, so am I in agreement with Ian Anderson on this matter!!!Mind you there are a number of self righteous prats posting on the Folk Roots site. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,suegorgeous Date: 03 Oct 10 - 04:44 PM For a far stricter 'Thou Shalt Not Discuss The Forum' policy, see The Session forum. The moderator there silently removes instantly anything under that category, never posting or discussing or explaining anything. I guess he sees no reason to. At least here Joe apppears occasionally to explain decisions to make any deletions or reiterate policy, which personally I like - gives me a sense of the people behind Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Matthew Edwards Date: 03 Oct 10 - 05:04 PM I've just followed Gervase's example, and read through the whole thread on the fRoots forum Nu-folk, un-folk, Mumfolk...should we?, and I now wish that I had done so before I posted earlier, because in the context of that discussion Ian's comments about blinkered attitudes on Mudcat, and elsewhere, are spot on, although rather vehemently expressed. So GUEST,grumpy was really somewhat mischievous in starting this thread... For what it is worth the fRoots thread discusses whether fRoots magazine should feature certain artists categorised as "nu-folk" such as Mumford & Sons, Laura Marling, Noah and the Whale, and the Bombay Bicycle Club. The consensus on the fRoots forum seems to be that the folk and traditional roots influences on these singers is so remote as to be undetectable. Nevertheless I note that a Mumford and Marley fan has joined in the memorial thread on Peter Bellamy to berate the current folk scene for its insularity. This might be a discussion better continued here than on that thread. I'm not familiar with any of the "nu-folk" artists mentioned above, but if somebody wishes to champion their cause I'm willing to listen - but not if they can only do so by denigrating the achievements of others. Matthew |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Bounty Hound Date: 03 Oct 10 - 05:31 PM If you read the whole thread, you will find that Mr Anderson is only refering to a very small minority. Unfortunately you will find dissagreable people everywhere, not everyone seems to want to play nicely. I found this out very early on after signing up to mudcat, if you look at this thread I started asking for info on a specific song, thread.cfm?threadid=128449#2884341 you will find I am being berated in a most unfriendly manner for not responding to an earlier post for 6 days. (You will also see my reasons for not responding later in the thread, some of us have other lives!) However, the fact that another catter sprung immedeiatly to my defence (Geoff the Duck) gives me faith that the overwhelming majority of catters are here for absolutely the right reasons. John |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,Gerry Date: 03 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM There is a Mathematics website called MathOverflow (hereinafter, MO). It is forbidden to discuss MO on MO, but there is a companion website (called metaoverflow) specifically created for the discussion of MO. Perhaps if people are keen on discussing Mudcat there could be a metaMudcat - maybe it could be called Mudcrab? - set up for that purpose. And in case anyone is wondering, no one has yet suggested forming another website to discuss metaoverflow, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Max Date: 05 Oct 10 - 03:57 PM I, too, agree with Ian. The scenario that Bounty Hound describes disgusts me, as does the general dogma of some here. I started this site to learn. I had lots of questions, lots of ignorance, no idea of the etiquette and politics. I'd be eaten alive today, on my own site. This site is meant to make sure this information and enthusiasm is preserved and available for the next generation. It sickens me to think they'll go looking for the variations of Whoa Back Buck and instead find vitriol, contention and bickering. I expect my grandson here someday, perhaps long after I'm gone. I'm OK with what he'll find out about me here. Are you? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Jeri Date: 05 Oct 10 - 04:28 PM I agree with Ian as well. I also read the comments at the fRoots website, because I'm well aware of the propensity of a some to take partial quotes out of context and spin them so as to provoke outrage. I'm reminded of something kendall is fond of saying. (I've probably screwed it up somehow.) Something like "If you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, only the one it hits will yelp." |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: jacqui.c Date: 05 Oct 10 - 04:42 PM No argument here - I love the 'Cat but don't like the way that discussions turn into slanging matches nowadays. Circular argument is just plain boring and I stop reading the threads where it's happening. The way that newbies can be treated by some is also abhorrent - we were all new here at one time or another and we should be welcoming new members, not making them feel that they have done something wrong. Like Max I think that it is possible that my grandchildren may look onto this site at some time in the future and I would like them to come away thinking well of me. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Bill D Date: 05 Oct 10 - 04:45 PM ...anytime you allow 'almost' anyone to discuss 'almost' anything, you get a wide range of knowledge sense, acumen, relevance, politeness, and a dozen more categories. I have been around almost since the beginning, and there are FAR more knowledgeable people than ME on almost every topic....now. 16 years ago, it was different. I shrug and sort thru it...everyone knows where to off-button is. It took me ages to see why Max knew the problems of allowing fairly unlimited postings, yet did very little interfering with it. As to Continuity Jones remark.." in my experience, Mudcat is the most heavily moderated forum I've ever posted on."....piffle! He must have an interesting list. Somewhere, Max once said (loosely paraphrased) "It's my job to provide the site...it's YOUR job to make it work." Like Popeye the Sailorman said, "I yam what I yam!" |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Jack Campin Date: 05 Oct 10 - 04:57 PM Bounty Hound, a teaspoonful of grumpy information from John Moulden is worth a a shovelful with a smile from most others. It's odd behaviour on any forum to ask a question and then vanish for so long. A footnote in your first message like "(sorry, I'll be away on the rigs for a bit)" would have helped. The fRoots thread isn't anything like as hostile to Mudcat as "grumpy" suggested. What Ian Anderson was saying is pretty much the same as you regularly hear here too. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: The Sandman Date: 05 Oct 10 - 05:38 PM Ian edits and produces a well produced professional magazine, so what? Michael O Leary runs a successful airline[RYANAIR ,so what?. I dont value O Learys opinions on things other than how to run a successful business. If I wanted Andersons advice on how to run a magazine I would take it. as regards THEIR advice or opinions on anything else, as far as I am concerned they are of no interest to me, whatsoever, I certainly dont value THEIR opinions about English Traditional Song . However they are both very good at drawing attention to themselves and their projects, I expect things have been very quite over at Boring ON Thames,aka Froots and Nutcase land. Dick Miles |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Rafflesbear Date: 05 Oct 10 - 06:25 PM Just wonder why anyone who appears to have submitted 4 posts in 3 years would be so concerned with what anyone thinks of Mudcat - unless they were stirring? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Rapparee Date: 05 Oct 10 - 06:36 PM fRankly, my dear.... |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Phil Edwards Date: 05 Oct 10 - 06:50 PM What amuses me is that Ian was picking up and amplifying (your electric guitar joke here) remarks by someone called "joaniecrumpet"... A lot of relative newcomers on the (London) folk scene seem to feel the need to set themselves up in false opposition to some alleged reactionary, traddy element. Apart from a few nutters and cranks on Mudcat, I simply do not believe that any particular group on the folk scene is trying to stop anyone in particular from doing anything in particular, or being outraged by what any of the newcomers are doing. I completely agree with the first sentence, which also describes the mandatory introduction to pretty much any coverage of folk in the press. But Why Oh Why did JC then have to set up her own spurious opposition, between "the folk scene" as a whole and "a few nutters and cranks on Mudcat"? That phrase could be read two ways, of course; it would be nice to know whether JC meant "nutters and cranks on Mudcat (who make grumpy traddie noises)" or "grumpy traddies on Mudcat (who are nutters and cranks)". If it's the latter I'll not be best pleased, I'll tell you now. I haven't read the whole thread, but I like Tim Chipping's comment on Trembling Bells (who I admit I haven't heard): my objection to Trembling Bells was that I thought they represented a giant step backwards, in terms of folk rock. If I were to boo it would be because they weren't bringing anything new or worthwhile to the party - not because they were doing anything outrageous or daring. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Oct 10 - 12:44 AM I have to agree with Jack Campin and stick up for John Moulden, too. I was a little surprised that John complained about not being thanked, because that's not his usual demeanor. John is not here at Mudcat very often, but he is almost always gracious, generous, and helpful - and one of the most knowledgeable people around. I can understand why Bounty Hunter was distressed by John's remarks, but be assured that is not John's usual demeanor. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: r.padgett Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:13 AM I have no interest in froots at all I do find Living Tradition a bit more in my vein of what folk music in Britain is and should be, and can even stand the "pipes" for a bit in all their different forms Social History through folk song, our traditional way of life, more importantly our current/living memories of the last 50 to current day interests and experiences should be paramount (traditionalist singers) ~ reflected through folk song. I do think that the standards of instrumental musicianship of the younger artists has risen greatly over the last 25 years, brilliant. Folk song clubs are smaller events still I believe needing communicators as well as good songs (most important to me) with good music ~ I play concertina very badly!! Maybe lack of verbal communication has led to bigger louder folk bands and arm waving (definitely NOT a folk festival thing, in my view!) ~ No no I love Bellowhead and they have good nusicianship whilst keeping faith as traditionalist singers Folk clubs and festivals must still have "Entertainment" at their root and so what if these spawned folk comedians, they did at least communicate in words, language of the UK that all understand. In many ways they have contributed to the understanding of our current and past ways of life and of being Musicians love to play and will do so in the belief that everyone can join in (not so!) although I can enjoy music and whistle along (badly no doubt) Folk music is, in my belief about words, not the accompaniment, predominantly, and though it is good to hear traditionalist music and other similar played well it is a "filler", but still does to a certain degree "entertain" Some of the current crop of musicians are ignoring our "traditionalist" approach in favour of navel gazing, self interest songs ~ I like the music often but not all the sentiments are understood or shared [by me] Brain dead mudcatter Ray |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: theleveller Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:16 AM I have to admit that I'm not a fan of Ian Anderson or fRoots, which is in financial difficulties and trying to sell their building to provide working capital. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,Morris-ey Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:01 AM Mr Anderson is correct, though. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Howard Jones Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:26 AM It is commonplace for businesses of all descriptions to sell and lease back their premises. The usual view is that a business's capital is more effective when invested in the business rather than tied up in its premises. In itself, it's not an indication that a business is in financial difficulties. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Howard Jones Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:29 AM "joaniecrumpet" is a regular poster on here, under another name. It was fairly clear to me, both from the context of her original post and subsequent comments, that it was directed at a few specific individuals rather than being a swipe at Mudcatters as a whole. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Stu Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:31 AM I think Anderson is correct, if not slightly disingenuous to many 'cat members in his somewhat lazy generalisation; it's his prejudices he reveals in his rant rather than sheds any light on the demographics of Mudcat members. As for not contributing, well many people I know love to play the music locally, in pubs and houses and are doing more to keep the music alive than any magazine in all it's myriad forms by actually playing it. Laura Marling's new album is brilliant. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: theleveller Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:58 AM "It is commonplace for businesses of all descriptions to sell and lease back their premises. The usual view is that a business's capital is more effective when invested in the business rather than tied up in its premises. In itself, it's not an indication that a business is in financial difficulties." Ian indicated on the now-closed BBC board a while ago that they were having problems. The announcement to sell the building was posted on Facebook yesterday. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Will Fly Date: 06 Oct 10 - 05:04 AM "joaniecrumpet" is a regular poster on here, under another name. It was fairly clear to me, both from the context of her original post and subsequent comments, that it was directed at a few specific individuals rather than being a swipe at Mudcatters as a whole. Spot on, Howard - and she is a very articulate, experienced and sensible member of Mudcat (IMO) who happens, from time to time, to have argued with one or two of the more oppositional types. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Sarah McQuaid Date: 06 Oct 10 - 05:11 AM Amen to the above. I've been reading fRoots since way back when it was Folk Roots -- round about 1988 was when I first subscribed, if memory serves. I've been looking up information on Mudcat for nearly as long. I couldn't do without either. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Matthew Edwards Date: 06 Oct 10 - 06:21 AM theleveller has alleged that fRoots is in financial difficulties, and in support of this allegation claims that the sale of the business's office building has been announced on Facebook (as if that were a reliable source of information). There is no such announcement on the fRoots official Facebook page. Instead there is a posting by Ian Anderson about the forthcoming November/December issue of the magazine. Ian has made no secret of the fact that times are tight for the magazine, and earlier this year he issued the fRoots Appeal which has already received an encouraging response. I really would urge anybody who hasn't already done so to take out a subscription, or at least buy a copy of the latest issue with the free CD. Matthew |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Stu Date: 06 Oct 10 - 06:52 AM "I really would urge anybody who hasn't already done so to take out a subscription, or at least buy a copy of the latest issue with the free CD." But Matthew, we're all typical Mudcat braindeads"who think they know everything but don't really know anything about anything and have beans in their ear"! Not only that but we"rarely contribute anything to the scene other than the foetid air of kneejerk renta-opinions." Gosh! What 'scene'? The London 'scene'? The folk club 'scene'? Am I missing a 'scene'? Why would we want to put money in the pocket of someone who thinks we're braindeads Matthew? Huh, Matthew, huh? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: theleveller Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:19 AM "in support of this allegation claims that the sale of the business's office building has been announced on Facebook (as if that were a reliable source of information)." Perhaps you'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth: http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=439814962780&id=564328857 |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:47 AM Well... if there's a danger we might lose a magazine that has consistently championed folk and roots music from the UK and beyond, that's a bloody shame and a significant cause for concern. fRoots is and has long been good value for money, well written, open-minded and a magazine well worth supporting. If it went, there's nothing around that would fill its shoes anywhere near adequately. There's some crossover with R2(Rock 'n' Reel) but that's catering to different audience. And fRoots has always had a far broader scope and vision than the other UK folk mags (and better writers). Sugarfoot Jack, you're letting your misplaced sense of outrage get in the way of engaging the old braincells. If you read what Ian said you know damned well he wasn't talking about all Mudcat users, just the usual suspects. And he's right. Here's a thought - Max, Mudcat's founder, also thinks he's right. The logic of your position therefore means you should boycott Mudcat too. Still, nothing like letting an opportunity to take umbrage go to waste, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: theleveller Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:48 AM "Why would we want to put money in the pocket of someone who thinks we're braindeads Matthew? Huh, Matthew, huh? " Must admit, I was wondering that. Matthew, in his haste to shoot the messenger, failed to understand my message - I am making no allegations, simply reporting what I have heard. I expect Mathew will show his face again when he's wiped the egg off it. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: The Sandman Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:51 AM Joanie Crumpet, aka joan crump, and on this forum as Ruth Archer, stated that there were some people on MUDCAT, who were attempting to stop otherson the folk scene from doing certain things. I think Ruth Archer[joan crump]should clarify her comment, and explain who these people on mudcat are, and what they are trying to stop. I am not aware of anyone on this forum that is trying to stop anyone playing a particular kind of music. Joan Crump is a relative newcomer to the English Folk scene and seems to spend a lot of time promoting the EFDSS, nothing wrong with that, but if she expects to be taken seriously, she would be well advised not to make ridiculous statements about Mudcat, unless she can actually back up this preposterous nonsense , with evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: The Sandman Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:56 AM of course statements like that might be acceptable on other forums,[it appers not to have been deleted from Froots]but they are not acceptable here, unless she can provide evidence of anyone on Mudcat trying to stop others from playing a particular kind of music. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:58 AM I was indeed referring to just a few quite reactionary (yet quite prolific) posters to Mudcat. I thought that failing to acknowledge their existence would rather undermine my argument. It was not meant to be a dig at Mudcatters as a whole. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Howard Jones Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:00 AM My point was that the mere fact that a business is seeking a sale-and-leaseback shouldn't be seen in itself as a sign of financial difficulties. It is a perfectly normal business strategy followed by many businesses, large and small, regardless of their financial situation. It is usually the cheapest way to raise capital, which all businesses need in order to expand. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Dave Hanson Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:20 AM I had a little prod at Ian, mainly for his use of the words ' typical mudcat braindead ' there is no such thing as a typical mudcatter and none are braindead, arrogant, rude, annoying , trolling and flaming maybe but it's still by far and away a million times better discussion forum than fRoots will ever be, I really think Ian is jealous of Mudcats success, more posts in a ' typical ' day than fRoots in a typical week. Dave H |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Matthew Edwards Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:26 AM "I expect Mathew will show his face again when he's wiped the egg off it." I was not trying to shoot the messenger, but I was questioning the message, which was the bald statement that "fRoots is in financial difficulties". I think it is reasonable to ask that evidence should be supplied for such a claim, and citing Facebook as the source was not sufficient evidence to my mind. I can't open the link to "the horse's mouth" given above (probably my Facebook settings need adjusting) but if Ian Anderson has indeed posted an announcement stating that he has sold the building then I am willing to accept that. I apologise to theleveller for any offence caused, but I don't apologise for asking for some evidence when reporting on the financial situation of a business. Matthew |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: theleveller Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:32 AM Thanks for that, Matthew, the announcement is on Ian's facebook site and also on Joanie Crump's facebook - he is asking for interested parties to contact him. I think I'll now retire from this thread to avoid causing further offence. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Rafflesbear Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:34 AM The last two paragraphs of Max's post should be displayed at the head of every Mudcat page |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: The Sandman Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:42 AM Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:58 AM ¬ I was indeed referring to just a few quite reactionary (yet quite prolific) posters to Mudcat. I thought that failing to acknowledge their existence would rather undermine my argument. It was not meant to be a dig at Mudcatters as a whole.¬ quote. NO, This is not good enough, in fact its crap, there is no one on mudcat who has the power to stop anyone playing any kind of music, Joan Crump, lets have some evidence or otherwise detract the statement. Joan Crump you have slandered Mudcat, and insulted many of us.IMO you should be removed from this forum . |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Banjiman Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:49 AM "Joan Crump you have slandered Mudcat, and insulted many of us.IMO you should be removed from this forum . " Calm down Dick. I don't feel insulted by anything that Joan said. Are you telling me that there aren't any "quite reactionary (yet quite prolific) posters" on Mudcat? I can think of a few!! |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Vic Smith Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:15 AM I feel that we should all feel a bit saddened and chastened that Max feels the need to post this statement:- The scenario that Bounty Hound describes disgusts me, as does the general dogma of some here. I started this site to learn. It suggests that for some - not all - of the posters here need to think a bit more carefully before rushing to post to avoid being unnecessarily confrontational. Even some of the statements on this generally well mannered thread would fall into this category. Like Max, I came here to learn and find that I learn a lot from Mudcat - and I certainly find it a valuable outlet for free publicity for the many events that I organise, but I would like to see an amelioration in the way that statements are made. Of course, people will disagree... so try to win them over by well considered argument and if that doesn't work then politely agree to differ rather than resorting to other methods. Another unsettling feeling that I have about Mudcat that there is at times a nosiness that masquerades as interested concern. It really was nothing to do with most of the people who post here what happened between the EFDSS and one of their employees as a long recent thread concerned itself with. Similarly, it is nothing to do with most people here why Ian Anderson has taken the decision to restructure his business and premises. If fRoots were a PLC, it would be accountable to his shareholders or a registered charity to the charity commisioners, but it is not so what has appeared here is speculation, some of it uninformed. I have read this through carefully several times before pressing "Submit Message" and hope that it will offend no-one and cause no unconsidered response. I am an eternal optimist and live in hope! |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Phil Edwards Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:23 AM I can't think of anyone I'd want to hang that label on. "Reactionary" to me implies not just that you think someone's wrong but that they're so wrong as not to be worth debating with. (But I'm probably one of those prolific reactionaries myself, so what would I know.) Generally what I object to is the association between traddie views and being a nutter or crank. "I think women shouldn't be allowed to play the flute" is cranky. "I think there should be more traditional music at Cambridge Folk Festival" is a valid point of view; it may not be one you agree with, but it's not obviously irrational. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: jacqui.c Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:25 AM The scenario that Bounty Hound describes disgusts me, as does the general dogma of some here. I started this site to learn. I had lots of questions, lots of ignorance, no idea of the etiquette and politics. I'd be eaten alive today, on my own site. This site is meant to make sure this information and enthusiasm is preserved and available for the next generation. It sickens me to think they'll go looking for the variations of Whoa Back Buck and instead find vitriol, contention and bickering. I expect my grandson here someday, perhaps long after I'm gone. I'm OK with what he'll find out about me here. Are you? Reread Max's post and then go back over the posts that have been added since then. IMHO this is just the kind of bickering that can put good people off of coming back to Mudcat. It certainly gives me cause to avoid staying in on a number of the discussions here, even as a lurker, as they just get into insults and circular argument and that is just downright boring, to say the least. I love this site - it has been a real life changer for me - but the attitudes of a number of posters can leave a very bad taste in the mouth. It is very easy for all of us to react badly to something someone else has posted. I have tried, over the past few years, to stop and consider my first reaction to any subject here, before actually putting it on the forum, where it can be seen by all and, generally, will be there for as long as the internet exists. Put simply - engage brain before hitting enter. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Brian Peters Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:37 AM "Generally what I object to is the association between traddie views and being a nutter or crank." The real cranks on here are the ones who use any thread topic, however distantly connected, to grind the same old axe. Many of them are far from being 'traddies'. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Stu Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:42 AM "Sugarfoot Jack, you're letting your misplaced sense of outrage get in the way of engaging the old braincells. If you read what Ian said you know damned well he wasn't talking about all Mudcat users, just the usual suspects. And he's right. Here's a thought - Max, Mudcat's founder, also thinks he's right. The logic of your position therefore means you should boycott Mudcat too. Still, nothing like letting an opportunity to take umbrage go to waste, eh?" Well, whilst Joan was talking about the usual suspects rather than all Mudcat users, Ian was not, as I read it he was generalising. As for my taking umbrage, it was sarcasm Spleen - not so easy to get over in a post. The opinions of a magazine editor are no more or less valid than anyone else's who are on the 'scene' (whatever that is). I've read Mr. Anderson's esteemed organ for many years but only take it occasionally and the more magazines covering folk the better, so hooray for fRoots! Mudcat is a tremendous resource and as the people I know personally who post here are people I have enormous respect for as musicians who understand and carry the tradition. I agree Joan was right in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Rafflesbear Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:56 AM Sad that this thread is going on at the same time as one of the longest, most personally vindictive, bad natured and circular threads that my curiosity has ever tempted me to open on Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: The Sandman Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:59 AM joan is wrong, noone on mudcat prevents or tries to prevent anyone from playing music. Banjiman, this what she said. " A lot of relative newcomers on the (London) folk scene seem to feel the need to set themselves up in false opposition to some alleged reactionary, traddy element. Apart from a few nutters and cranks on Mudcat, I simply do not believe that any particular group on the folk scene is trying to stop anyone in particular from doing anything in particular, or being outraged by what any of the newcomers are doing". she is not saying that ther are reactionaries on mudcat, she is saying that a few nutters and cranks on mudcat are trying to stop people from playing music and are being outraged by what newcomers are doing. there are no nutters or cranks on mudcat that are trying to stop anyone playing any kind of music, this is just total rubbish., it is an attempt by someone [who has spent a lot of time in the past on this forum,continually bullying and slagging off another member Lizzie Cornish ]to discredit Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,glueman Date: 06 Oct 10 - 10:10 AM It depends to what extent Mudcat is representative of the folk scene (in the UK). There certainly are posters who repeatedly voice the fact that some music should stop describing itself as folk and presumably, would like action taken to prevent performers calling it thus, though my impression people on the scene and in the industry don't take a blind bit of notice. Is this the woman who thought fairie lore had no place in the tradition and was for juveniles? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Rain Dog Date: 06 Oct 10 - 10:48 AM "It depends to what extent Mudcat is representative of the folk scene (in the UK" The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people do not bother reading message boards let alone post to them. Mudcat is representative of the people who post to mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: olddude Date: 06 Oct 10 - 10:57 AM Well everyone is entitled to their opinions. Mudcat can certainly get on everyone's nerve from time to time, we all get upset with it ... On the flip side there are good, honest and decent people who are very knowledgeable. There is no perfect place on earth for sure. One always has the ability to ignore and go on with their respective life and let others do the same. I take no offense, I just think it is not productive to anyone to simple toss a stone. Easier just to walk out ... Oh well, maybe just a bad day for them, I sure have had some myself as we all do and then take it out on others ... I hope they feel better today |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,Squeazycheeks Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:59 AM "noone on mudcat prevents or tries to prevent anyone from playing music." what, really, noone here ever tries to exert personal bias & influence on which new artists are excluded from bookings at any clubs and venues at which said mudcat 'noones' may wield some kind of formal / informal 'power' ??? yeah.. right.... |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Phil Edwards Date: 06 Oct 10 - 12:14 PM Ooh, those unnamed grumpy traddies... them and their unidentified power to stop non-specific people doing... things of some description... We hates them, we do. (Apparently.) |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:00 PM "Mudcat can certainly get on everyone's nerve from time to time, we all get upset with it ... On the flip side there are good, honest and decent people who are very knowledgeable." Well those same "good, honest and decent people who are very knowledgeable" can indeed be fixed in their views at times, but for me their generosity in sharing their experience and knowledge far outweighs the same conservatism that can accompany a lifetime of work and involvement in any field. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Vic Smith Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:10 PM Pip Radish:- Ooh, those unnamed grumpy traddies... them and their unidentified power to stop non-specific people doing... things of some description... We hates them, we do. (Apparently.) Very good...chuckleworthy! Now all we need to know is how to recognise the Folk Police. Anybody got any recognition clues? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:14 PM Look, guys..the thing you have to understand is that poor old Ian Anderson gets lonely sometimes. When he does, he writes silly things about Mudcat, always bringing up (yawn) the small group of people he's banned from his board. Why? Because it gives him joyous satisfaction to sit with his finger on his 'YOU CANNOT COME IN, EVER!' button. I left of my own accord, although of course, Ian loves to tell folks he banned me. I left after he allowed a comment connecting me to racism, to remain on his board...and I told him, on his board, that I'd sue his backside off from here to kingdom come if it remained on his board. He removed that part of my message (no surprises there, then!) ;0)....and then said he wanted no more discussion of the matter. Basically, anyone who disagrees with Papa Anderson gets zapped into cyberspace. Max, you shouldn't really agree with Ian. Your board has some ol' buggers on it, true...and some who get sent to the naughty step a little too often, but it's far above boring old fRoots, where just a tiny minority of 'up their own egos' folks gather to worship Papa Anderson, on a regular basis. This board throbs with humour, disgust, anger, joy, compassion, helpful support, intense kindness and absolute outrage..because YOU allow it to! And in so doing, you've created a board that people come into every single day, to learn from, to find friendship in, to laugh on and to see who is beating who up today...and who will have forgiven who by tomorrow... :0) Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Papa Anderson and his Tiny Band of NotSoMerryMen sits bored witless, twiddling his thumbs, wondering what else he can do to attract new readers, new posters...and best of all, more folks that he can ZAP! to his heart's content, then add to his Little List of Braindead Catters. Ha! Braindead?????? We all have more brain cells fizzling and sizzling around our minds than Papa could ever dream of! He is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo jealous of Mudcat..and every time he throws a Muddy Wobbly it makes me chuckle enormously. Leave 'em to it. Leave 'em to pontificate away about why they're so vastly superior to us mere peasants over here, whilst they press their noses to the screens, like Folky Bisto Kids, desperate to come in and join the fun.... :0) |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Will Fly Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:14 PM Well, they may all congregate here - and I'm sure that they'll make me feel old by looking so young these days... |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,grumpy Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:16 PM Woodwork creaks and out come the freaks! Two down, two to go. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:30 PM "He is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo jealous of Mudcat." I've no idea, but I'm not desperately jealous of fRoots. I read it now and then and there is the odd thought provoking thread, but it's all too much 'polite witty conversation' for me. Think Jane Austen in future folk forum land, and you have it. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: VirginiaTam Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:30 PM well my long and considerate post from this morning was apparently etherised so the short version is.... hang in the playground that most suits you |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,Sceptic Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:37 PM To: Matthew Edwards, who asked what Ian Anderson has said about the future of fRoots. Ian has a thread on the fRoots forum: "We are looking for a buyer for the North London property which houses the fRoots magazine office and the Editor. The buyer will be prepared to lease it back to us at a market rent for a negotiable period of two to five years while we re-organise for the longer term and examine best options for eventual re-location... [The buyer] will also be helping fRoots to recapitalise, plan and invest in its longevity, giving a major boost to the security of this very important resource." http://froots.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5522 |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: The Sandman Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:44 PM well, could I suggest EFDSS buy it, and use it for extra library space, I am sure Ian would reduce the price for the EFDSS. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Jeri Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:45 PM It was a sure bet the people to which IA was referring would quickly show up HERE to provide examples by misunderstanding what he wrote and kneejerking. Off to a less stupid discussion... or more stupid, but also more fun. I find it hard to believe some people really enjoy being pissed off by this sort of idiotic bitch session. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Will Fly Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:46 PM LOL! Dick - two of your targets with one bullet! |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Phil Edwards Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:53 PM It was a sure bet the people to which IA was referring would quickly show up HERE I've still got no idea who Ian was referring to - I can think of people on the 'Cat who have a tendency to go on a bit and to be inflexible in argument, and people who hold traditionalist views, but I honestly can't think of anyone who fits in both boxes. (And - if it's not obvious - I really detest this kind of "ooh those horrible people who we all hate" stuff.) Also, I appear to have been banned from the fRoots forum without ever (as far as I can remember) posting there, which is odd and a bit irksome. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:01 PM When one wants proof of what IA is on about, they need only read this thread. Folks, if you take a moment, slow down .....AND READ THE POST FOR COMPREHENSION..... you will see that he is simply referring to those that feel it is their job to trap folk music in the box of their perception and leave it perpetually unchanged, all the while praising "the folk process", not belittling Mudcat or Mudcatters in general. Of course, that is the beauty of our music, and those that stick their nose up in the air and decry young folks playing it the way they feel it should be played, just come off poorly. I thought his point was well made, and as someone who has been around very nearly from the beginning of this site, have often been distressed at the attempts to shout down/belittle anyone of a differing take on the music. I certainly don't agree with everything I see written, but I disagree more with the snobby, belittling comments I often see. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Ruth Archer Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:13 PM Dick, relax. There ARE a few nutters and cranks on this forum (do I really have to name them?) who regularly start loony vendettas that are PRECISELY about how people ought to be able to play folk music and what they ought to be playing. To deny that they exist is absurd when one of them is currently jerking the collective chain for 1000+ posts and counting. These are the people who have a particular (peculiar) world view and think that the rest of the world ought to change in order to march along with them. They are the exception rather than the rule. But when talking about what a broad church the folk world is (which exactly the point I was trying to make on the Froots forum) it would have been dishonest to pretend they don't exist. Dick, you seem to have taken my comments very personally. I wasn't specifically referring to you (though I do think you have a strange preoccupation with EFDSS that borders on the obsessive). Does 20+ years of being involved in folk, including having been involved in English folk (admittedly at a relatively low level) since about 1995, count as a "relative newcomer"? Blimey, will I qualify for my Official Folk Membership Badge before I actually retire, do you thnk? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:16 PM Mick, I feel that some of the traditionalists can be fixed and they do fixedly argue their place, but surely this - a folk discussion forum - is the very place for them to do that. Like LC says, it keeps this place alive. Squidgeypants or whatever it called itself must have been high to suppose that these old grumps have any genuine 'power' in the folk world bar that of interest to amateur 'traditionalists' such as myself. That power belongs to festival organisers, the EFDSS, commercial promoters and indeed magazine editors like Anderson, and NOT to a bare handful of traditionalists grumping amongst themselves on Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:19 PM Mick, don't forget it was Ian Anderson himself who referred to Seth Lakeman and Show of Hands, among others, as 'having got in under the radar'...which, at that time, meant Ian and La fRooties had placed their own fence around the music, deciding who was, and who was not permitted to enter the Hallowed Halls of English Folk Music. And of course, it was Seth's career which he tried to damage during the Mercury Awards, bemoaning the fact that Seth's album fell outside the remit of the Mercury Awards rules... Now, ask yourself, would he have said that, had it been Eliza Carthy or Nic Jones, or anyone else whom he backs wholeheartedly...? And now he's painting himself as the Saviour of Folk Music, with a Come All Ye attitude, whilst deriding some folks on Mudcat for doing *EXACTLY* what he's been doing for years...????????? Ay? Seems to me the world's turned upside down, as one of Ian's favourite bands would sing.. He was also horrendously nasty to anyone he deemed an ARSS, if you recall, the derogatory acronym pertaining to Acoustic Rock Singer Songwriters, of course... I don't support hypocrisy at all... Pip, you may have been banish-ed for ever when Ian accidentally removed ALL his AOL posters, in his sheer and trembling haste to 'ban' me one time, despite me having left already... It says further up that fRoots tOwers is up for sale, along with it's Editor. Well, someone else can buy fRooty tOwers, but hell, I'll make a bid for Grumpy Ed, 'cos he often makes me chuckle!...And I bet you anything I could make him splutter...in fact I know I have done in the past..and Once Upon A Time, when the world was flat and not filled with Seth Lakeman and Show of Hands (before they went over to The Dark Side) Ian and I even exchanged a few humourous emails, before I posted on his board...Of course, as ever he was telling me to behave myself, but he did it with a grin and a jolly good sense of humour... Hmmmmm..now *what* am I going to do with a Grumpy Ed once I've purchased him??? :0) I think I need a cupboard...some ropes...(steady boys!)....and a never ending CD of Seth Lakeman to play to him ad infinitum, until he finally begs forgiveness and sees the error of his ways! ;0) Oh dearie me...this is a fun thread! |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Tim Leaning Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:26 PM Who is Ian Anderson in relation to music I mean... Is it the one who used to play a flute,while adopting a monopedal posture? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:30 PM OOOOH!!!!!! NOW you're in TROUBLE, Tim! LOL ;0) |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Tim Leaning Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:32 PM Trouble? Whys that young Lizzie? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:35 PM "who regularly start loony vendettas that are PRECISELY about how people ought to be able to play folk music and what they ought to be playing." Loony Vendettas? Oh dear, haven't spotted any of those (bar your own against Sean Breadin which you never stop revisiting). Of course there has been *some* criticism of the work of one or two of your favoured artists by the likes of Jim Carroll who only did research and stuff. Mind you they are only typical Mudcat 'cranks and purists' whose views are dismissed everywhere else, so that's OK then. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Ritchie Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:50 PM I have n't been on 'mudcat' for quite some time. I've missed the 'nutters and cranks'. Good to be back ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Jim Dixon Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:02 PM We don't have enough feudin' an' fightin' within Mudcat already? Now we gotta start a feud with another website? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:07 PM Right, I'll put my Serious Hat on now.... Some words for Ian Anderson and all those who feel the music belongs to them alone. They are words are from a Singer Songwriter, who writes some of the most beautiful new folk songs we have in this country. A man whose songs are dearly loved by Mike Harding, yet seemingly shunned by fRoots. Beauty, Gentleness and Dignity from Reg Meuross with his inspirational song: Reg Meuross myspace page - 'For The Seeds of Love' (scroll down to the last song) 'For The Seeds of Love' by Reg Meuross "In the cathedral of the trees Beneath a starry sky Where every light looking down On the kingdom of the clowns Is an ancestral eye And the whispers on the breeze Are the voices of my race And the man in the moon Who sings an ancient tune Has my grandfather's face Crack the ice upon the lake Sing the songs of yesterday All the stories written then Will be written out again In a more familiar way I sit and watch the children play Kicking up my childhood dirt My mother's voice in dust remains And the blood within these veins Stained my grandfather's shirt And you who hold the seeds of love From the gardener's hand Songs of love written then will be written out again For new hearts to understand My father's breath against the frost The scent of apples from our tree Bittersweet the taste of youth On my lips these are the truth Of the song i sing to thee Find the nest steal the egg Until I know my right from wrong Now the bird is on the wing And the melody she sings Is my grandfather's song You who would protect the seeds That are not yours to own A selfishly protected root Bears only bitter fruit Let the seeds be sown With your self-appointed trust Look, your hands are full of dust Let the seeds be sown." |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:13 PM Lizzie, what are 'nu-fogies' like me supposed to call the really olden-days songs we're into? I know the 'folk' word has been reassigned (even if some others here refuse to accept it), but what do I call the REALLY old stuff that fascinates me more that Bob down the roads weepies? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,glueman Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:22 PM Anglo-Saxon ballads? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Phil Edwards Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:22 PM Pip, you may have been banish-ed for ever when Ian accidentally removed ALL his AOL posters Possible, except that I don't use an AOL address. I've tried registering with two different GMail addresses & been told they were both bannèd. Which was odd. Ruth, this is precisely the problem when you start down this "ooh those nasty people we all hate and we all know who they are" line: we don't all know who you're talking about and we probably wouldn't all hate them if we did. I am, seriously, blowed if I know what the grounds are for making a connection between "cranky obsessive" and "prescriptive traddie" - although both you and Ian A. A. clearly think there is one. If I make a mental list of the Catters who tend to start fights and go on a bit - and I'm not denying that some people do both those things - precisely none of them are prescriptive traddies. And those of us (yes, I'm owning up) who are traddies with a prescriptive streak are a bit peeved at being lumped in with the 'nutters and cranks'. The reason I go on about this at such length is that, to borrow a few words, I simply do not believe that any particular group on the folk scene is trying to stop anyone in particular from doing anything in particular, or being outraged by what any of the newcomers are doing: the "nutters and cranks on Mudcat" are far too busy defending their own peculiar positions against all comers to form a coherent view about new styles in folk music. What is happening, though, and does get a voice on Mudcat, is that some people are expressing more or less well-informed criticisms of what some of the newcomers are doing, and of what gets presented as the crowning glories of folk music. Mr Cranky Obsessive Prescriptive Traddie doesn't actually exist, as far as I can see; Mr Prescriptive Traddie certainly does, and he's a bit tired of being confused with his imaginary cousin. What's ironic is that this 'cranks and nutters' language does precisely the same job as the old 'pipe and Aran jumpers' image you were criticising: it belittles one group and makes it harder for them to be heard. The real prescriptive traddies - the people who say inconvenient things like "didn't Fairport do that years ago?" or "wouldn't that sound better unaccompanied?" or "is that actually folk?" - aren't people like #1 PEASANT; they're people like me. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Slag Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:26 PM Well, contray to what virtually all of you think, I think Mr. Anderson is a real word-smut. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Tim Leaning Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:26 PM A song written down for posterity in a museum or collection is a "Text" If you are singing it its up to you what you call it as long as you don't claim it as you own composition I suppose. A song is only a text,an idea, or a memory unless it is being sung. When it is being sung it is so many things that I would say it is whatever it is to the people hearing ,singing or remembering it and its associations to and for themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,glueman Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:34 PM Pip, if you think Mr COPT doesn't exist, you ain't looking hard enough. Prescription is inherently obsessive. There is no justification. In the words of Norma Waterson, 'It's (folk music) very forgiving, you can do what you like with it' including, presumably, completely ignoring it. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Ritchie Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:46 PM aye, there's nowt so queer as folk. I suppose all folk music was 'pop' once upon a time ;-) It's a bit like choosing paint, there is white and off white and white with a hint of mushroom and white with ....., me, it's easy, I'm colour blind. There's music I like and music I don't. some folk I like and some folk I don't. My son once gave me some good advice (which sadly I don't always take) and that was, "never argue with someone who's opinion you don't respect." Now I might not always agree with Ian Anderson's opinion, but I do respect it. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:46 PM It's simply an old folk song, CS, as opposed to a new folk song. They're all written by singer songwriters, so it makes absolutely no difference really. The first ever folk singer was a singer songwriter, so all this ARSS stuff really is just plain silly, always has been.. If Reg Meuross, for example, had written some of his songs hundreds of years back, many traddies would be drooling over them, poring over word, every note, reading into the songs whatever they wanted to be there. But for some strange reason, his folk songs, about real people in real times, as well as real people from times gone by, don't count as 'folk' music... And as for the hysteria surrounding Mumford & Sons, where certain traddie folks are practically apopletic with rage...well, let's not even go there..because it's nonsense. Love the songs you love, be they old or modern. They all belong to the Folksinger.. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Continuity Jones Date: 06 Oct 10 - 05:22 PM A couple of people have picked up on this: As for fRoots forum being heavily moderated - in my experience, Mudcat is the most heavily moderated forum I've ever posted on. No forum I've ever experienced has ever had such a strict 'Though Shalt Not Discuss The Forum' policy. I mean - even this post could be deleted. Maybe Mudcat is hosted in China? Or maybe, I'm inexperienced with forums. I should point out, I was referring exclusively to Mudcat's policy of No Discussion About Mudcat. Obviously it's a very open forum when it comes to telling someone to F-Off when you don't agree with them. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 06 Oct 10 - 06:26 PM Well, I guess the point is, if you don't like the way Mudcat is run, don't come here. You *do* have an option. On fRoots, there is only Grumpy Ed's Option..(Papa Anderson's own name for himself, by the way) |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Phil Edwards Date: 06 Oct 10 - 06:59 PM Glueman, if you think Mr COPT does exist, you're looking too hard. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Ruth Archer Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM Usual suspects, usual shite. Just remembered why I stopped posting here. Enjoy the love-in, peeps. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Tim Leaning Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:44 PM I like the lurv it makes things nicer.... |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,glueman Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:50 PM No Pip, you've decided where righteous indignation end and obsessive compulsion start and claim you side with the angels, or at least the rationalists. I'm saying musical prescription is strictly for nutters no matter what the back story. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Rain Dog Date: 07 Oct 10 - 08:20 AM Pip Radish posted about a problem registering at the fRoots board: "Pip, you may have been banish-ed for ever when Ian accidentally removed ALL his AOL posters Possible, except that I don't use an AOL address. I've tried registering with two different GMail addresses & been told they were both bannèd. Which was odd." I know at one time gmail addresses were banned due to a problem with spam accounts. That might be the reason you could not register |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Manitas_at_home Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:02 AM '..under the radar..' was more likely a reference to him not having noticed them 'coming up' until they were there. I'm sure Ian doesn't want to ring-fence folk music but, being a folk music journalist, would like to know who is and who isn't becoming popular. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: The Sandman Date: 07 Oct 10 - 09:56 AM or alternatively who is being promoted by agents and who is not., which generally means whose music has commercial appeal and whose does not, which seems to be the anithesis of roots music. in my experience commercialisation results in a distancing from the roots of the music.we are noew experiencing pop folk music, and pop roots music, which is the direct result of attempting to broaden the popularity of the music, it is a dilemma. one of the great advantages of folk clubs is that they are run by enthusistic amateurs who do it for love ,not commercial gain, the problem with commercialisation is[very often] dilution of the roots of the music |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Tim Leaning Date: 07 Oct 10 - 10:11 AM GSS. " one of the great advantages of folk clubs is that they are run by enthusistic amateurs who do it for love ,not commercial gain," I see what you mean by that, but how about the acts? Surely there must be some element of financial recompense involved and even some pleasure from finding and performing for an audience. I was wondering what you would say is the difference between that and what the commercialized performers do? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: MikeL2 Date: 07 Oct 10 - 10:47 AM hi I come here to see things that interest me. After a short time here is was simple for me to decide what I want to read and at times try to contribute in my own small way. There are a number of very knowledgeable and helpful people here for whom I have the greatest respect and I read their contributions as interesting and entertaining as well as informative. There are just one or two "traddies" who do go over the top occasionally ( thankfully) but I would have thought we are all intelligent and mature enough to know when to switch off. As for the level of moderation I have found it to be very understanding. Of course on occasions decisions have to be made and Mudcat would be a poorer place if this was not so. Cheers MikeL2 |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Bill D Date: 07 Oct 10 - 10:55 AM Continuity Jones.... the "no discussion about Mudcat" policy is not really that narrow. All it means is that we have HAD the threads where 'basic operating procedures' are whined & complained about, explained, RE-explained, mis-understood and the explanations re-whined & re-complained about...in an endless circle. (Ask The Shambles/Roger Gall about how that went.) The point is, at a certain point you just have to say "these ARE the rules, and incessant complaining about who makes the "rules about the rules" is useless. Note...questions about **policy**, for those who missed 10+ years of explication of it, can always be directed to Joe Offer...in moderation....and a search might get you some fascinating threads (mostly closed now) which demonstrate vividly why 'some' restrictions were imposed on debating **basic** policy. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: The Sandman Date: 07 Oct 10 - 11:15 AM its less commercial and further from popular music, closer to its roots ,that is my opinion and my experience. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:19 PM ...'..under the radar..' was more likely a reference to him not having noticed them 'coming up' until they were there. I'm sure Ian doesn't want to ring-fence folk music but, being a folk music journalist, would like to know who is and who isn't becoming popular...." Not at all, Manitas. Ian used that phrase wayyyyyy back on the older BBC F&A board, where he used to fume, on a regular basis, about how popular SoH and Seth Lakeman were when they were NOT folk, in his opinion. And yup, he really did try to cause trouble over Seth and the Mercury Award competition, because, I believe, he was shite scared how much more popular Seth would become. He also tried to get all mention of Show of Hands pretty much stopped on that board. Nowadays, of course, Ian's had Seth on his front cover quite a few times, which I'm sure is because he's 'seen the light' about Seth's power to bring in young people to folk music, rather than worked out that Seth's good looks sell magazines. I'm very much looking forward to Ian doing a double page, double cover of Show of Hands soon, as he's turned off the radar for them too these days. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Show of Hands have proved to be the main headlining acts at nearly all the festivals, bringing in thousands of folks to folk music.... Nor could it (surely not) be due to Phil Beer now recording many traditional artists whom Ian loves. Time will tell.....for sure. :0) >>>>Ruth Archer - PM Date: 06 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM Usual suspects, usual shite. Just remembered why I stopped posting here. Enjoy the love-in, peeps. <<<<< There speaks a true fRoots poster. Perhaps they would care to read the words of the Reg Meuross song I posted above...called 'The Seeds of Love' |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: The Sandman Date: 07 Oct 10 - 12:49 PM my post of 11 15am, was in reply to tim leaning |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Tim Leaning Date: 07 Oct 10 - 04:38 PM Ok opinion heard and respected. GSS |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Mavis Enderby Date: 08 Oct 10 - 02:08 AM Pip - Rain Dog is right - all Gmail email addresses are also banned due to spam - see this posting on the fRoots board: The gmail ban on this Forum + other registration info Pete. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Phil Edwards Date: 08 Oct 10 - 03:05 AM Fair enough - I won't take it personally! |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Oct 10 - 11:04 AM ""Now all we need to know is how to recognise the Folk Police. Anybody got any recognition clues?"" For people who use the terms "Folk Police", or "Folk Nazi", it seems to fit the definition "Anyone who disagrees with my specifically modern and contemporary views on what constitutes "Folk Music"!" "AGB" ("Anything Goes Brigade"), and "Singer songwhiner" (sometimes "Snigger Snogwriter") serve exactly the same purpose for those on the other side of the argument. Both are wrong IMHO, and at some so far unfathomed point between lies approximate truth, and the reason why it remains undiscovered is simply that neither side has ever been willing to approach the centre ground to find it. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Banjiman Date: 08 Oct 10 - 11:18 AM I find myself agreeing with Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Oct 10 - 11:31 AM We have had one perfect Folk Nazi in the history of Mudcat, and that was in 1997. Her name was Elsie, and she didn't last very long. She never had anything to contribute. Her only purpose was to attempt to exclude anybody who didn't fit her very narrow definition of folk music. We have had others who come close, but nobody has ever matched Elsie. I'm glad she didn't prevail. Of course, it's worthwhile to guide the direction of singarounds and venues and discussions - but it's quite another thing to have the exclusion of others as one's primary mission. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Rain Dog Date: 08 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM She seems to have been a very mild kind of Folk Nazi. What did make me smile was the thread started by Max about anonymous guest postings. That thread was from 1997. 13 years old. Is that old enough to qualify as part of the tradition? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Oct 10 - 03:30 PM "She seems to have been a very mild kind of Folk Nazi." If at all - how bloody depressing. I never had the pleasure of meeting Elsie, whoever she was, but as far as I can see from the above links, she is/was somebody with a fairly clear idea of what she believed folk music to be - nasty-nasty woman! I can find nothing in her postings that might not have been said by Sharp, Lloyd, MacColl, Hamish Henderson, David Buchan, Alan Lomax and the many hundreds of others misguided enough to believe they/we knew what folk music is (not to mention myself); all card holdng folk Nazis, themselves, no doubt. I do wish people would come to terms with the fact that, while there may be Nazis who like folk music, there is no such animal as a folk nazi, policeman, fascist - all being the inventions of of those who wish to put down any opposition to their own ideas, but can't be bothered thinking through an argument, and so resort to infantile name-calling. All this aside, the Nazis were the ones who stuck many millions of people into gas ovens, and the only thing this type of cavalier misuse of the term achieves is to trivialise the the fate of those milliuons. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: The Sandman Date: 08 Oct 10 - 03:35 PM I agree Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Richard Bridge Date: 08 Oct 10 - 04:29 PM "Folk music" has a specific meaning. There is nothing wrong in general with music that is not folk music. But in the interests of clarity it should not be called folk music. Interestingly, terms like "filk" "twisted folk" "Psych folk" and "nu-folk" seem to be coming into currency, and that is all to the good if it enables terms to be used with accuracy. Some of the stuff that the monopod likes seems to be folk music - but the folk music of non-English traditions. Since I am English, they do not interest me (with one exception). Blues is in origin a traditional folk music and it does interest me, but I have realised (well, I figured it out in my 20s) that it is not the music of my tradition. But it still interest me. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 08 Oct 10 - 07:41 PM I find myself in agreement with Richard - the use of hyphen-folk definitions to describe music that is not strictly "folk" music as it has previously been understood assists in retaining some meaning for the word "folk" when used without qualifiers. Um, I think... |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,Frug Date: 08 Oct 10 - 08:19 PM Oh fuck me here we go with another what the fuck is fucking folk music and why the fuck does it matter and is a fucking folk label fucking necessary. For fuck sake will someone tell me why it fucking matters...?? Music is fucking music...Traditional or not...surely that is the starting point....does that matter,,,,I think not.....derivative or not......no probs allowing for accreditation or historical or source references...good or bad ......sometimes down to taste or appreciation of style...........blah fucking blah fucking blah........Apologies to American cousins but the Brit folk scene seems to be extraordinarily anally retentive and intent on demeaning itself on an international message board............however as an Irish man can only offer an 'uncomfortably close to shore' opinion. Just to clarify the situation over here we have a great number of old and new bands some of them are greater than others. Some old bands who think that they deserve accolades because they sing 'trad' quite frankly are shite !! (Some however are excellent !!) Some new bands are shite.....doesn't matter if they pretend to tradition or nu folk. But there are a lot of exciting new bands around who can/will only benefit from a more liberal view of music............Why cant we all just enjoy a well written song, well played and well performed and not criticise based on compartmentalisation?...... Little Boxes Little Boxes and they're al;l made out of ......... Frank |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 09 Oct 10 - 04:04 AM Calm down Frank. You'll hurt yourself... |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Oct 10 - 04:13 AM Goes to show - whatever fRoots thinks about Mudcat, we can't be all that bad when we tolerate arseholes like clown this telling us what we should and shouldn't be discussing. You've got to admire his command of the English language though.... Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Phil Edwards Date: 09 Oct 10 - 04:46 AM Did anyone make it to the end of that one? I stopped reading after half a line. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,glueman Date: 09 Oct 10 - 06:31 AM For every nazi there's a horse definer. Pragmatists are to be found in the middle. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Oct 10 - 06:46 AM And prats are to be found everywhere |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: GUEST,glueman Date: 09 Oct 10 - 06:51 AM I have a high regard for record shop employees and festival organisers trust them to know their product and customers. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 10 Oct 10 - 08:36 PM Well well! That says it all, doesn't it? Suggest that both sides need to look toward the middle ground, then sit back and wait to see which side starts jumping up and down, shouting, and calling other people prats, arseholes etc. Interesting innit? |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: TheSnail Date: 14 Oct 10 - 01:52 PM Getting slightly back to the subject, go to the fRoots Forum, click Member List then - Select sort method: [Total posts] Order [Descending] and click Sort |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Tim Leaning Date: 14 Oct 10 - 02:31 PM Now folk music is old stuff . Nobody knows who wrote it. and it has been changed by its passage through the various orifices and digits of performers through the ages. It may be more to your preference than other sorts of music,however that does not render the other music liable to be referred to as shite. You see we all agree. |
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Tim Leaning Date: 14 Oct 10 - 02:32 PM ooops wrong thread sorry. |
| Share Thread: |