 sj |
||
|
||
What fRoots thinks of Mudcat
|
|
|
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.. |
| Share Thread: |