 sj |
||
|
||
What fRoots thinks of Mudcat
|
|
|
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: GUEST,Morris-ey Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:01 AM Mr Anderson is correct, though. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: Rapparee Date: 05 Oct 10 - 06:36 PM fRankly, my dear.... |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:22 PM What a fool that man can be. |
|
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. |
| Share Thread: |