'More pretentious than Bellowhead'

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 06:39 PM

Oh, several amazements. I have to agree with something Mad Lizzie wrote.

Anyone who does not understand the importance of history to folk music does not understand folk music or any other folk art or medium.

Any anyone who thinks all the performers at a folk festival are substandard has never been to an open mic night where the average punter or maybe I should say munter sounds like "Jim kissing you" (folkie ref, look it up if you don't know).

Foster is ignorance and prejudice impersonating a critic. And we all know about critics.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Will Fly
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 05:55 PM

I understand what you're saying, Jim. I just feel that the folk club debate has been hacked over so many times - with the same indeterminate outcomes - that it's possibly more interesting and refreshing to have a debate about the perception of the more polished and professional presenters of the music.

And I would agree with you that the clubs - and singarounds and sessions - are often the wellsprings from which the professionals rise. What's interesting to me is that many (not all) of the clubs I go to have an audience which is probably around 50+ in age group. The Bellowhead concert I attended several months ago in Lewes had an audience who were hugely diverse in age, with lots of much younger people - in their 20s - happily dancing away and enjoying what was a fine performance. Now, if Catherine Foster is criticising performers who are obviously attracting a much wider and younger fan base than, say, your average folk club, then what does she expect? Whether you like a band like Bellowhead or not - I do, as it happens - they bring people into the music in droves. So - what does Catherine prefer if she doesn't care for it?

It's worth pointing out that members of bands like Bellowhead play in smaller, offshoot groups which do play on the folk club circuit. I saw Faustus in Arundel some months ago - great performance, huge energy, great respect for the music - and the place was packed to the gills with all ages, and a huge number of young people. But Catherine's criticism of just these people has been made - so what should we expect in festivals and in clubs?

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 05:38 PM

"Sorry to sound like a headmaster, but that's my perception of her main critique."
With respect Will - this neatly sidesteps the fact that the general public (folk music's potential future audience) is far more likely to encounter it in the local clubs rather than the festival showcases for officianados.
The lifeblood of the revival was always the clubs - abandon them and you've abandoned the music by placing it at arms length.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Will Fly
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:15 PM

Just a quick reminder, before we all go scooting off down the well-trodden "performance standard in folk club" path, that Catherine's original comment was about the standard she perceived at the Shrewsbury Folk Festival, and that the people she was criticising were people like Spiers, Bellowhead, Causley, etc.

Her criticism, presumably, was thus about mainstream, professional performers and - if we stick to the mainstream thread topic - it's this we should be debating.

Sorry to sound like a headmaster, but that's my perception of her main critique.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 04:06 PM

As a musician and singer of some years, I am quite taken aback by the awesome standard of some of the new performers now coming onto the scene - a lot of them but not all, coming from the Newcastle Uni folk degree course. for musicianship look at 422 band, they are excellent.
As far as I understand, many of Bellowhead particularly the brass come from a professional background and play in many other genres when not in folk music. I fully appreciate that some will and some will not like the Bellowhead approach to folk music, but surely what the "scene" needs is some who will preserve the traditional sound and others that will make experiments with it and create new approaches to traditional material.

That said, I do agree that if performing for a fee, singers and players should be presenting polished material. Folk clubs do however have to provide a facility for new singers to practice their trade and if this was not available, any performer would never know whether they are likely to make the grade or not. I suppose the position we have have is that whereas, in the olden days, folks would stand up in their local pub and sing "their"song for the benefit of the crowd, we now have a situation where people have paid to go into a folk club and are perhaps quite right to expect a minimum standard of performance. I too do cringe also when singers do not at least try to present a polished performance.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Continuity Jones
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:56 PM

Thanks Continuity!

A threat of violence because we've chosen to make some music that you can choose to listen to or not? I'd say that was probably a bit of an over-reaction.

John Spiers

;-)       <- my attempt at a smug smile to see if it's true

----------------------------------------------

No, it was a threat to tread on your toes if you smiled smugly at me in a dark alley.

Thanks for pointing out the choice though - I made the choice to see you play once, regretted it, and now make the choice not to listen to you. I'm sure you're doing very well without my patronage.

However, I do apologise for coming on a message board and basically making a negative statement which was neither asked for nor added anything to any debate. I must have had too much sugar in my tea.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:38 PM

"Let's see what Catherine has to say."

Or indeed give her the right to believe she's finished her answer or claim the 5th.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:30 PM

Before we all get outraged, let's just bear in mind that Catherine may well have a point. That depends on what criteria she's using to judge mediocrity by. I think it's quite possible that we may regard these criteria quite differently.

I can't think of any folk singer who wouldn't get absolutely slated by the panel of the X-Factor, but that doesn't mean to say they're mediocre, simply that you shouldn't judge one art form by the standards of another.

Let's see what Catherine has to say.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:14 PM

For all Lizzie's somewhat hysterical stridency - of course there is a great deal of medeocrity to be found in folk.
When I first suggested this to be the case some time back I was met with such a tidal wave of "outrage from Tunbridge Wells" that I thought I was completely off beam and I was prepared to accept that I was too long away from home to make any sort of reasonable assessment - until I got involved in some of the 'standards' threads.
Suggesting that a 'singer' should be able to sing in tune, remember words or understand the words to such a degree that they were capable of passing it on to an audience - in other words, that a singer was able to master the rudimentary techniques of singing before they were let loose on an audience, brought forth an avalanch of abuse, "elitist" being among the most prominent.
It was even suggested by one bright spark that good singing was to be discouraged as it drove away the poor singers.
Sorry folks - letting loose singers who sing out of tune, can't remember words to the extent of having to read from crib-sheets, and don't understand the song you are singing.... and all the other things that were being argued for on these threads, proves, to me at least, that mediocrity is not only acceptable in the clubs today, but it is posetively encouraged.
Come down off the ceiling Lizzie.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 03:10 PM

Odetta's delivery is pretty classical and rather good.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:59 PM

On the subject of mixing genres, and ability... would just like to point out that Paul Sartin (for one) is a classically trained musician who was a choral scholar and chorister at Oxford when he discovered the English folk scene (and Ian Giles) in an Oxford pub.... and whose singing style changed dramatically as a result.

Some of us came to folk music via skiffle, some (including eg Martin Carthy and Moira Craig) can read the dots and sang in choirs when we were young.

If you're used to classically trained singers singing folk songs you might have difficulty adjusting to people who haven't been classically trained. But I now cringe when I hear famous classical singers' versions of folk songs. (Apart, possibly from Kathleen Ferrier singing Blow the Wind Southerly, but that's just because I like Kathleen Ferrier and it was played at my dad's funeral.)

Kitty

Kitty

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 02:27 PM

"vituperation" Ooh, Will, that's my Word of the Day! :0)

No need to show me respect, Will, purely 'cos I didn't show any to 'Catherine', but thanks anyway...

Personally, I think 'Catherine' is winding you all up something spectacular...and folks who say what she did about the folk world and make derogatory remarks about their talent don't get any respect from me...

Hell to good manners when folks are being deliberately offensive to highly talented people who have to struggle so hard to get their music out there, because 'folks' like 'Catherine' are so snootytooty about something which they know nothing about.


OK, I'll relent...just a tad..

Welcome to Mudcat 'Catherine' but hell, what the fuck are you even doing here if you think English folk musicians are crap??????


There ya go...

;0)

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Will Fly
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:39 PM

Eh, Lizzie, and with respect, I honestly don't think vituperation adds anything to the debate. Now that Catherine seems to have reappeared on the thread, we should let her respond properly.

A robust musical genre like traditional music is surely strong enough to be the subject of an open debate.

I'm reminded of the attitude of a Naval captain during the 2nd World War, when an enemy plane dropped leaflets exhorting the crew to mutiny. One of his officers asked if the leaflets should be collected up and destroyed as quickly as possible. "Of course not", was the reply, "put them up on the mess notice boards so everyone can see 'em".

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:39 PM

"And with all due respect, CS, I've probably written about more Folk Musicians than you've had hot dinners....got more folks interested in much of this music too..."


Are you STARTING something LC?
Huh, are YOU???

..calm down there missy - only pulling your pig tails!

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:36 PM

Catherine, your comments are welcome. I happen to think you used a blunderbuss where a few well aimed rifle shots would have served better. Welcome to the board.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:34 PM

And with all due respect, CS, I've probably written about more Folk Musicians than you've had hot dinners....got more folks interested in much of this music too...

I still mourn the loss of the 'live' chat that used to take place on the BBC F&A board way back, during BBC Radio Derby's 'Folkwaves' programme...got 'em all buzzing along to that...Such a great pity that so many of the Pretentious Ones became so locked into getting me silenced, rather than joining me in shouting out loud about such brilliant music, played by so many incredible musicians...A damn shame, but heyho, such was their intent..

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:29 PM

Quite right...

"from ignorant prats....May I *im*politely suggest..."

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 01:06 PM

"from ignorant prats. .. May I politely suggest"

Umm, LC.. you might want to review that statement ;-)

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM

From 'Catherine'

"..Those lucky enough to be able to headline a folk festival are still only at the top of a rather sad and undernourished tree. It's all relative. They would not cut it in any other genre (in my opinion)..."


Considering you're supposedly working in the music industry, you sure do talk out of a lacking-in-fabulous-musical-knowledge-arse.

Some...no...MANY of the BEST musicians in this country,(UK) and in other countries too, lie within the Folk World.   It makes me hugely angry that so many of them are ignored or almost completely unheard of *outside* the Folk World...and that they have to put up with such vitriolic nastiness from ignorant prats.

May I politely suggest you go and find out about some of the most wonderful musicians, singers and songwriters in this country (and others), before you make any more insulting and ludicrously stupid comments.

And, hey, you don't 'cut it' in my opinion either.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 12:54 PM

No "For me Tunes & songs are either good or bad," No idea what this means

Yes "I like it or I don't" That's all their is it either does something for you or it doesn't

L in C#

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: GUEST,LDT
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 12:23 PM

I try not to think of music in genres. For me Tunes & songs are either good or bad, I like it or I don't. Even when I was listening to 'mainstream' music I hopped between genres and bands. I've got eclectic tastes me.
(btw. I'm a bellowhead fan)

regards,
a yoof

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 12:18 PM

Catherine:

curated by out of touch, defensive historians

Not sure what you mean. Who can you recommend as having done work you wouldn't regard as out of touch and defensive?

When I describe the musicians I did as mediocre (and there are many more to add to that list)

Please don't. I'd be much more interested to know who you think is better than mediocre.

I love English traditional music and am exceptionally passionate about it

Tell us more. Who was the last performer (active, retired or dead) that you raved about?

And who do you think is less pretentious than Bellowhead?

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Will Fly
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 12:00 PM

Thank you for returning, Catherine. I took the liberty of starting a separate thread with quotations from your post, not only because I thought it not appropriate to start hijacking a post dedicated to the memory of Peter Bellamy, but also because I was personally interested in receiving some positive riposte from you. Positive in that you would give some reasons for your criticism of the music, and that you would suggest your options for matters such as repertoire, performance, etc.

As I said in my first post in this thread, pure dislike on its own is easy to write, but tells us nothing other than the personal dislike.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: GUEST,Meggly
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:58 AM

And I would be interested to hear which genre of music the top-of-their-game folk musos wouldn't stand up against and why. As this is an opinion that has been reasserted.

If we're talking about the technically intricate opera world then it's perhaps an unfair, impossible and pointless comparison; are we expecting N. Kerr, or E. Carthy to warble like a soprano here? If we're talking pop, then I'd be interested in what it is about folk musicians that doesn't stack up in a genre that has a range of abilities and talent and that is often manufactured to sound polished.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Dave Sutherland
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:55 AM

WUM = Wind Up Merchant

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:55 AM

I concur, I'd be good if Catherine would be willing to share contrasts to the music which she found unsatisfying. Are there any artists (past or present) who've really nailed traditional English music for you?
Not being antagonistic here.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:52 AM

Catherine, glad to see you're back and contributing to this debate.

In what way are folk musicians mediocre, and what would you have them do differently?

And in what ways would you like to see the tradition "challenged"?

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:50 AM

"I am involved in the music business..."

I thought so.

Catherine, if you love English traditional music, why don't you share your love by providing links, posting lyrics and tunes, discussing performers you enjoy?

I love music, and that's what I do.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:49 AM

I thought I'd do a bit of Googling.

'With her gleaming and powerful voice Catherine Foster is a truly impressive Brunhilde'

Is that you?

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:47 AM

"if it continues to be curated by out of touch, defensive historians"

Kinda curious on this. Are you referring to those people more generally who voluntarily organise school days and traditional music workshops and the like, or the EFDSS in particular, or else those who organise bigger events such as the folk festival that irked you?

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: GUEST,Catherine Foster
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:41 AM

Hello,

Sorry I haven't responded sooner, but I have been without internet access for a while. I'm surprised but heartened to see my posts (tirades) have encouraged such reaction. In reply to some comments

I didn't mean to single Bellowhead out specifically, although they do seem to be flavour of the month at the moment. Must be the new record. In fact on the whole their collective ensemble seems to have more musical ability than most - I'm not sure individually I can say the same though.

I don't think the tradition is mediocre (yet), although if it continues to be curated by out of touch, defensive historians and isn't challenged then it certainly has the potential to be (and I don't believe it's being challenged at the moment)

When I describe the musicians I did as mediocre (and there are many more to add to that list) I stand by that. This scene encourages below standard music making and, at it's best, is no better than the eager amateur. Those lucky enough to be able to headline a folk festival are still only at the top of a rather sad and undernourished tree. It's all relative. They would not cut it in any other genre (in my opinion).

I love English traditional music and am exceptionally passionate about it, I just think the current scene is so full of itself and happy to accept the level of performance presently available that it is in more danger than ever of being consigned to history (regardless of this new "revival" the media likes to pat it on the head for)

To clarify, I'm not jealous, vindictive a WUM (whatever that is) or a troll. I am involved in the music business, but not directly with folk music. I am however disillusioned and thus sightly grumpy


Catherine

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: theleveller
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:34 AM

Er, me that is, Will - not you!

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: theleveller
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:33 AM

"Don't worry, Leveller - you can be like me: old, ugly - and immensely talented..."

Well, two out of three - unfortunately, not the right two!

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 11:32 AM

Catherine Foster wrote "... Shrewsbury FF is a FOLK FESTIVAL. It appeals to folkies and within those hallowed, insular walls each and every one of them can feel comforted that their mediocre tradition is safe in the hands of the even more mediocre Kerr, Fagan, Sartin, Hield, Kerfuffle, Causley etc."

Well, folks, I find it odd that Catherine, who seems to despise folk music, can rattle off so many names. If she doesn't like it, why is she so absorbed in it?

(I, for example, dislike rock music. I don't listen, I don't pay attention to it, and I could name you only one rock musician. Jim Morrison. For some reason I've heard of Jim Morrison. He's dead, I believe.)

I can think of only one reason for Catherine to dislike the music but know all the people. And that is that she's employed in the business. She's somebody's agent, girlfriend, publicist, or roadie. And as such she has a hidden agenda. I don't know what it is, but I'm prepared to ignore her opinions of music.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Dave Sutherland
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 10:58 AM

"Are you calling Catherine Foster a nasty, vindictive, grumpy git?"
I'd be more inclined to call her/him a WUM who has achieved exactly what they set out to do.
From her initial postings on the Bellamy thread I suspect that this person is a newcomer to the scene who quite possibly has only been to the one festival as all the artiste she lists were on at Shrewsbury.
Is the autumn the season for trolls and WUMs?

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Will Fly
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 10:37 AM

Don't worry, Leveller - you can be like me: old, ugly - and immensely talented...

(Gets coat).

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: theleveller
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 10:34 AM

"The individual members of Bellowhead and Nancy Kerr, Jim Causley etc are immenseley talented, young and beautiful...."

You're right. I hate you! HATE YOU! HATE HATE HATE YOU!!!!! (Sob!)

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 10:21 AM

enough to get up the nose of any nasty, vindictive, grumpy git (of which there are many) on here!

Are you calling Catherine Foster a nasty, vindictive, grumpy git?

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 10:20 AM

Alright Rachel, you scrub up pretty well, no need to gloat.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Yvonne
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 10:12 AM

Jealousy....pure and simple.

The individual members of Bellowhead and Nancy Kerr, Jim Causley etc are immenseley talented, young and beautiful....enough to get up the nose of any nasty, vindictive, grumpy git (of which there are many) on here!

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:51 AM

I meant to add that the anti-Bellowhead, or indeed anti-Unthank, anti-Causely or anti-any-other-young-bugger, goes back a lot further on Mudcat than this thread.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:43 AM

What I admired BP, is her willingness to voice a strong opinion without feeling the desire to elaborate. Most of the stuff that passes itself off as judgement, even discernment on Mudcat, is opinion in a frilly hat. I like Bellowhead enough to attend their concerts and buy their albums while respecting the opinion of those who might think Bellowhead are a complete crock. What makes my heart sink is the direct or covert inference that the folk revival is a branch of history. It's a genre, no more, no less and as such you like it or you don't.

I may have indirectly answered your question Howard, but it'd proven to my satisfaction that a lot of folk music performances (we won't argue numbers) are versions of earlier revival performances. How much that matters depends largely on how much value one attributes to the original (sic) delivery.
I feel I know what the poster meant by Bellowhead having pretentions, I happen not to be disturbed by what they are pretending to, which is a modern spin on some old classics.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Brian Peters
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:18 AM

"I do wonder why Bellowhead raise such ire on this board? Their musicianship and that of many new folk acts is beyond reproach"

One poster on this thread said they were "horrible". Another didn't care much for what he'd heard, but was prepared to give them another chance. Everyone else defended them. Most of the other comments I've ever read on here about Bellowhead have been positive.

The person who was really rude about Bellowhead and several other new folk acts was, of course, Catherine Foster. Yet you value her opinions so much, you offered to buy her a pint. Curious.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 09:11 AM

the pig-headed views of a small handful of Mudcat contributors

Could I respectfully suggest that when people posting elsewhere start pointing fingers at those awful, closed-minded, reactionary Mudcatters, posters on Mudcat refrain from joining in?

I've already pointed out the sad irony in Joan Crump and Ian Anderson rejecting the "not like those boring old folkies" shtick with which new acts are perpetually garlanded, then reviving it in the next breath so as to hang the BOF label on Mudcatters. It saddens and annoys me to see fRoots 'othering' Mudcat, so I certainly don't want to see Mudcat posters 'othering' this mysterious small handful of nasty people. Apart from anything else, who knows who Ian or Joan - or Spleen, for that matter - has in mind?

Department of Curious And Doubtless Meaningless Coincidences:

Ian Anderson, 3/10 3.52: 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

Ian Anderson, 3/10 5.02: I'm sure most readers will know exactly who I mean (by name and by type). Hence Joan's earlier remark. At least four of them are among the half dozen banned here for variations on offensive trolling.

fRoots forum registration page, 6/10: "Sorry, but this e-mail address has been banned."

I've written to the admin asking if they can explain (or, better still, unban). In the mean time, I'm finding it a bit hard to give remarks like Ian's the charitable reading which they probably deserve.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:47 AM

glueman, I'm more interested in your assertion that you "find most live and recorded folk music a bit derivative in performance terms" Derivative of what? Derivative of a certain style? "Folk" in its wider sense is defined as much by style of performance as it is by anything, so surely that is to be expected?

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:32 AM

Well as CF disappeared we shall never know. I do wonder why Bellowhead raise such ire on this board? Their musicianship and that of many new folk acts is beyond reproach, B'head members could do a fair impression of a Stax house band or a string quartet but choose English vernacular as their route.
Perhaps their accomplishment and versatility leads folkies to believe they're on their territory? Posters are fully entitled to ask her for an explanation of someone's viewpoint, but in the end its taste with varying degrees of erudition to back up the fancy, and CF's broadside shouldn't mark her out as less informed, neither should being informed matter a toss to appreciation.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: Will Fly
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:30 AM

Well, I was around - and performing in folk clubs - in the mid-60s and for a few years after. In the north and in London, mainly, and I met and jammed with quite a few of the performers of that time. And, as the esteemed Spleen says, all that was ever cared about was the music - and having a good time.

As you can see, I'm now very old and may have shortly to be put down for being an old '60s folk luvvie... In my defence, I should add that I also spent 10 years playing mainstream jazz, 13 in a 1950s rock'n roll band and 15 in a New Orleans/Memphis soul funk'n boogie band.

It's a good life if you don't strengthen.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:29 AM

We haven't booked all of the people on the list - Kerr, Fagan, Sartin, Hield, Kerfuffle, Causley - yet. But when we have booked some of them, the room has been generally packed out with people we don't see the rest of the time. Joe Public seems to be sitting up, standing up and hanging out the windows to take notice.

We've booked Boden and Spiers as well with the same result.

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: SteveMansfield
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:27 AM

4 star review for the new album in The Guardian.

This album is clever and enormous fun. - no mention of pretentiousness funnily enough ...

Subject: RE: 'More pretentious than Bellowhead'
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 06 Oct 10 - 08:24 AM

"The whole thing was created by 'haters'"

Obviously, as a mere slip of a middle-aged man, I wasn't around at the height of the folk revival in the sixties and seventies. But I've read plenty of books that cover it (most recently "Dazzling Stranger" - the Bert Jansch biography - and "Electric Eden" by Rob Young) and listened to plenty of the wonderful albums this era produced. I can't see how the likes of Bert Jansch, Nic Jones, Mr Fox, Anne Briggs, Shirley Collins, Peter Bellmay etc etc could possibly be described as "haters" - all sorts of human emotions are present in their work, but that's not the immediate one that springs to mind. I've sure the same could be said of most of the people who got pleasure from listening to their records or seeing them perform.

And in my admittedly local experience of people who were around at the height of the revival and are still involved in singarounds and folk events now, again I cannot possibly attatch the word "haters" to them. The one thing that shines more strongly than anything else is the absolute joy and pleasure singing, playing and listening to this music gives them. The thing is, it's all too easy to issue a blanket dismissal people online and forget we're dealing with real people with all their individual strengths and foibles.

So I'm with Les on this one.

I would respectfully suggest, G, that you're conflating the pig-headed views of a small handful of Mudcat contributors with the participants in the revival as a whole.