 sj |
||
|
||
What fRoots thinks of Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: What fRoots thinks of Mudcat From: Tim Leaning Date: 14 Oct 10 - 02:32 PM ooops wrong thread sorry. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:31 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: The Sandman Date: 08 Oct 10 - 03:35 PM I agree Jim. |
|
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: 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: 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: Banjiman Date: 08 Oct 10 - 11:18 AM I find myself agreeing with Don T. |
|
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: 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: 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: Tim Leaning Date: 07 Oct 10 - 04:38 PM Ok opinion heard and respected. GSS |
|
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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,glueman Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:22 PM Anglo-Saxon ballads? |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Tim Leaning Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:32 PM Trouble? Whys that young Lizzie? |
| Share Thread: |