'Occupy English Folk Music!'

Subject: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:30 AM

YEAH!!!!!

Bring in The Singer Songwriters!
Modernise it!
Take it OFF The Holy Shrine of All That is Holy!

Let THE PEOPLE hear The New Traditionalists, for THEY are The 99%!!

:0)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,padgett
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:41 AM

Err what you on Lizzie? lol

Is the Holy (all that is) Traditional song?

Modernise it? In my view continue to create new songs which are not Navel gazing, but in the style of the Traditional songs

Is this anywhere near what you mean?

Ray

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:42 AM

There is a much easier way. Call contemporary acoustic music that (or some other suitable name) and continue to call folk music "folk music".

A but like Simon Cowell and "Rhythmix" (who are now called something else), really.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:43 AM

Ooops - a "bit".

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 06:27 AM

Lemme see . . .

I will try to predict some of the coming posts.

We've already had Navel gazer, so yet to be is sniger snogwriter and whining whatever. People who've moved along with the times will defend songwriters and then the thread will become a mess.

I agree that the term 'folk' does not belong in the same sentence as songwriter. The only author worth his/her salt is anonymous, unless that songwriter writes in a traditional vein. Myopia 101. The tunnel gets peered into from both ends and then people wonder where the light went.

IMO, which is as good as IYO.

Have a nice day. And don't wear a wrist watch when you sing. It's anachronistic, as are nylon strings.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 07:09 AM

FFS - it's not about relative merits.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 07:17 AM

True, Richard. But putting one down thinking it makes the other better is stupid. Happens lots on threads like this.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 07:43 AM

That unnamed guest was me.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:00 AM

When you were anon, your contribution was folk. You just blew it Bruce.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:02 AM

No, Al ~~ it was folk in style!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:10 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:11 AM

'Occupy English Folk Music!'
A provocative title, encouraging an entirely spurious debate. There has never been a time,   when music in all its forms has been as accessible in a wide variety of formats as it is at the present.
I regularly attend folk clubs and often sing classics by Edith Piaf, great new songs by the likes of Steve Earl, The Decemberists, Tom Waites. They seem to go down as well as the traditional ballads which I greatly enjoy singing.
If I felt the clubs I attend frowned upon this sort of material I would go elsewhere; there are plenty of other venues for live music.
Where, how, and what people play develops organically and this is as it should be.
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:22 AM

Provocative, John?

No, merely a bit of fun...

Come ON, lighten up a bit... ;0)

That's what gets me about the English folk world, you ain't allowed to have fun. If you do, everyone jumps on you....It's one of the reasons I've walked away from it all...where once, I used to really LOVE it.
I couldn't take the Folk StormTroopers any longer. ;0)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:51 AM

The Folk Police

One of my favourite sites.

(send me the fiver later, Nigel :-) )

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:59 AM

They are a figment of your imagination Lizzie. On Friday past, my band and I were asked to "Play some more of that rock and roll". It was Roud 126.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 09:01 AM

I hope you played the 1876 version of it, Richard...else.......

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 09:06 AM

Anyway, we'll all be marching on Cecil Sharpy House, with banners, tents and spare knickers, on Tuesday afternoon, to Take BACK the Music.

We, The 99%, or, if Bruce comes too, the 999&, will be bringing guitars, drums, singers, songwriters, some that do both AND play, all at the same time...and we shall be singing traditional songs back to front, upside down and inside out, with a funky rock beat booming out....

We will also be singing MANY songs from The New Tradition, which has no rules, regulations, legal documents, legal dates, professors, pedants or pains in the arses attached to it..

So there! ;0)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 09:06 AM

The problem as I see it from this side of the Atlantic--I have always detested the quaint 'this side of the pond' phrase--is that when the Folk Scare of the later 1950s and 1960s took place, music was being written as a method of putting lyrics with 'deeper' meaning into songs. People got tired of somewhat vacuous words/lyrics and that was the beginning of the end for what was loosely called pop in those days--at least the end for many folks.

We can all recall songs that 'punched the ticket' for us in various eras of music: for me the 1940s was encapsulated by such pieces as In the Mood. The '50s by Brenda Lee and later Holly. The '60s saw a split even further. People like Dylan came along and put content into songs for a seemingly disenfranchised generation. Ochs and Paxton added teeth to what became 'protest' songs, and it got labelled folk. Hell, I didn't name it folk. It got named folk.

Most acoustic songwriters I know who do not write in the so-called traditional vein hate the appellation 'folk'. It's a kiss of death, and it doesn't at all describe the music. Those who love traditional music (and there are many songs in the traditional area I love) have the right not only to do so but also the right to be proud of the tradition. However, denigrating the work of one set of songwriters does nothing but make musicians look cheap.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 09:08 AM

Well said, 999! x

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 09:24 AM

Bruce ~ You might be interested in following from Michael Quinion's World Wide Words. I was surprised at the age of the term "The Pond" for the Atlantic~~

Q From Ari: Would you happen to know how the term the big pond came about in reference to the Atlantic ocean? The inference obviously is that it's a humorous and ironic label, but do you know the history?

A For enlightenment here, I turned to the Second Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, which has quite a lot of notes on big pond and its variations, such as great pond and herring-pond.

The sayings are surprisingly old, with the first example of great pond being recorded in 1641 and herring-pond in 1686. Early examples are all from writers in various British North American colonies and so it's reasonable to suppose that the expressions originated there.

After all, aside from the comparatively few sailors who travelled these waters, colonists would have been the people most aware of the size of the Atlantic Ocean. After you had survived the stormy and protracted sea crossing from Britain, you either tried to forget about it or you made a joke of it.

~M~

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: foggers
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 09:34 AM

Darn it, I just sold my pop up tent; otherwise I'd be there in the midst of the struggle to free us from the po-faced folk police, whether they are figments of me imagination or not.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 09:38 AM

I made a bet with myself before opening this thread. I was right...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 09:40 AM

Michael, thank you for the post. It's the present-day usage (affectation) that grates my cajones. My grandmother and grandfather both crossed 'in steerage' earlier in the twentieth century, and so far as they were concerned, the Atlantic was a term always preceded by 'that bloody'. My grandfather was sick for a week and my gran for half a fortnight.

Perhaps detest was too strong a word. Dislike would be more apt. Hope I caused no one any offence.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 09:41 AM

BTW, I feel that way about the term 'veggies'.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 09:59 AM

Have you STILL not got it Lizzie? The form is fluid. There is no need for an "1876 version" as a matter of style, although the exact words at different times can be interesting (eg Pretty Peggy of Derby) as can the joinder of words with other tunes (eg the Carthy/Swarb "Byker Hill" - or Willie of Windsbury).

Maybe I should counter-march, with "Reclaim English Folk music" in the style of "Reclaim the night" or even "Slutwalk".

I'll play folk songs - rocked up or not as I please - and I'll also play things that aren't - again rocked up or not as I please, I could probably upset many with my take on "Sally Free and Easy" - but what I would not do is to confuse one for the other.

Perhaps if you'd paid attention at school...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 10:03 AM

Dear Richard, The six letter "S" word. What were you thinking about?
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 10:10 AM

Oooooo 'eck, don't get me started on the Slutwalk again...

Now come ON, Richard, you're always going on about the 1947 version of what Folk Music is, as it was laid down in 1929 an' all...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 10:23 AM

Ah, but what IS folk music? (Runs away laughing insanely.)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 10:36 AM

I need a Facebook 'like' button, levels!! :0)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 10:46 AM

Lizzie, why is it that the threads you start that you claim are all in fun and intended to lighten things up a bit all take a pretty serious dig at other people? You seem to be upset about the way many people approach traditional music, and rightly inveigle against putting down other peoples' music. Maybe you should take your own advice and not be so dismissive of traditional music lovers. You might consider learning a thing or two about how people REALLY feel about and play traditional music. You could start by re-reading everything Richard Bridge has written in this thread.

Your bit of fun is doing exactly the thing your that your bit of fun is complaining about.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 10:50 AM

which laid the foundations for 1954. If you were told what folk music is, you'd have to be killed and your remains buried beneath the floor of the basement of Cecil Sharp House

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:07 AM

Nooo, John, I used to *be* one of those who adored traditional music, but er.....I was hanged, drawn and quarterd for it.....to the point where they'd actually rejoice at having my remains to view, but would refuse to bury them within Cecil Sharpy House, due to the fact I might contaminate the building...

BTNG, I'm chuckling...

Any moment now there'll be so many complaints about this thread that, just as happened yesterday in The Amazon Rainforest with 'Occupy Belo Monte' they'll be sending in the 'Shock Troops' to disperse those who dare to try to 'Occupy English Folk Music'.....

;0)

Come on, John, lighten up...it's what English folk music needs, honestly...

Singer Songwriters! Forward Ye, with Humour! Hold Thy Happy Banners High!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:21 AM

If you do, everyone jumps on you....

That is something I have never seen happen in a folk club or folk session.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: r.padgett
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:25 AM

Flippin 'eck

Ray

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:27 AM

Kevin, you've never been to the Mosh Pit Folk Club.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:38 AM

So, we replace traditional English folk music with something more modern, yet get very angry at anyone who wants to destroy the traditions of other cultures? Advocating the wholesale destruction of English culture is a bit fun but trying to replace the culture of one-legged , blind, dyslexic, lesbian Walloons (or whoever is in vogue at the moment) is a mortal sin? Anyone mentioned the term ironic yet? :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:47 AM

I don't want to occupy folk music. The renovations would take too long and I'm not getting any younger. In fact, parts of it would have to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch to make it habitable - and you'd probably never get permission to put in decent plumbing or central heating. No, I'd rather stay in my caravan on Singersongwriter Common listening to Ralph McTell singing Gypsy.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:48 AM

Why not just install a truth-in-advertising campaign? If people have the right to ding whatever they want, don't listeners have the right to listen to whatever they want?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:59 AM

With you 100% on that, Dick.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 12:08 PM

Perhaps we could have a Show of Hands on the merits of Lizzie's proposal to 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 12:11 PM

don't listeners have the right to listen to whatever they want?

This is the only sensible attitude toward the singer-songwriter/folk musician thing. In fact, it's the only reasonable attitude toward life in general . . .

Lizzie, painting all traditional musicians with a brush that only applies to a few is pretty much the same as saying all black folks can be defined by the actions of one or two. Would a thread based on that concept be lighthearted fun? C'mon, let's put white folks in charge of all the civil rights organizations! It'll be fun!

Do you really not get it?

I'm all for lighthearted fun, but rarely when it involves putting people in a pigeonhole of your own making and then laughing at them because you think they are in it.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 12:26 PM

I've been occupying folk music.

Week last Wednesday I went to Roy Bailey's birthday bash. He did singer singer writer stuff from a wide range of people.

Last weekend my wife and I went to and helped at and sold s/hand folk books at a singing weekend. Various sorts of singing - from traditional to modern singer-songwriter. Heard a great song about never being able to find a press-gang when you needed one!

Sunday night went to a different singing session.

Monday a mixed music and singing session.

Gig Thursday,

Last night I went to see and hear a young singer called James Findlay who sang and played fiddle, guitar and concertina across the wide range of this music. Tam Lin and Childe Owlet too!

From the audience there was a great song about closing down libraries and a Tom Waits song,

In between I produced and presented a radio show which included a long interview with Bob and Margaret Fagan (James Fagan's parents) They were into political songs, and still are.

Lizzie is that what you mean by "Occupy"?

Or are you simply talking round spherical objects about something you spend ages writing and whinging about on Mudcat about but rarely seem to do?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 12:28 PM

we're SO proud of you folkiedave, so VERY proud, name droppers never did impress me though

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 12:32 PM

Sheesh! (to use one of LC's favourite phrases). Another thread started on the premise that people who listen to British traditional music (Me! Me!) never listen to anything else and have some kind of jihad going on against all other music.

And that there are only two types of music.

When there's music this good in the world, who gives a shit about rerunning this same old story?: Omar Souleyman

Now I'm going to listen to some Peter Bellamy. After that maybe some Neil Young - then some Lynyrd Skynyrd for balance. Then I'll blast off to Jupiter with Sun Ra and come back down to earth with Mick Softley. Oooh! Life without limits...

(Anyone want to talk about Michael Chapman whilst we're on the subject of singer songwriters, by the way? A true genius...)

UK trad is one tiny corner of the music world. Many of the albums only sell a few hundred copies and no-one got rich off it. If you're going to occupy anywhere, choose somewhere less ridiculous. IMHO, of course.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 12:43 PM

Mike Chapman eh? Now there's a name... Saw him a few times at the Cousins. I believe he became a farmer. Still around though, and still playing, as far as I know.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 12:52 PM

"Another thread started on the premise that people who listen to British traditional music (Me! Me!) never listen to anything else"

I'm listening to Eric Clapton, Jack Bruce and Ginger Baker, you remember Cream, right? Perhaps a little Cyril Davies All-Stars, then Ralph Vaughan Williams and cap it all with Frank Zappa.

God, lifes wonderful isn't it? LOL

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 01:26 PM

Good heavens - the Cyril Davies All-Stars. Yes, I quite liked their stuff but it was a bit pickled in aspic in the 1940s version of blues, wasn't it? I liked it when blues progressed - but you see it was defined by a musical structure and that was retained. Folk music is not defined by musical structure as otherwise it could not be a global concept. And the 1954 definition (still the best I have seen) does not purport to set out requirements of style.

I'm sorry to others who have obviously been driven to distraction by LIssie's views on sex. I didn't realise that she had obsessed about slutwalk to the extent mentioned above. I think it is admirable. I suppose I should have guessed.

I don't suppose the idea of folkies jumping on each other would be complete without mentioning a former member of the (aptly named in this case) Loose Women morris side (they hail from the village of Loose, pronounced Loooooooooooooz, in Kent, who was expelled for bringing the morris into disrepute. I thought she deserved a medal, but I am to fat and old and ugly ever to have been invited to any of her parties - and MUCH to fat old ugly selfconscious and readily embarrassed to have gone even if invited.   And I'm not telling you who I know did go...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 01:28 PM

PS - it is "Slutwalk" that I think admirable.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 01:50 PM

Cyril Davies and the All-Stars were the dogs ballocks - a damned good hard-driving band, '40s or not. I still have their seminal EP "Country Line Special", etc. - and still play it.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 01:52 PM

Yes, well....you apparently love women dressed as sluts, Richard...
I want something far more them.

And yes, yes, I know they feel they 'have the right' to dress however they want and not get molested etc etc...but actually I happen to think that's dumbed down crap to be honest. I've never dressed as a slut nor do I ever intend to...too much self respect to flaunting various parts of me all over the place.

You want to see my Body?
Then you damn well see my Soul first.

And if you fuck with my Soul, you walk...faster than a Slut Walk Protest in pouring rain.

Right, that's Richard's Dose of Sex over for today.....

Now, where were we?

Ah, yes...

Well, so far Leveller's scored 20/10 for his posts 'cos they've made me curl up! xx << Leveller

As for some of the others, well the Show of Hands one was good John c...I liked that a lot.. lol


Earlier on, in another thread called 'What is Folk Music? This is!' I put in this man's music:

Robert Mirabal - Painted Caves

And most folks fell over sideways with laughter, telling me it wasn't folk music at all...not even when I put another link in to Robert playing just the flute, on his own..That wasn't 'it' either.

You see, were I sitting round a Campfire with the American Indians I would be welcomed, respected and treated with much dignity by them as they'd introduce me to their stories, their songs.

However...sadly, when I came to sit at The Campfire of English Folk Music, I had dung thrown in my face and then The Witch Hunt started...so you'll excuse me if I choose to sit with the American Indians a while....to get my Strength back and Spirit back.

There are some folks on here who took my deep love of this music and went out of their way to ensure that ANY artist about whom I wrote was ridiculed, reviled and made to feel that to have me daring to write about them was the absolute kiss of death...

Folk StormTroopers?

No, way too mild a world for The Witch Hunter Generals who tried to get me banned from every board going...

Maybe I'll settle for The English Folk Fascists, some of whom are in Folk Against Fascism of course, and hey, you gotta see the funny side of that one! ;0)

Then there was the ARSS Campaign, which we won't go into again...save to say it was a vindictive time where all singer songwriters were again, vilified and made fun of, as being second class musicians due to the songs they wrote and how they sang them..

No, I'm afraid 'Occupy English Folk Music' is still on...we'll just have to give 'levels' some Vitamins and get him all muscled up to fight the Good Fight in the name of Music For All!   

And now, I'm going back to Robert Mirabal and his beautiful folk music.....

:0)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:03 PM

Hey! A bit oif traditionalism after all. Well, I think it's traditional anyway. Can't do the tune here but the words go -

Jackanory, Jackanory, Jackanory...

Anyone know it?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:07 PM

I'll tell you a story
    About Jack a Nory;
    And now my story's begun;
    I'll tell you another
    Of Jack and his brother,
    And now my story is done.

The rhyme was first recorded when published in The Top Book of All, for little Masters and Misses around 1760.

Jackanory is also the title of the long running children's programme on the BBC

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:09 PM

Lizzie - well done. I doubt you have ever spoken so much horlicks in one letter before.

So where have you been occupying?

@BNTG - I think you missed the point.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:11 PM

BTW - The old Victorian collectors, including the venerable Mr Sharpe, seem to have had similar views on 'the noble savage' as they did on the noble English peasant. I wonder why they were so wrong about their own culture yet got it spot on about one so far away. If only we had stayed carving wood and skinning animals we could have been as good as our brothers across the water by now!

Maybe stronger rose tints are needed. Or maybe it is my medication...

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:15 PM

Yep, Lizzie, let's all leave our brains at the door and "occupy English Folk Music"! And when we're 'inside' let's all flounce about in our tie-dyed frocks (well, obviously not in my case!) and sesame- seed-shoes being all 'spiritual'.

Yeah! Down with Folk Fascism!! Up with airy-fairy bollocks!! Yeeeeaaahhh!!!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:20 PM

Dave the Gnome I must admit I'm not really paying attention there not being much to pay attention to other than a stitch n bitch session...how's the knitting going then?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:23 PM

Up with airy-fairy bollocks!!

Gosh that sounds like fun. Which folk club.....?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:25 PM

Lizzie - well done. I doubt you have ever spoken so much horlicks in one letter before.

So where have you been occupying? >>>>


I've been 'Occupying My Mind'....as opposed to others, who seem to permanently 'Occupy Their Arses'

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:32 PM

"If only we had stayed carving wood and skinning animals we could have been as good as our brothers across the water by now!"


Not at all. You have to have The Spirit to be as good as them. You have to understand about Mother Earth, our part in it, and know The Prophecies..many of which are coming true now, I'm afraid...

I tell you what, when you have the Spirit & Widsom of John Trudell, Chief Oren Lyons or Floyd Red Crow Westerman, come back and see me, and then, I may get my Respect Voting Cards out and give you a much higher score....

Oh, and when what is coming finally arrives, it will be the ones who know how to carve the wood, skin the animals and live in harmony with nature, who will be the ones who will be left tell the tale, so please, do not belittle them, learn from them.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:50 PM

"If only we had stayed carving wood and skinning animals we could have been as good as our brothers across the water by now"

now this phrase smacks of the typical patronising attitude of the Victorians to peoples of other lands.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:52 PM

I can't knit BTNG! Heaven forbid! I am one of the depraved, dim-witted, uncouth, morris-dancing skin-heads that occupies western society and lives off killing the puppies belonging to harmless, indiginous tribes.

The fact that I can write programs in shell and SQL; debug Unix and Linux servers; troubleshoot networks; actualy kill, skin and butcher animals; grow my own vegetables and cereals; construct a shelter that survived last winter and feed a family of 7 is obviously a complete untruth because I am not called 'Two Dogs Fucking' and I don't paint myself. Well, other than the odd bit of camo and the occasional spot of eye-liner.

Just figured out the rose tinted glass issue. It works far better at great distances:-)

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:54 PM

Oh yea - and glad you figured out that the phrase was a typical Victorian patronising attitude. Just the same as some people seem to want to retain over and above the much pleasanter traditions like music and dance.

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:55 PM

Patronising is, as Patronising does....

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:55 PM

So where have you been occupying? >>>>


I've been 'Occupying My Mind'

That explains it.

Just hang on folks and it'll be OK soon.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:58 PM

music and dance both trad and new woul be much better served if the so-called experts would be sit down, be quiet and let the rest of us enjoy the pastimes in our own way....after Ralph Vaughan Williams, I think it's time for a little Simon and Garfunkel LOL

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 03:03 PM

Spot on BTNG - There is room for all types of music. None is any better or worse than the other - Just different. Exactly the same as people. In the words of the esteemed Mr Dylan -

I've heard you say many times
That you're better 'n no one
And no one is better 'n you
If you really believe that
You know you have
Nothing to win and nothing to lose

I really, really people would get that message and not start arguments on the premise that one type of music or one type of person is better than another.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 03:38 PM

Lizzie, sex does not need a defence mechanism. It's sad that you are so threatened by it. Women can dress as they please and do as they please.

As to tribal traditions, the first thing the incomer has to do is to listen and learn. Playing a flute or a nose flute is not necessarily "folk". It might be. It might not be. It depends.

You have reaped as you have sown, in terms of hostility, because of the irrational and indefensible things you spout. There are no folk police, no folk nazis, no folk storm troopers - well, hardly any. Like Don Quixote, and with as much sense, you are tilting at windmills.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 03:53 PM

As they say on Downton Abbey, Lizzie's a damn pretty gel, and she would do a lot better wearing a mini skirt and cheering up the troops. In any case, she's a woman and these are serious matters - no need to bother her pretty little head about it!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 03:57 PM

The storm troopers have already arrived
stormtroop
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 03:58 PM

Big Al, I assume you are now running hard for cover.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:23 PM

I don't feel threatened by sex, Richard, but....I do feel kinda weird about men who'd rather see a woman dressed as a slut, than a woman who's dressed in a different manner, for call me narrow-minded, but I think the first would be entertaining his nether regions, whilst the second would be boring him bloody rigid.

I have a *brain*, Richard (yes, I hear you all)...and it's above my boobs, far more entertaining than them too, and unlike my boobs it isn't heading downwards at such alarming speed, so it's far more entertaining to dabble and dance with!

Once women DID dress as they wanted to. Now they dress as they've been brain-washed to dress, as sluts...and it starts when they're very tiny, sadly...

And as I've said before, I don't do the 'sex' thing, I do the 'Love' thing, so there....Sticky out tongue, in a non-sexual manner, smiley.


Folkiedave...I hear the Turnip Season is extraordinarily good this year. Gather them in while ye can and put them in your special place where the sun don't shine, for ye may keep them longer that way and the Recession is upon us, after all...

Johncharles!! I KNEW it!! See! Didn't I tell y'all!! Ha! I think that link is deserving of a Kiss! xxx

Now, Big Al, WHERE do I start with you???? I would say 'Bend over!" but somehow, I think that could be the wrong thing to come out with! 'Tis lucky for ye that you're a FB friend of mine, that's all I'll say...and I'll let you off this time, as you quietly endure my numerous postings in relative good humour.

Oh great, StormTrooper Morris Men! That's made my evening! :0)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:29 PM

but I think the first would be entertaining his nether regions, whilst the second would be boring him bloody rigid.

I really hope that was intentional and that there is no point in commenting the two are the same:-) But I sadly suspect that the humour displayed in the OP is limited to mocking those who disagree with them :-(

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:31 PM

Oh..and Richard, I've always had a soft spot for Ol' Man Quixote..


"And the world will be better for this, that one woman scorned and covered with scars, still strove with her last ounce of courage, to reach the Unreachable Star....of English Folk Music

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:32 PM

"Good heavens - the Cyril Davies All-Stars. Yes, I quite liked their stuff but it was a bit pickled in aspic in the 1940s version of blues, wasn't it?"

I saw them at the London Marquee Club. His band were some of the best gigging musicians of that time - Carlo Little, Ricky Brown etc who only a couple of weeks before had been Lord Sutch's Savages!!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:36 PM

All right Lizzie, since you sum it up so perfectly - you are very narrow minded.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:38 PM

Carlo Little

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:39 PM

oops that guest was me, cookie went west...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:09 PM

Narrow minded? Nope. I simply have self-respect, haven't detached the sexual part of me from my Soul, and refuse to be brain-washed by dodgy folks who want to see all women and young girls dressed as sluts...

And now, back to Occupying whatever it is we're er...occupying... :0)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:19 PM

Folkiedave...I hear the Turnip Season is extraordinarily good this year. Gather them in while ye can and put them in your special place where the sun don't shine, for ye may keep them longer that way and the Recession is upon us, after all...

Lizzie - you clearly know as much about turnips as you do about folk music.

The weather has been awful for turnips this year.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:21 PM

Not down here...I'll send you some..

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:29 PM

Lizzie, some foul-mouthed nutter has started imitating your posts and apparently is occupying your mind.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:30 PM

"You have to understand about Mother Earth, our part in it,"

Actually Lizzie, I think I do know a bit about that. I've read widely on the subject and have observed my local patch in great detail.

Mind you I haven't got round to driving whole buffalo herds off cliffs, like the Arikara, in North Dakota, did in the 19th century. They used to take what meat they needed and leave the rest to rot in a great, stinking pile.

I've never really understood this thing about Native American 'spirituality'. After all most of the tribes were primarily interested in warfare and were not above slaughtering their enemies to the last child. I often get the impression that when the West was being invaded by Anglo-Americans the various tribes were much more interested in fighting each other than in resisting the invaders.

Anyway, I'm not really sure what any of this has to do with English Folk Music or 'occupying' it.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Crowhugger
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:38 PM

Lizzie you've sure got the knack for a thread topic that pushes people's hot buttons...this thread may hit 100 posts in under 24 hours. This is my bit to help it along.

Spleen C., I enjoyed the sojourn to Syrian music, thanks!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:48 PM

Thank you, Crowhugger. ;0)    (shhh...they love me really) lol

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:51 PM

Crowhugger, Mr Souleyman is the buisness!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 06:00 PM

I'll do my bit too.

(shhh...they love me really)lol

It's a bit more than lol -

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

DtG

Oh - Forgot to say

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 06:17 PM

I see we have Dave The Troll in the house

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 06:58 PM

Well DaveTG you've made me laugh.

BNTG - you are the sort of friend Lizzie likes. Why not set up a series of web pages together?

She's bound to leave Mudcat promising undying love if you did that.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 07:41 PM

BTNG - Definition of Troll -

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

I suggest you look back through the post to see who who started the topic, who wanted to 'provoke readers' and check whether my post was off-topic. Although I suspect you know the answer.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 07:54 PM

Ah, I see The Terrible Turnip Twins have been busy whilst I've been away.

Don't you just love The English Folk World....it's so....so...chummy.

It's getting almost as bad as those poor folks from 'Occupy The London Stock Exchange, wait a moment, no, St. Paul's Catherdal' had to deal with when The Great West Doors were slammed shut...

I'd love to stay and chat, but you'll have to excuse me, as Robbie Robertson is calling.....

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 07:56 PM

I think all live music should be encouraged. The term folk seems to me to be a broad church and long may it remain so.
I like sad ballads
bonny george campbell
lovers for a day
Songs separated by several hundred years but, both, in their way addressing issues about the human condition.
This is folk for me.
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:06 PM

Oh and your post that goes on forever hha etc is perfectly acceptable..riiiiigghhhttt now I get it

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:08 PM

"I still remember a phrase from the Daily Telegraph obituary of the man, to the effect that people who view the folk scene as jolly people in arran sweaters clutching pints and singing lusty choruses etc. etc. would be surprised by its capacity for 'vituperative intolerance'." - G-Force on the Peter Bellamy thread.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:11 PM

OMG! Yet another act discovered by our resident scout! What will be next? Rock and Roll? I would have posted earlier but I am just back from an excelent hour of new talent at the Deaf Institute. I guess seeing as no-one on the open mic is worthy of name dropping I will just say that there was not a brown shirt in sight. I would have gone for longer but I do actualy work for a living and need to get up. Sad isn't it, but some of us do:-(

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:17 PM

Oh and your post that goes on forever hha etc

Around 60 lines is not exactly forever but considering the company we keep I suppose it is a bit to much to expect some people to concentrate that long:-)

Thank you for pointing that out.

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Oct 11 - 08:38 PM

Holy sh#t. There were but forty or so posts when I left at noon to go to a house concert to hear Crabtree and Mills. (Great sets, good songs and wonderful people.) I am so pleased that people were able to find some common ground in my absence. Please carry on. Thank you.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 01:25 AM

Next stop: Occupy pow-pows!
Goddamn Navajo wouldn't let me play my djembe in their drum circle. They don't even play the "real" Navajo music anyways, just some crap they *consider* to be traditional. That alone entitles me to play my djembe in funky rhythms (not their lame four-square beats).

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 01:40 AM

What crap. Drummers don't know shit. They drum.

How does THAT feel.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:42 AM

I love this thread - it reminds me of the Monty Python 'Argument' sketch. I think Lizzie's tongue was in her cheek when she started it but in tseems that some posters have got their heads firmly lodged between theirs.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 07:37 AM

I think Lizzy's got a point. We should occupy English folk music with lots of ladies in mini skirts. If you ask me, when Mary Hopkin and July Felix were on telly a lot and you got the occasional glimpse of gusset, that did a lot more for folk music than all this Cecil Sharp crap.

Well done Lizzy! Lead by example, and give us all a flash! I'll mount the barricades with you - if you go up first. I'll be right behind you - elbowing the others out the way.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:06 AM

Stobbit! You rascal!!   lol

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Mayet
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 08:49 AM

@ Lizzie Cornish 30 Oct 11 - 01:52 PM

I happen to support Folk Against Fascism which I feel is a responsible organization set up by sincere people who were prepared to do something more than parrot swear words on a forum to combat the abuse of English folk performers recordings ('traditional' or 'singer songwriters') by an extreme rightwing/racist organization.

Your description of some members as 'The English Folk Fascists' is gratuitous, nasty and certainly not in any way 'funny' if you really believe that just adding 'LOL' makes it so that rather indicates a lack of respect for others intelligence. (Not so much 'tongue in cheek' than sticking the tongue out.)
But if, in its transparent provocation, it's typical of your posts I can well understand why you may have been removed from forums not quite so 'deregulated' as this one.

I have visited a Native American reservation, not some reconstruction for the benefit of tourists and spoken to the real people not some myth - have you?
If not, I can certainly understand the reference to your concept as being reminiscent of the patronizing 'Noble Savage' viewpoint but, I'm at a loss to the motive for introduction into a thread about English folk music.

I think I have seen too much much of your 'soul' as I would wish.
big **g**
Please put it away now, there's a good girl. LOL

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 09:09 AM

The weather has been awful for turnips this year.

Good weather for stone fruit this year...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 09:29 AM

Mayet,

With due respect, you know nothing of the story. I won't put it down *again*, but suffice to say, I stand by my words that there are a few concerned with Folk Against Facism who have behaved like fascists towards me and others, I'm sure. They do the English Folk World a grave injustice, but then, until the English Folk World sorts out those who seek to keep others away, who belittle other musicians, or make their lives a misery by degrading their talents, purely because it does not come onto their radar, then this small world will remain small, not only in numbers but in thought and mind.

And with regard to having visited an American Indian Reservation, no I have not done so, for I live in England, however, I am in touch with some very kind, wise and decent American Indians and Native People, via Facebook..and I have far more respect for them than many in the EFW who have behaved as they have towards me, and others.

So, I'll say to you, with the utmost respect, it is very difficult for you to make a comment when you do not know precisely what has gone on for many years.   And whilst I appreciate the ethos of FAF, (who wouldn't?) I refuse to be a hypocrite and join something that is run by folks for whom I have no respect whatsoever.

Thank you again and I hope you enjoy your time with FAF and the English Folk World...and I apologise if my humour is not your humour, but I'm afraid that's something which is also lacking within many parts of the EFW, but I refuse, point blank, to give up my humour, my merriment, my way of being who I am, purely to 'fit in' with the rules and regulations laid down by a domineering minority.


So, onward and upward!

And as one of Bo-Peeps little followers would say......

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 09:31 AM

Oh fook, wrong link! But then, maybe it was just as well....... ;0)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 09:50 AM

Oh...and Mayet, if I may draw your attention to some of the derisory comments from some folks about music they deem not folk, in this thread:

'What is Folk Music? - This is'

Thank you.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 10:17 AM

I happen to support Folk Against Fascism...
good for you Mayet, good for you, My opinion is that they're simply the opposite side of the coin to the BNP, both trying to gain, without any qualifications, the moral high ground in British culture.

Now run along, there's a good boy/girl, I hear your mummy calling you (must be bedtime)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 10:41 AM

I have visited a "reservation" called "Foxwoods" near Norwich, M.A. It is a casino like they are going out of fashion. I understand the Indian nation are allowed to run these establishments with extremely favourable taxation rates, if any. It is a superb venue with hotel, restaurants, gaming rooms and everything you would expect to find in a casino.They ship in coach loads of Chinese, 24/7, to relieve them of their dosh at games which I feel only the Chinese can understand ( all the writing around and on the table was Chinese).
       Good luck to the tribes associated with these places because the money that can be earned for good causes must run into millions.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 11:02 AM

You are all being very nasty and patronising to Lizzie../// I do not approve of this at all. Lizzie is a lovely. I have long cherished an ambition to get her to run away with me to the nudist colony. And there we will talk subversive folk music, and I will get to grips with her fiery radicalism.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Folkiedave
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 11:11 AM

I don't know when you last went out, Lizzie, and had a listen to what's around the clubs these days. It's not the music that stuck in a museum - the old songs are as lovely as they ever were - and it's all down to the way in which they placed in front of the audience and to the skill of the performer From the very sensible Will Fly.

Now Lizzie - let's put this to the test, which of those people on that thread "What is Folk Music" are members of Folk Against Fascism Go on name names. No chance of you being sued.

And by the way - you forgot to tell us how one of the members of Show of Hands asked you to stop talking about them in the way you did.

Watch out for tomahawks.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 11:15 AM

and watch out for the knife in the back, you just never know, do you?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 11:36 AM

"Now Lizzie - let's put this to the test, which of those people on that thread "What is Folk Music" are members of Folk Against Fascism Go on name names. No chance of you being sued."

I never said they were. I said *this*:

"Oh...and Mayet, if I may draw your attention to some of the derisory comments from some folks about music they deem not folk, in this thread:"

I was merely using that thread to illustrate the strange behaviour, where instead of folks coming in saying "Hey, that's good" (although some did and thank you for that) they come in knocking it, left, right and centre, being spiteful and nasty...

As for you obviously wanting to 'embarrass' me over Show of Hands, that won't work either. Paste the letter in here, if that's what floats your boat. Again, all you will do is illustrate to others exactly WHY we, The 99%, need to Occupy English Folk Music, to rid it, once and for all of The Spiteful, Spitting Turnip Heads who, although only a minority, delight in making life, or rather *trying* to make life as nasty as they can for others whom they do not like, for whatever reason...

Now, if you'll excuse me, Robert Mirabal is calling...
Thank you..

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 11:37 AM

Al, you do make me chuckle! I know it's not allowed, but.... ;0)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 11:40 AM

Oi - Whittle - no! She's mine, I tell you - all mine...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 11:44 AM

Folkiedave - youy tried that stunt with me. Name names.....! No. A thousand times no.

We know these people, we like them, we've grown up with them. We mourn when they die.

But we don't agree with their opinions and the restrictions they observe about folk music. Our opinions differ. Its allowed.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 11:53 AM

Ena Sharples!!! THAT'S who folkiedave reminds me of!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 11:57 AM

It's not folk but ray davies always knows when to say the right wor....

so...

Granny's always raving and ranting
And she's always puffing and panting
And she's always screaming and shouting
And she's always brewing up tea

Grandpappy's never late for his dinner
Cause he loves his leg of beef
And he washes it down with a brandy
And a fresh made cup of tea

Chorus:
Have a cup of tea, have a cup of tea
Have a cup of tea, have a cup of tea
Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah, Rosie lea
Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah Rosie lea

If you feel a bit under the weather
If you feel a little bit peeved
Take granny's stand-by potion
For any old cough or wheeze
It's a cure for hepatitis it's a cure for chronic insomnia
It's a cure for tonsillitis and for water on the knee

Chorus

Tea in the morning, tea in the evening, tea at supper
Time
You get tea when it's raining, tea when it's snowing
Tea when the weather's fine
You get tea as a mid-day stimulant
You get tea with your afternoon tea
For any old ailment or disease
For Christ sake have a cup of tea

Chorus

Whatever the situation whatever the race or creed
Tea knows no segregation, no class nor pedigree
It knows no motivations, no sect or organization
It knows no one religion
Nor political belief


LOL

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 12:17 PM

"I was merely using that thread to illustrate the strange behaviour, where instead of folks coming in saying "Hey, that's good" (although some did and thank you for that) they come in knocking it, left, right and centre, being spiteful and nasty..."

Oh! You mean criticism, Lizzie! Yes, very nasty, criticism! Why would anyone need criticism when everything's so spiritual and floaty and lovely?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 12:24 PM

this isn't criticism is it, I mean, come on, own up, it's not REALLY criticism is it...? it's just being plain spiteful...*hands out dictionaries to those who are English language challenged*

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 12:55 PM

I don't think anyone on this side of the divide is into diss-ing one of our colleagues artistic endeavours, and lifetime's work.

But we're allowed not to agree that the 'traditional' folk is the only valid means of expression for English folksingers.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 01:08 PM

And by the way - you forgot to tell us how one of the members of Show of Hands asked you to stop talking about them in the way you did.
The above statement is completely irrelevant.
I do not agree with Lizzie, but she is entitled to her opinion, without being attacked in this way by a bully.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Folkiedave
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 01:18 PM

And as I've said before, I don't do the 'sex' thing, I do the 'Love' thing, so there....

I hope you'll both be very happy.

As for you obviously wanting to 'embarrass' me over Show of Hands, that won't work either.

You did that yourself Lizzie which is why SoH wrote a cease and desist letter.

Al it isn't a stunt. As far as i am concerned Lizzie can like what she likes, when she likes and where she likes. She and you can like whatever music you like. Only when you feel there is some sort of conspiracy stopping you doing that - when there isn't - do I feel like contradicting you. Lizzie simply starts off these threads as a chance to feed her paranoia.

Mostly I ignore these days - as I did on the thread she refers to above - but there are times when she spouts so much horlicks and there are people who don't realise she has a lot of history that feel the need to point it out.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 01:20 PM

I made the mistake at one point in thinking Folkiedave was a nice person with some talent, I was wrong, he isn't a nice person and the only talent he does have is bullying others and being thoroughly spiteful individual.

I was right he does remind me of Ena Sharples.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 01:43 PM

BTNG said: "My opinion is that they're simply the opposite side of the coin... both trying to gain, without any qualifications, the moral high ground in British culture.".

One is a political party deeply rooted in fascism who attempted (unsuccessfully, it should added) to annex English folk music as part of their political agenda. The other is a broad non-party political coming together of folk musicians, fans and music biz types to let people know about this and to say "no" to it. They certainly aren't two sides of the same coin by any definition.

***

Now I'm out of here. The thread is running its predictable course, on both sides of the coin...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 01:47 PM

I say no to both

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Banjiman
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 01:56 PM

"One is a political party deeply rooted in fascism who attempted (unsuccessfully, it should added) to annex English folk music as part of their political agenda. The other is a broad non-party political coming together of folk musicians, fans and music biz types to let people know about this and to say "no" to it. They certainly aren't two sides of the same coin by any definition."

I think that this is the first thing that has been said on this thread that makes any sense at all (to me at least).

Amen Mr Cringe.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 02:02 PM

"You did that yourself Lizzie which is why SoH wrote a cease and desist letter."

If you want me to pour out everything, you won't get me to do it, for *despite* Phil writing that letter, I still choose to put their songs out there on the internet for others to see, to bring others into their music, the ethos of their songs.

I would suggest you do the same, as those songs are needed very much at present. I post them fairly regularly on the BBC Breakfast page, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy The London Stock Exchange, Occupy Canada, Australia and even The White House Facebook page....and ALWAYS they are greeted positively.

I'll leave you now to stew in The Stew Of Your Own Making.......

And thank you for demonstrating the spiteful bile that lies within The English Folk World.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Folkiedave
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 02:11 PM

I am with Spleen on this one.

And thanks for that Sam. I do love people who post under a variety of names.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 02:30 PM

you are not in any position to lecture anyone on any subject so please spare me your self righteousness...your true colours are loud and very clear...I won't make the mistake again

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 03:12 PM

We can only live the life we're given Dave, and why you choose to deny me the right to bear witness as to what I have seen and experienced, I don't know.

In private I can't think of any musician of note who doesn't agree with me, although many keep their mouths quiet on the subject because they are frightened of offending people who have the ability to block their career path.

Now - give it a break for godsake. Its something you won't experience, unless you are an innovative songwriter or musician. If you are - it will biff you on the nose.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 03:36 PM

What I'd love to find out is when "folk" became a synonym for "good". There's lot's of good music that's not folk; there's lots of bad music that is.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 04:31 PM

You are of course right Dick.

But Lizzie won't have it (in either sense of the words).   If she thinks it "sounds folkie" then it must be folk music. If she says sex can only be justified by love then it must be so. Regrettably she is so far from saying anything rational here or elsewhere in her views about folk music or folk-alike music that she deserves nothing other than being totally ignored on those topics, which I propose now to try to do.

FAF have never (as far as I now) made any judgement about what is or what is not folk music. Indeed most of the bands/performers I hear play in support of it are not "folk" as such at all. FAF was simply an opposition to racist fascistic movements seeking to occupy folk music (in the sense of largely traditional music) simply because it was white and English. It was a symbol, for them, of their racial identity. And that it is not.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Oct 11 - 06:47 PM

In private I can't think of any musician of note who doesn't agree with me, although many keep their mouths quiet on the subject because they are frightened of offending people who have the ability to block their career path.
I agree,furthermore I dont care whether it affects my career path, I came into this music because I thought it was music that was really about people expressing their creativity, rather than it being an item to be sold as a consumer commodity

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:53 AM

"the spiteful bile that lies within The English Folk World. "

I'm afraid that I'd have to agree with you on that one, Lizzie. When I came back into the folk scene 15 years ago after a break of 25 years, I was appalled at how factional and, in places, authoritarian it had become. I am, by nature, an anarchist - by which I mean that I dislike central authority in all aspects of life. One of the things that attracted me to folk music way back in the mid-60s was that it was young, vibrant, local, individual and even feral. Above all it seemed relevant - young people regaining their heritage from the old fogeys. Nowadays, at every level, right down to sessions and singarounds, there are all too often people who want to dictate how things should be run - even down to saying just what folk music is. Personally, I'm getting totally pissed off with it; it takes away the enjoyment, discourages newcomers - especially young people, who seem to be regarded as a nuisance (look at the The Butlins Folk Festival thread)- and, to be honest, is one of the reasons why I'm getting less and less involved in the folk scene. I can't be arsed any more with the boring bleating old traddies who seem to think that it's their music. So, should the rest of us occupy folk music? Unfortunately, the young, idealistic radicals who form the backbone of most demonstrations simply aren't interested in folk music. Hardly surprising, really.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:00 AM

A few weeks back I was listening to Judy Spiers, on BBC Radio Devon...She had a guest on, but I didn't catch his name (!!!) He was talking about the Folk world though, he was a singer, musician...and he was saying that back in the 60s he and Mike Harding used to sing in many folks clubs. These clubs were packed out, great to play in, great to be a part of.

Then, 'something happened' and he said they were taken over by humourless, controlling people with an axe to grind, which took the very heart out of the clubs, the audience and the musicians.

He sounded so sad about it, so pissed off too..and he said how many folk clubs have either now closed completely, or just limp along with a tiny audience....


Wish I could find his name! Although, maybe it's best not to, for I'm sure 'retribution' would come a-visiting.....


And yes, I too know musicians who are shit-scared of upsetting the controlling folks who seek to control the careers of so many..

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:07 AM

Interesting viewpoint, leveller, and I understand what you're saying. Actually, if you chassé to one side, away from the folk scene and into other musical scenes, it can be just the same story. I've seen huge arguments between jazz musicians about what constitutes jazz, with phrases like "mouldy figs" and "dirty bopper" passing into the currency. Try playing a wrong note or singing a wrong phrase in a Buddy Holly song in front of an audience of dedicated 1950s rock'n roll devotees. Some large ted with a scowl on his face may wander up to you and accuse you, with some justification, of not doing it right... I speak from experience.

It's a shame when passion for music, in any of its forms, becomes intolerance. I haven't encountered too much of that since I returned, now and then, to the folk world about five years ago, but it raises its scaly head now and then. I don't pay any attention.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:10 AM

Hey Lizzie - you're still here. I thought you'd run away to a nudist colony with that scoundrel Whittle... :-)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:16 AM

is Lizzie going to Fly with Will or jet off with Whittle? - to be continued.......

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:17 AM

LOL!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:19 AM

I was waiting for *both* of you, Will.... ;0)

After all, I'm still recovering from that much remembered 'A Night with Alan Day and Will Fly'

Phew! WHAT a night! ;0)


(that'll get Richard terribly excited!) ;0) x

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Banjiman
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:21 AM

Leveller, Lizzie,

You're painting pictures of the folk scene that only reflect part of the picture.

There are clubs out there that are still great......and well attended.

and anyway, if you're unhappy about the state of clubs, festivals etc why not start your own? Run it how you would like to see it run..... create it in the image of the great things you remember. You can do it if you really want to!

Paul

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:48 AM

Nowadays, at every level, right down to sessions and singarounds, there are all too often people who want to dictate how things should be run - even down to saying just what folk music is.

If you mean the organisers or with sessions and singarounds perhaps the regular group a) I don't see why thy shouldn't do this and b) I don't see anything new in this. I don't think I've been anywhere that hasn't had some limit somewhere along the lines as to what constitutes folk or is appropriate for their purposes at their event.

If you mean other people, I'm not sure that I've encountered it much in the real world but I am certainly aware of the topic at Mudcat.

In general, it seems to me that those with the more rigid what is folk ideas are happy enough for folk clubs, sessions etc. events each to run on their own terms. I do agree that some from the other side do not see each event having it's own limits as being reasonable though.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:13 AM

"There are clubs out there that are still great......and well attended."

Thereare indeed, Paul - and Kirkby Fleetham stands out as a rare pearl - only wish itwere closer.

As for starting my own club - it has been mooted but, at the moment, life's getting in the way. Anyway, off for a jam on Sunday with an old friend who's a brilliant guitarist. We'll see if anything develops but it will, at least, be FUN.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Banjiman
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:21 AM

"Thereare indeed, Paul - and Kirkby Fleetham stands out as a rare pearl - only wish itwere closer."

For once I wasn't trying to promote our own club (honest). I'll name others- Cottingham Live, Bodmin (not handy for you Lev, I know!), The Davy Lamp, Croydon, Horsham..... there are a lot more, and these just happen to be one's that I (or the better half) have been to!

It ain't half a s black as some would paint it!

Glad you'll be having some FUN!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:42 AM

"Nowadays, at every level, right down to sessions and singarounds, there are all too often people who want to dictate how things should be run -"

I assume that you mean that the organisers of sessions and singarounds want to dictate how things are run? And why on earth shouldn't they?! If I had gone to the trouble of setting up a session or singaround I would EXPECT, as my right, to have a say in how it was run. If someone flounced in to my session or singaround and loudly and shrilly (no names - no pack drill!)announced that I was doing it all wrong and that I was oppressing her (or him) by sticking to the session or singaround's stated policy I would tell her (or him) to f**k off!

I currently attend a Folk Club and a regular singaround. Both of these have clearly stated policies and I am perfectly happy to abide by those policies. That is how things work. As far as I can see a person who strongly disagrees with a particular club, session or singaround's policy should either go elsewhere or start their own club, session or singaround.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:42 AM

Discussions like this tend to be rather vague. I am still not sure of the kind of material which some are accused of finding unacceptable in a "folk" setting. I play in a trio which has played a number of local folk clubs and a typical set would be as follows
Millions Mister, Bonny George Campbell, Stagolee, Deportees, Amelia Earhart's Last flight, Darcy Farrow, Charlie Chaplin, Patrick Pearse, Roseville Fair, Miners Lifeguard, Wallace Hartley Titanic Band, Where no one stands alone, Now I'm easy, Bunny run, Burden Down.
A mix of old and new which seems to be well received. Sometimes it is not what you do but the way that you do it.
As for the constraints of some settings we have got round that one by starting our own session once a month in a local pub. We play what we want how we want but are also happy to oblige customers with requests if we know them. ( still not got round to learning duelling banjos) It is good experience playing to a wider audience. More taking the music out to people than bringing musicians into the folk setting.
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:42 AM

but it will, at least, be FUN.

But so would a night of melodoen (I seem to remember you hate these) playing be fun to those participating as would a night of unaccompanied traditional song to those participating. etc.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 06:58 AM

Well JohnCharles, I'd imagine if I was involved with running a folk club now, it would be fine even though these days I use a narrow "what is folk?" definition.

The point I'm trying to make here is that personally I do consider "how would I define folk?" and "what would I consider to be appropriate for this folk event?" different matters.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:13 AM

Jon, I think we are in agreement. it seems to me both in life in general, and also with respect to music that one of the duties of a guest is to respect their host.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:16 AM

It's weird. The folk club five minutes from my house meets weekly and is usually packed. It's mainly singer songwriters and cover versions with the odd trad song thrown in. A lot of the stuff I hear when I occasionally go there isn't my cup of tea - but people enjoy it and are having fun. There certainly aren't hordes of traddies bursting down the doors to close it down and tell people what they are doing isn't folk. And the club has organisers, but they don't impose anything on anyone, they just do things like ensure the club keeps going, because they want to give their time in this way. I suspect they quite like things as they are, but that's not a problem is it?

Meanwhile, the singaround five minutes in the other direction advertises itself as 'mainly but not exclusively traditional'. That's what it tends to be - you'll hear lots of trad songs - often unnaccompanied - but no-one tuts or leaves the room when Gordon sings Wheels On Fire with his guitar chugging away or Chris does a country and western parody with banjo backing. There's even the odd songwriter turning up and they always get a respectful hearing. The bloke who organises it (when he's not off around the world in his caravan) is encouraging, not authoritarian and gives his time freely because he wants the singaround to keep going. Again, he probably likes things as they are, but again that's surely not a problem. There's always a decent turn out.

Some people even go to both. Maybe (the horror! the horror!) they like a bit of variety in music. Both get a sprinkling of young people, if that's important, who are quite capable of making up their own minds about what they like.

So I guess I don't really recognise the picture that's being painted of authoritarian traddies shoving singer songwriters on the flames and dancing round their burning corpses. It doesn't happen in Chorlton, I tell you!

I wish when these vague and general comments about authoritarian types who destroy people's careers and generally make the folk scene a horrible place were raised, the people raising them could give specific examples. Otherwise I'll continue to trust my own experience. And I have changed my mind - I used to think the folk scene was crap when I first made the leap from listening to folk music on record to checking out live stuff, but now I think its just a bit odd - but often endearingly so.

Meanwhile, when I last saw Charlie Parr - a folk singer if I ever heard one - I was easily the oldest person there and could have been the dad of most of the audience (figuratively not literally, of course).

*******

By the way, I agree entirely with Leveller about the pathetic spectacle of the Butlins Folk Weekend banning kids. But I think that's a business decision and nothing to do with the lives of most folk enthusiasts.

*******

Gone again. I said I wasn't going to bother with tis thread anymore and I lied.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:27 AM

So I guess I don't really recognise the picture that's being painted of authoritarian traddies shoving singer songwriters on the flames and dancing round their burning corpses.

It's not a picture I've come across in my occasional perambulations around the country, to be honest - and never on the part of organisers of clubs, sessions, etc., who, on the whole, have been very tolerant of my nonsense. I have to say, however, that I've met one or two dogmatic and self-important characters from time to time who've insisted that "A" can only be played in the style of "X" and no variations are allowed. Tosh, of course, but you do meet them now and then...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Vic Smith
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:35 AM

Mr Fly,

May I remind you that I have booked you to play at my folk club on January 26th in the company of Mr. Day.

May I remind you, further, that the engagement can only go ahead if you are prepared to play "A" in the style of "X".

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:36 AM

Going back to Lizzies first posting...How can anyone "occupy" music? It's a bit like knitting fog IMHO.
Leaving all the discussions about running sessions/singarounds et al on one side for the moment. I would like to point out, that hideous place of "Died In The Wool" traddies (otherwise known as C# House.) presents regular concerts by new up and coming artists...God forbid, some of them are even young...and write their own songs! The sky is falling! What is the world coming to?
Now, what shall I listen to next. Sarah Makem or Extreme Noise Terror? Decisions, decisions...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:39 AM

Oh Bugger! Chief-Inspector V. Smith (Folk Police, Sussex) has felt me collar...

Please sir - it wasn't me, it was Day.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Vic Smith
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:45 AM

To Sir William Fly KG.

Are you trying to tell me that I don't know knight from day?

V.SMITH
Chief Inspector
Sussex Folk Police

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:55 AM

Sir William Fly, eh? I like it! I hope you introduce me as that on 26th Jan...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:57 AM

"KG", by the way, probably stands for "Knight of the Gutter".

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:03 AM

How come V.SMITH Chief Inspector Sussex Folk Police is the only one on here with a BLUE pencil?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Vic Smith
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:11 AM

John Charles asked:-
"How come V.SMITH Chief Inspector Sussex Folk Police is the only one on here with a BLUE pencil?"

It's to go with The Blue Lamp

'Evening All.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:18 AM

How come V.SMITH Chief Inspector Sussex Folk Police is the only one on here with a BLUE pencil?


Officers in the Folk Police are permitted to use colours to signify their rank.

J Freeman
Chief Constable
Norfolk Folk Police

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:20 AM

You can have a blue pencil too, Johnncharles. I found one Inspector Smith dropped.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:24 AM

Is this a folk record or not
eye witness
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:24 AM

Seriously, JohnCharles, do it like this:

<font color=blue>A blue pencil</font>

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Vic Smith
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:28 AM

Dear me, dear me.... rather a light shade of blue, wouldn't you say, PC Cringe? Not the regulation shade of Folk Police Blue at all, I'm afraid!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:34 AM

Like this?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:40 AM

We like to take a Softly, Softly approach up here in the Manchester Division, Inspector Smith. The real hardnuts are the dreaded jazz police. You should see our dress uniform, though!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Vic Smith
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:53 AM

PC Cringe wrote:-
"The real hardnuts are the dreaded jazz police."

You're not kidding! Once I was trying to keep up with the rhythm on a really fast piece a jazz band was playing. I wasn't able to keep up with the speed the others were playing at. I didn't want to miss any notes but I could feel that things were slipping. Before I knew it I was behind bars.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:55 AM

if it was jazz how would anybody know?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Banjiman
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:07 AM

ah.......... but was is Jazz?????

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:08 AM

where will it all end? this gratuitous use of colour and also may I say humour - allowing more than one guitarist into a music session, welcoming bohdran players, playing in tune banjos. The World turned upside down!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:31 AM

Ah....and now we're talking Those GORGEOUS Oysters at long last.... :0)

;0)

Are they 'folk'....or a little too zingy for the zimmers I wonder..?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:34 AM

Dear (Lord of the) Fly

I trust that when you lead the session at the John Harvey Tavern this evening you will play whatever you bloody well like however you bloody well like.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:38 AM

Too bloody right!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:42 AM

where will it all end? this gratuitous use of colour and also may I say humour - allowing more than one guitarist into a music session, welcoming bohdran players, playing in tune banjos. The World turned upside down!

Well it was fun but I see it's back to business as usual for this thread...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:47 AM

Where did it say we welcomed bodhran players? Did I blink and miss it?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:49 AM

Spleen Cringe

And I have changed my mind - I used to think the folk scene was crap when I first made the leap from listening to folk music on record to checking out live stuff, but now I think its just a bit odd - but often endearingly so.

I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.

Do you still think I'm a Folk Stalinist?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 09:49 AM

this evening you will play whatever you bloody well like however you bloody well like

Another club enforcing a policy ...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 10:00 AM

Jon OOps not meant seriously this one
"where will it all end? this gratuitous use of colour and also may I say humour - allowing more than one guitarist into a music session, welcoming bohdran players, playing in tune banjos. The World turned upside down!"
I own some guitars,a bass guitar, a banjo, a bodhran, a banjo, a ukulele, a melodeon, and an amplifier (the devils little helper).
I sometimes even get round to playing them.
If sussex wasn't so far away I would be on for the playing whatever you bloody well like session.
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 10:00 AM

Can you be, Snail? Just for me?

No, I don't, any more. That was how it appeared to me at the time. I was wrong and I'm sorry.

(PS my relationship with folk music is/was more complicated than I let on in the post you've quoted, but I don't want to turn this thread into one about me... Suffice to say I've met some very nice folk enthusiasts over the past few years and my previous opinion of that world - partly based on much earlier attempted forays into it - has changed).

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Mayet
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 10:02 AM

American Folk police St Patricks Day march

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,999
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 10:53 AM

Canadian Folk Police

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:08 AM

Actually, John, it's a mainly trad English session ('coz that's what we like doing). That edict was specific to Messrs Fly and Day. You'd be welcome anyway but leave the amplifier behind. The bodhran will be useful as a drinks tray.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:15 AM

Meanwhile, back in Chorlton, we're having a screening of the Blues and Gospel Caravan on Thursday at the Beech (where the singaround happens). Rumour has it that the session afterwards will include a fair bit of blues amongst the usual folky fayre. Broadminded? I fear this
may happen...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 11:17 AM

While my own English folk tastes go no further than the traditional canon, I'm in no hurry to share a room with others of similar mind. This is mainly because I believe what I like is no more than taste, it certainly carries no more authenticity, importance, status than a song by The Sweet or Girls Aloud and I wouldn't like to be in a confined space with anyone who thought it might.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 12:00 PM

Hi Spleen, could we settle for Kropotkin?

Drop in next time you're down this way.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 12:57 PM

I own some guitars,a bass guitar, a banjo, a bodhran, a banjo, a ukulele, a melodeon, and an amplifier (the devils little helper).

Not too far off what I own. 2 acoustic guitars (one needs repair though), electric 5 string bass, tenor banjo, mandolin, octave mandolin/mandola, G/D melodeon, B/C button accordion (not got my head round playing that).

A small amplifier was used by one of the people in an Irish session I go to. He seems to have cured whatever the problem was with his (Hathway - it's a nice instrument) mandola now but for some reason, for some time he was struggling to get volume out of it. For his purpose of getting his sound level in line with the others in the room, I thought it worked quite well.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 05:31 PM

Bad news the nudist colony rejected me - they said i was over qualified.

http://www.youtube.com/user/bigalwhittle?gl=GB&hl=en-GB#p/u/5/tPo2xjWYDUg



If you do succumb to Will's Fly charms, watch out for the whiskers.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 07:22 PM

That's a jaunty little number, Al!

Unfortunately, I think that I should warn you that persons of a lewd disposition might misinterpret it. They might possibly think that it's about large Italian penises rather than poloni sausages. It's up to you, of course, but, in the light of that observation, you might want to re-write it ... possibly ... ?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:54 PM

Its okay, Shimrod, I only play for people with refined characters, and of the highest moral standing. I think its important that folk music doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 05:32 AM

Too true, Al, too true!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 11:47 AM

The trouble with using "Tide" as a washing powder is that it tends to shrink the threads.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 11:50 AM

"I think its important that folk music doesn't fall into the wrong hands"

an hour too late and a pound short

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 03:54 PM

Oh, shit.
I see this has become another one of those threads. I'm getting lots of e-mails, asking why what this deleted, and why wasn't that deleted, and why don't we ban L..... C..... People, please ignore this thread. It's reserved for our usual nutters....

Actually, there are a number of very rational posts amidst the morass. Please ignore the nutter posts - there are too many to sort out. And you know, maybe if you see a thread titled "Occupy English Folk Music," you should be able to figure out it's going to be a stupid thread, and maybe you shouldn't take it too seriously.

I no longer handle "disciplinary" moderation. Max has appointed a new team to do that; and that gives me more time to do music research, which is my passion. I think you will find that the music research threads at Mudcat are as good as they've always been (and the stupid threads really aren't any stupider than they used to be). If you do have complaints or questions about "disciplinary" moderation, address them to [e-mail]. Better yet, just stay out of threads that are bound to be stupid, and you'll be a lot happier.

Oh, and if it's about music stuff, PermaThreads, technical stuff or correction of mistakes, or registration, I'm still [e-mail].

-Joe Offer, Mudcat Archivist-

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 05:47 PM

One of those questions is rational.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 05:54 PM

Well, I'd just like to say that I haven't asked for any post to be removed, or anyone to be banned....

The fact that others have, is why we need to Occupy English Folk Music and take it back from the Humourless Ones...

;0)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 05:56 PM

That has all the rationality and credibility that we might expect.

Subject: RE: 'Save a music and drama library'
From: peregrina
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 05:59 PM

If everyone who's been posting here about a metaphorical occupation took a few minutes to write an email to help save the Yorkshire Libraries Music and Drama service it would be really great.

You don't have to reside in Yorkshire to write in--or to use the service.

Info here
here: campaign to save YLI music and drama

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 06:09 PM

Did you know that the anagram of 'Occupy English Folk Music' is 'Cocks up mouse filchingly'?

No wonder there has been lots of keyboard activity if it cocks up everyones mouse...

Dave the Gnome
(A vehement god)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 06:30 PM

It would be better if it were "felching".

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 07:08 PM

That's right, Ms. Higgins. If you leave the trolls alone, they go away unhappy and bored and unsatisfied. If you have a shitfit about them, they get satisfied and your posts get removed. I know it's not fair, but life isn't fair. Live with it.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 07:17 PM

Yeah, live with it. As I've saidbefore if you can't handle criticism or entertain the idea that someone has opposing views to yours, or plain simply doesn't like you, you shouldn't be online at all

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 07:25 PM

Subject: RE: 'Save a music and drama library'
From: peregrina - PM
Date: 02 Nov 11 - 05:59 PM

If everyone who's been posting here about a metaphorical occupation took a few minutes to write an email to help save the Yorkshire Libraries Music and Drama service it would be really great.

You don't have to reside in Yorkshire to write in--or to use the service.

Info here
here: campaign to save YLI music and drama


Finally something worth while to get ones teeth into, I've just sent off an e-mail stating my view, opposed to the closing. I'm not sure what the time frame is here, whether I've missed the deadline or not.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 07:47 AM

ohI don't know, if the peasants start reading, it will only make them discontented.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Nov 11 - 07:52 AM

However heres the link, if you want riots and disension throughout the land.

http://www.makingmusic.org.uk/our-work/news/news/join-our-campaign-to-save-yli-music-and-drama-service

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 05:59 AM

'Occupy The Libraries!' :0)


And now....back to English Folk Music... ;0)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 07:26 AM

That, oddly, has never really been the subject of this thread, which is about a fantasy world. In that fantasy world many people with power stop many others from performing what they like, where they like, when they like and how they like. Cuckoo!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,blogward
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 08:16 AM

If this isn't an Occupation of English Folk Music (and speaking as an Englishman living in Glasgow I find the use of that term typically parochial) I don't know what is. (WARNING: Andean buskers video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DFBN0VZNYU

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Whitby Oyster Eater
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 10:28 AM

Interesting thread.

I wonder how Lizzie feels that singer songwriters are especially English? Are they English if they write about other places like American Indians for example?

Or do they suddenly become American? Intrigued.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,petecockermouth
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 10:51 AM

(hello leveller, not seen your name for a wee while -hope all is well for you). here in cockermouth -now that we have dried out- we seem to punch well above our weight and have a small arts centre that attracts top acts in the folk scene, michael mcgoldrick,kris drever, eliza carthy etc and several visits from jon boden in various guises. however, there is very little in the way of local participation, sessions etc. i would like to think that all our young folk are off occupying somewhere but it isn't happening, and cumbria as a whole appears very quiet - peace, love and revolution, pete

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 11:10 AM

I remember Digance used to do a song called Bury My heart at Wounded Knee. Way back.

American subject but unmistakably English. I don't think its anything to do with accent, or song form. We're English. We see things through different glasses. That's why its English folksong, designed to be sung to the supposedly more intelligent people you once found in English folk clubs.

Somewhere in the 70's , it went wrong though. A very vocal and self righteous minority took possession of the part of the folk music movement with political clout. They said they were clever, but in actual fact they were deaf to the 'English' cadences in Martyn, Renbourn, Jansch, Donovan and McTell.(Yes i know Scottish in three cases, but it wasn't Jimmy Shand stuff).

There are inheritors of that proud tradition. Young Sanjay Brayne is going to be a very important one for this generation - raised as he was on his Dad's recollections of Gerry Lockran and Roger Brooks. He SO envies our generation - having met and known these great musicians. Happily he never knew the prejudice, envy and silliness that drove them to work so much abroad.

Lets hope he never does.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 11:30 AM

Surely the intelligentsia went to jazz clubs specifically for modern jazz, didn't they?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 12:05 PM

"(hello leveller, not seen your name for a wee while -hope all is well for you)."

Hi Peter, good to hear from you again. Yeah, I'm still alive and posting crap on message boards. Glad to hear you've dried out (so to speak), sounds good out your way. Keep the red flag flying!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 01:41 PM

Quote from Roy Harper interview in The Times today:-

'Harper does however, see himself as part of an English tradition, and he wishes he were more accepted in tradtional folk circles. "I'm English. I write about things that have happened in England, and I began writing when England was coming out of the insular post-war culture," he says. "I wouldn't have minded some of my songs being included as part of the folk tradition, but the people in the folk world see me as a cabaret artist. That's sad, but not life threatening." '

You see Folkiedave - not just Lizzie and my paranoid delusions.

This is how it fell out on Friday morning -oh!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 01:46 PM

So just how did that stop Harper etc "performing what they like, where they like, when they like and how they like". All that seems to have happened is that he was not regarded as performing "folk music" - which he doesn't. He's done quite well doing the singer songwriter stuff he does, so what's his beef? I bet that folk clubs book him (if they can afford him) Why does he want to pretend to be something else?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,blogward
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 02:07 PM

'English' cadences in Martyn, Renbourn, Jansch, Donovan and McTell.(Yes i know Scottish in three cases, but it wasn't Jimmy Shand stuff)

Sorry, can't let that pass. If three out of five originated in Scotland then you mean "English in two case, but it wasn't Max Bygraves stuff":)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 04:36 PM

Like being an Irish or Scottish song, ever bothered an English traddie. My meaning is clear - its about the spirit that was abroad in the English clubs in that period. That's why those Scottish singers didn't stay in Scotland, and why Christy Moore came to England.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 04:49 PM

And why are you pretending these people have nothing to do with folk music, rather than being serious artists who have worked all their lives in the medium, Richard? These people deserve the kudos that the folk label would confer.

Why are you so anxious to deny their enormous influence? Why do you think they deserve exclusion.

Bout twenty years ago - I picked up a Guitarist magazine and Roy Harper was in there - flat broke, but spending the thirty grand or so his Dad left him promoting an album that he hoped would lead to some gigs. Since then, according to the article today, his house has been repossessed. Probably at 70 - a life gigging folk clubs would be a bit of a tall order. Particularly giving the kind of high intensity performances that his fans would expect.

I don't know the guy. I only saw him play one time in 1968 - but it was one of the most courageous spirited evenings of music I have ever seen. He's very talented. I really don't get it why he doesn't rate a place on the team.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,blogward
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 05:16 PM

Please could someone explain the appeal of dear Roy?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 05:33 PM

Anyone who could fit the words

"I've got a brother, one year old
He's got a very zappy, nappy
Squeezes the contents through the cot rails
What a very crappy little chappy"

Into a song deserves MASSIVE respect.

Oh - and getting banned off the Beeb for Watford gap, Watford Gap - Plate of grease and a load of crap.

But it is 'An old cricketer' that does it for me. No! Not that way...

:D tG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 07:06 PM

Guess what? If I went into a jazz club and played Appalachian dulcimer solos all night, I'd probably be told I didn't fit in there. But then, I wouldn't ever consider doing such a thing. Why in world would someone want to play modern music in a place that puts on traditional music shows? And, having been told rightly enough that they weren't appropriate for the club, why would they complain about it?

If a club doesn't want you, go play somewhere else. And please don't try to make it about quality, power, publicity, money, fairness, "denying the importance of", or anything else other than the fact that people who book music get to book whatever they want. If you don't like it, start a club and decide what gets booked there.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Nov 11 - 07:51 PM

Harper has an excellent reputation and has had a much respected career. Why does he want to be called a folkie?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 12:40 AM

'Why does he want to be called a folkie?'

The one night I saw Harper back in 1968. A friendly lecturer had taken me out to Cambridge for the day, and i asked the lecturer who had brought me if we could go and see Harper play - for I saw him advertised outside an art gallery, where were displayed Jim Dine originals.

Even then. harper was getting hassle. A traddie got up and delivered a bitter diatribe about the vile Bob Dylan who had stolen this beautiful English folksong. And then he went on to slaughter Scarboro Fair. Lugubrious, long and tuneless. by the end of it I was ready to plough a lambs horn right up his jacksie.

As i recall, the place was full of young people, packed - so many that no pub could be expected to have that many seats. We sat on the floor, those that didn't have seats. Many stood at the back. fire regulations ....forget it.

Harper was young, but seemed self assured and worldly - many years wiser than we students. He said, this is a Bob Dylan song, Because he writes songs like this, this room is full of young people tonight - myself included. And he sang a faultless Girl of the North Country.


I think it was Martin Carthy who said, just becauseyou're English doesn't mean you can understand this music. I'm not blaming him and his like, but when the decision was made that it didn't matter that we could lose all the audience that was in that folk club (as long as we preserved 'the tradition'), I think it was a bad one. And no amount of all the kings horses and all the kings men and running university courses to produce little Aly Blains, little Kate Tickells and little Ewan MacColls is going to put it right.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 05:15 AM

What you appear to be saying, Al, is that Roy Harper (who is, no doubt, a highly talented musician) covets the label 'folkie'. Not only that but he appears to want to wrest the label away from our teeny, weeny little minority of English Folk Music fans. Why can't he write his own label?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 05:40 AM

I think that is the whole point of this thread, Shimrod. Some are of the opinion that fans of traditional English folk do not deserve their own label. That trad folk, somehow, presents a threat to other forms of music that may or may not be folk. There it all gets terribly confusing.

I know most of us on here are of the opinion that it doesn't matter at all if someone performs non-trad songs at a folk club. But, as the title suggests, there are others who would love to see traditional English music 'put in it's place' by taking it over with singer-songwriters and American Indian chants. They also seem to think that the fans of traditional folk are trying to get other forms of music banned.

Me? What do I know. I like Martin Carthy, Bob Dylan, New Model Army and The Piarces...

DtG

(and Roy Harper of course :-) )

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 06:02 AM

I think what I am saying is that, loads of songwriters and performers like him consider themselves to be English folk music - indeed they have predicated their whole artistic oeuvre on that assumption.

Indeed take a club like Ilkeston in Derbyshire. An open mic set up. Full every week. Maybe three or four traditional singers, who sing at the other trad clubs. But what fills the room are the other contemporary singers - singing Steve Knightley, Bob Dylan, Donovan (still very popular). The same used to be the case in Sutton in Ashfield, and i suppose the majority of the floor singers at HMansfield Folk Club.

So blinkered were the powers that be that the local folk radio used to say Sutton wasn't a proper folk club and wouldn't have a mention of it on folk diary.

In fact if English folk music, and its contemporary cousin had an election - you lot would loose your deposit. In short, whatever your committe said in 1954, the meaning of the term 'folk music', in common English usage, changed in the 1960's.

As Richard says, Harper was relatively successful in his career, however he still lives in exile because the English tax authorities simply won't believe how little money he made. But for dozens of others like Jack Hudson and the late Roger Brooks - people who shared the bill with all the people you value - their work is out in the cold critically.

You're in the position of those critics who called Van Gogh's work 'mere daubs' - one day there will be an awakening. And your place in history will be viewed at the best short sighted, and at the worst villainous. No doubt the critics who poured scorn on Van Gogh thought they were maintaining standards.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 06:15 AM

So blinkered were the powers that be that the local folk radio used to say Sutton wasn't a proper folk club and wouldn't have a mention of it on folk diary.

And there we have the crux of the issue. Because of the actions of a handful of idiots the whole trad folk genre is tainted. Whoever ran that radio show needs to be sacked - if they have not been already. But why say that Genevieve Tudor or Radio Shropshire or Phil Brown on Radio Lancashire are the same? They just aren't!

If I was to say that all Pakistanis were thieves or con-men beacuse the man in the corner shop tried to give me change for a ten when I gave him twenty I would, quite rightly, be shot down in flames. But because a few people have had a bad experience at the hands of a traditional idiot (I like that phrase :-) ) then why tar everyone who likes traditional music with the same brush?

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 06:18 AM

May I also suggest that there's a hint that certain professional musicians (like Roy Harper, perhaps?) may be looking for someone to blame for their own lack of commercial success? The fact is that the 'music biz' is a highly competitive and precarious one and there are bound to be casualties, even among the most talented. To pour all the blame on a tiny minority, of largely amateur trad. music fans is ludicrous!

The fact is that I don't feel the least bit guilty about my musical interests - and if I had to choose whether to listen to a talented singer-songwriter or an equally talented performer of trad. material I would probably choose the latter - it's my choice, after all! Nevertheless, if a singer-song writer presented his/her work at a folk venue at which I was present I would give it all the attention and respect that it deserves. I insist that I'm not prejudiced - but I do have preferences.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 06:36 AM

No doubt an entertaining anecdote, Al: you are always a good entertainer. But I don't see any hassle or criticism of Harper in that tale.

Further, there is nothing wrong with a song being long. What is wrong is being long and boring, and they are not synonyms. Some of the contemporary heroes could drone for their country of preference, Dylan being, IMHO, one of the worst offenders, another "poet" who used the song form (I can't call his guitar playing or singing "music") to widen his audience. Part of the art of singing a long song is to form your delivery so as to build the dramatic tension. Both Martin Carthy and Brian Peters can do this. It applies to different forms of music too. It also applies to for example the novel.

There may be crap singers of traditional songs, but there are plenty of crap singers of contemporary songs too (go to any open mic night).




The supposition behind this thread is a cumulation of two errors. First, it assumes that an innovative treatment and delivery of a folk song means that it is no longer a folk song. That is precisely 180 degrees out of phase with the 1954 definition that the OP blames as being the root of so much evil. It seems to coincide with Sweeney's latest view which I think I can summarise is now "if it sounds folky it's folk" - a curious proposition because then his neologisms are what prevent him being folk, rather than any preferences of a mythical "folk police".

Second it assumes that anyone excludes things that are "not folk" from folk clubs or from opportunities of performance to folk audiences. Not only does that largely not happen but also any performer wanting to get rich would be mad to pursue such a narrowing of purchaser base.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:23 AM

If only you could see D the G - I'm not saying anything bad about traditional music or musicians. On the contrary many are my good friends, I attend their clubs their estivalss. I enjoy their music, and their company.

What I said was:-

In short, whatever your committe said in 1954, the meaning of the term 'folk music', in common English usage, changed in the 1960's.

And to clarify that - it changed in common usage from being a type of music to an artistic movement - like the Impressionists, or the Pre raphaelites.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave Sutherland
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:49 AM

If I remember correctly during the period to which Al refers Roy Harper spent most of his time claiming that he wanted to "get off the folk page". Have a glance at the sleeve notes to the album "Back To Reality - Rot Harper 1970 - 1975". Having seen Harper perform an number of times, and I have been a follower of his since the "Sophisticted Beggar days" I would cite his anti - showbiz, nonconformist aproach to his music which while, endearing him to the likes of me, was never going to find him commercial success.
Don't blame the traditional folk clubs for that one.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:53 AM

I know you're not, Al. But once again you are making sweeping generalisations - In short, whatever your committe said in 1954

It's not MY committee. I have FA to do with it, yet because I happen to like traditional music, amongst as I have pointed out, many other genres I am tarred as a lifeless, soulless, misery who likes nothing better than spoiling other peoples fun. Far from it. I am more welcoming of any music genres than a lot of people. There are some I do not like - Jazz, Opera and Rap in particular. But I appreciate that is my fault. There is nothing at all wrong with Jazz, Opera and Rap. I just don't understand them.

I would never dream in a million years of suggesting that the music I do like should occupy the space taken by another genre. Why is it that one persons personal crusade against an entire type of music is seen as harmless, yet if her tirades were against a race or religion they would be seen as dangerous.

Please feel free to visit Swinton Folk Club at any time and know that you would be welcomed with open arms. No money I'm afaid but warmth and friendship abound:-)

Here - Try it out !

See you soon.

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 08:00 AM

Al, I don't suppose that many people could define an amp or a volt either.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 08:36 AM

Seems to me a lot of the justification for 'vituperative intolerance' is based on the mischief that folk music is 'under threat'. It may well have been in the 1880s but that battle was lost and we're left with a reconstruction from the scattered shards of a broken pot, a facsimile that has to take it's place with the other displays in the museum.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 08:41 AM

No, that's another construct. It contradicts the essential nature of folk music. There was no "battle" in the 1880s (AFAIK). And the "vituperative intolerance" seems if any to come from those who insist (against all reason) that what they do is "folk music" and that any attempt to give sensible meaning to the expression is to exclude them. From what? A pool of penury? It makes no sense.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 09:36 AM

Richard, consider in the bowels of Christ that you may be wrong.

Look at all the things you lot have held your noses at the mention of. All the virtuosity that was dismissed. All the songwriters with cogent things to say, and fanbases, In fact one folkclub in Nottingham in its last throes only filled up when someone like Clive Gregson, or that chap out of Decameron rallied the troops from their webpages.

The Irish theme bars was probably the only time I made a living playing an acoustic guitar. When discos closed down the Irish Showband business, many of the musicians drifted over here and played in Coutry and western bands that worked the miners welfare circuits - strengthening immeasurably the domestic scene that stalwarts like Tony Goodacre and Brian Golby had nurtured. The folk comedians who predated the new comedy movement. The performance poetry boom, which had its seed in the Liverpool poets of the 1960's, but flowered into the rant poets like Nic Toczek and John Cooper Clark.

All English people, expressing themselves in terms that English people 'got'. People who have brought creative excitement into the folk clubs if they'd been allowed access and welcomed. People reflecting Englands magpie cultural identity.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 10:03 AM

Al, you're still blaming trad. folkies for problems that you've identified. I can think of no other group of music fans who are so consistently vilified for following their own tastes.

When you were attending Roy Harper's gig in Cambridge, I was living in Peterborough nearby and attending Peterborough Folk Club. Through that club I discovered trad. folk song and the music of Ewan MacColl. To me, at that time, I thought that MacColl was the greatest and most electrifying singer that I had ever heard - and I was particularly struck by his interpretation of traditional songs. If, at that time, you had offered me the choice of attending Harper's gig in Cambridge for free or spending a week's wages to go down to London to hear MacColl sing I would have chosen the latter without any hesitation. When I moved to Manchester, in the early 1970s, I joined a traditionally based club, many of whose members were also MacColl fans - and they made me very welcome. Now, nearly 40 years later, I still love traditional folk song and it's still part of my life.

It may disappoint you to hear that, at no point in all of that time, have I ever woken in a cold sweat, sat bolt upright in bed, and thought to myself: "Oh my God! By following my tastes I'm putting guitar-based singer-song writers out of business!I'd better ditch all that pernicious old traddy nonsense and bring my tastes up to date!"

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 10:24 AM

Of course not Shimrod.

MacColl was a special person to me as well. The first people ever to publish one of my songs were Ewan an Peggy. Isaw him loads of times, and I used to even attend the Grey Cock FC , where I was unwelcome as a floorsinger, when Ewan was the guest. ("Who are your influences ...? Ralph McTell! I'm sorry, we've got to draw the line somewhere!) Used to take my family and friends.

The biggest loser in the game has been English folk music, which threw away an audience for a mistaken set of ideas about folk music.

You know Shimrod the first time I came across the name A.L. Lloyd was as a translator of French Surrealist poems in the Penguin book Poetry of the Forties. And that's Folksong in England is, its a wonderful set of ideas. Like Wilde said, we make ideas acrobats to delight and entertain us.

But the English people are going to go on expressing themselves musically and in song And that is destined to be the true Folksong in England. Whatever we may wish and whatever our ideas are.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 10:45 AM

Once again. sweeping generalisations -

Look at all the things you lot have held your noses at the mention of.

Just who are 'you lot'. If you have an argument with something Richard, or anyone else, has said, please address it personaly. Don't lump whole groups of people together as if they all have th esame views. It's as bad a lumping all music under the term folk...;-)

Cheers

DtG

PS - You may enjoy Roger Davies on our YouTube channel - Very talented singer songwriter. You may also enjoy some of Ged Todd's settings of Arthur Conan Doyles poems - In the traditional idiom but definitely contemporary tunes. I doubt you would enjoy my stuff as it is primarily traditional and I am pretty crap. But in my defense I limit myself to only singing with friends! :-)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 10:55 AM

Oh, and I just noticed -

The biggest loser in the game has been English folk music, which threw away an audience for a mistaken set of ideas about folk music.

Just who is this 'English Folk Music'? How have they thrown the audience away? What set of ideals do they have? I have never met anyone who claims to be representative of English Folk Music. Even if I did I would dismess them as a nutter.

Can't you see that by claiming a whole group of disparate people, only joined by a liking of similar types of music, are for or against something as a whole, you are falling into the trap that most ists do?

We know very well that the OP starts these things simply because she has a dislike of around 4 or 5 people on Mudcat. Because of that the whole English Folk World is subject to her diatribes and rants. Please don't make the same mistake.

Cheers

DtG

Another PS - When and where are you on nearest to Manchester? I would love to see you live.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 10:57 AM

Sorry - forgot that angle brackets do HTML stuff. Should read "falling into the trap that most (anything)ists do

D

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 01:06 PM

Al - if you go back to the beginning of this thread (I know it's a long way) I said it was not a matter of quality. Plenty of people like stuff that isn't folk. I even like some of it (a bit of a metaller and at other times pub-rocker on the sly). Quite a it of stuff I don't like is folk - there's a whole wodge of traditional (insofar as a country that young can have a tradition -:o) American stuff I don't like and lots of eastern European or far Eastern traditional stuff I don't like too.

They may be very nice zebras. But they aren't horses. Indeed the difference might be more like giraffes and horses.

Why does anyone want to murder the horses, to breed them out of existence?

I mean, I can I think infer Lizzie's reasons - but why does anyone else do it? Indeed I'm puzzled why she might want to stop Snow of Blands playing traditional songs...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 01:40 PM

I would probably enjoy your music dave more than the others - I love traditional folksong. Not all of it, but quite a lot of it. At the moment, I'm struggling with technical and personal stuff - so i haven't got a gig together. Perhaps i won't get one together again, but I hope I do - eventually.
Snow of Blands, Cuntservatives......off you go again Richard. I really wish you wouldn't.

I remember bitching to Martin Carthy one time that Phil and Paul Downes couldn't get a gig at the folk club in their home town - a nest of college lecturers masquerading as horny handed sons of the soil.

You don't surprise me, he said, that lot are SO narrow minded.

of course Martin couldn't say that, I suppose, cos the club were certainly booking him. Its that cleft stick that performers find themselves in - they aren't really wise to speak their minds.

It was about that time Martin recorded Gilbert O Sullivans Nothing Rhymed. Paul Downes (who worships at the shrine of Carthy -as all guitarists should!) asked him - why that song?

Martin looked him square in the eyes and prodded his chest and said - because its a very very good song!

Thank you for youe interest in my music Dave - if you PM me your address I will send you an album.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 01:49 PM

" Seems to me a lot of the justification for 'vituperative intolerance' is based on the mischief that folk music is 'under threat'. It may well have been in the 1880s but that battle was lost and we're left with a reconstruction from the scattered shards of a broken pot, a facsimile that has to take it's place with the other displays in the museum."

and then there are the real dinosaurs and the their bones, that are not even worth displaying...you may not like trad. arr. stickyperson ( I have a feeling you would deny, if you could, others the pleasure you obviously do not have, in this music), but there are those of us who do and will always do, so....get over it!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,mudcat
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 06:46 PM

Au contraire, I'm a traddy to the quick, at least when I'm listening to traditional music BTNG. What consenting adults get up to in the privacy of a pub back room is entirely up to them, my point is, and always has been, that the revival form they practice is a genre. Folk music died, or as near as dammit expired, with the coming of the music hall and that after a long series of attacks from other forms. What we call traditional was gathered from too few living sources to tell us anything useful about it, except it had become as exotic and rare as a burbot egg.

What people get grumpy about is the fading spirit of 1968, not 1768, the time when they were young and anything was possible. Folk music is not under attack and when people get that into their heads, the vituperative intolerance might fade with it.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 06:50 PM

you have your opinion, the folkies have theirs, so it shall ever be.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:49 PM

Genre? Clarity might assist.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 07:51 PM

Incidentally folk songs (in the 1954 meaning) were still being collected in many cases from the Romanies and travellers that some here revile, until recently - and maybe still are.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 05 Nov 11 - 08:18 PM

Nobody alive today has any continuity with the English folk canon. Few did in my father's era and he was born in 1913. There may have been some singers who knew singers, etc, in my grandfather's time (born 1880s) but it's safe to say The People's Music had died out as the people's music by the 1960s when many here first heard the stuff in revival form. By then it was on a menu of genres for modern sensibilities to fly their flag under, trad jazz, blues, folk - choose from the blackboard when you order your drinks.

Now people can believe what they like about folk music but a) they're not continuing anything, they're re-making it anew for their own generation, and b) the thing is certainly not under threat. In fact it's more secure now in hard copy and soft than it has ever been and being sung somewhere every night of the week. It's no business of mine whether traddies allow modern songs in the clubs they run or not, thousands of great tunes have been written in the last 50 years, barely a handful within a traditional style. I've no idea why people insist their compositions fit the revival format but the bile that's spilt over the subject is hugely disproportionate to its importance.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 01:50 AM

Some good comments here. Better than the four legs good, two legs bad stuff of the 1954 devotees.

Glueman

Like youself, I grew up with people of that earlier period. My Grandparents were born in 1880's and I knew (and sang with) my Grandmother's sister who was born in the 1850's. I knew first generation folksingers and folk dancers inside my fanily, and I discounted them and their music with all the arrogance and silliness of childhood.

I don't think anyone would resent the traddies enjoying their own enclaves, or that anyone has a right to do so. I'm just not sure of the validity of its claim to be the folk music of England. there are more folks than ever - and by and large they ain't singing that stuff, and they do desperately need avenues of expression.

Guest mudcat - very perceptive. I do indeed lament the coming of my old age. I am sad to see all the musical techniques that have been the obsession of my life disappear, dishonoured as some mongrel skill - unworthy of a place in 'the tradition'.

Still I guess times change, and i'll have to put up with it. Somehow I don't feel, it had to be like this. And I resent the petulance and intolerance, and I wish, as human beings, we had managed stuff better.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 02:44 AM

Excellently said, Al.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 03:42 AM

Read my lips. No-one is saying (well, no-one I have heard) "Folk good, the rest bad". What they are saying is "Folk is folk, other stuff is not folk".

Or, to put it another way, nothing is traditional until it becomes so.

Incidentally, anyone who says that 1954 definition folk music (even on the narrowest interpretation of the definition) had ceased to exist by 1960 is simply wrong - the Brazil family were discovered some time later and were still singing together as a community until at least 1977 and for all I know still are. "Folk singers" within narrow version of the meaning may by then have been scarce, but still existed.

Even if "Folk singers" are extinct (I don't think they necessarily are, if one takes a broad view of "community" and onward passage as referred to in the 1954 definition) there is clearly an overlap between "folk song singers" and "folk singers" in the time line. I am hoping that a traveller (to all appearances the archetypal Romany Rai) will come to the Lower Stoke Winter sings on November 13th - he said he would try to remember some of the old songs that he learned from his uncle and his uncle learned from his uncle before.

And with all due respect, Al, when you say "I don't think anyone would resent the traddies enjoying their own enclaves" that appears to be precisely what Lizzie does wish. She apparently wishes it to be compulsory for "traddies" to listen to and be MADE to enjoy contemporary songs - by violence if necessary, if you think that "violence" is an intrinsic part of an occupation by force.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 04:04 AM

"nothing is traditional until it becomes so"

There is no possibility of any modern song becoming traditional under the revival definition because there is no representative body that can be petitioned for a song to be included in the canon. Under other circumstances a song would be popularised by being sung, but as traditionalists insist modern compositions have no place in a folk context, the opportunity for admission is non-existent.

Those facts mean that historical folk music is destined to be a re-enactment or a museum piece. I have no qualms with that situation, it allows historic music to continue to be sung among enthusiasts but to pretend that it allows aperture for new material is completely disingenuous.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 05:02 AM

historical folk music is destined to be a re-enactment or a museum piece. I have no qualms with that situation, it allows historic music to continue to be sung among enthusiasts but to pretend that it allows aperture for new material is completely disingenuous.

This thread follows the usual paths through the usual anal arguments this way and that and - once again - is based almost entirely on songs. Have you all forgotten - yet again - that traditional music contains thousands of wonderful tunes? Furthermore, there are hundreds and hundreds of tunes being written and played at clubs, concerts and sessions where the composers of those tunes - ancient and modern - are known and welcomed. Let's take some old geezers like Carolan. Let's mention some slightly younger composers like James Hill (early 19th c). Let's go all 20th century with Alastair Anderson, Andy Cutting, Tom Anderson, Joan MacDonald Boes - and many others. All writing in the traditional idiom and all co-existing side by side as "traditional" music.

The reason for this is that the tunes have less emotional, sociological and historical "baggage" than songs. They exist as timeless melodies - some with known composers and some with unknown origins - and that fact is irrelevant to us that play them. It's just great music in a centuries-old style.

So get a grip and broaden your horizons, you lot.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 05:13 AM

Have you all forgotten - yet again - that traditional music contains thousands of wonderful tunes?

I've not mentioned it this time round, Will but I've mentioned it several times in the past, commonly when we get into "meaningful words" type definitions of folk...

--

Personally, the largest part of my enjoyment with folk does come from things without words.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 05:30 AM

Tunes have long since left the constraints of folk definitioneering. Traditional melodies appear in all kinds of genres but that doesn't change the fact that folk songs have been problematised by the revival in a way that antiquates and abstracts them ordinary use.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 05:32 AM

Very likely, glueman, but traditional music is songs and tunes, so any discussion labelled "Occupy English Folk Music" should be based on that premise.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 05:52 AM

I'm not familiar with any definition that insists on a combination of tunes and lyrics and anyway, the 'Occupy' theme is just a bait that people have risen to. If you want to re-define traditional tunes in a way that accommodates their entry into normal, i.e. popular usage with all the variation that encompasses, then that can only be to the good of the music.

I return to the point that the revival definition has no organising body, no trusted 'boot room' of sages who can be trusted to know what a folk song is or be petitioned to allow common sense to include later variations. That leaves the situation we have today - traddies who admit nothing without a few hundred years of variation while ensuring such changes are impossible in a traditional context, others who are traditionally inclined but trust themselves to know what a folk song feels like without a dictionary to hand, and a wider constituency who see folk as a format that includes the potential for any self-penned song. I'd suggest there's room for all those points of view and an informed appraisal that each has its merits as the music of the people, without the bun fight that ensues every time the topic comes up.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 06:00 AM

Al - PM on the way. I would love the album but even more so to see you live. Any gig lists about?

Reading back through the thread I can't help but notice the examples of 'exclusive' folkies date back to the 60's. Your own example of Roy Harper dates back to 1969 , Al. Over 40 years ago. It was in my home town that someone cried 'Judas' at Bob Dylan. Can anyone come up with any recent evidenced examples of any folk club saying 'you cannot play/sing that here. It's not traditional.'?

If so I will accept that SOME folk club organisers do indeed need updating. But only some. And I will never accept that because of the few the whole of 'English Folk Music' needs to be replaced, as the OP suggests, with something else.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 06:12 AM

"the product of a musical tradition that has been evolved through the process of oral transmission. The factors that shape the tradition are: (1) continuity which links the present with the past; (2) variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or the group; and (3) selection by the community which determines the form or forms in which the music survives."

It is the acceptance into the community that governs admission. Thus it is perfectly possible for songs to become folk songs even if not sung in folk clubs. No admissions body is needed.

And incidentally that disposes of the assertion that it is inherent that the collectors and revivalists postulated that there was no individual creation and no creator appreciation.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 06:30 AM

And it's just one personal view, DTG. It's before my time so I have no personal memories but here is an alternative view. This was posted by Dick Gaughan to uk.music.folk a few years back (as part of a post dismissing the idea that McColl invented a rule which was then rigiddly enforced in all clubs):

Anyway, the idea of MacColl or anyone else turning up at, for
example, the Hare and Hounds in Birmingham or the MSG in
Manchester and attempting to dictate anything to those who became
archetypical folk club "star" performers - like Tony Capstick,
Alex Campbell, Johnny Silvo or Noel Murphy - will bring a wry
smile to anyone who remembers the way folk clubs developed in the
late 60s/early 70s. "Anarchic" would be the wrong word as most
never developed even that level of organised policy regarding
performance content. And a Good Thing it was, too.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 06:36 AM

Who are the community? Folk club singers? The English speaking people's?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 06:56 AM

why not carry our guitars down to the opera house and demand to play. sounds ridiculous but this is pretty much the basis of this thread.
Go to a folk club and expect folk music (the definition of which has been done to death), go to a jazz club expect jazz not native american flute music.
For anyone who can't find an appropriate venue set up your own.
Let the grey areas between genres remain grey as these are fertile grounds for musical development.
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:15 AM

Yes, glueman, that is the question (good heavens, so I detect a great breakthrough?) - but it has to be music in which they participate not simply consume.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 07:23 AM

Tunes have long since left the constraints of folk definitioneering. Traditional melodies appear in all kinds of genres

Traditional melodies may well appear in all kinds of genres but there are undoubtedly English, Irish, etc. session tunes.


but that doesn't change the fact that folk songs have been problematised by the revival in a way that antiquates and abstracts them ordinary use.

Or was it problematised by singer songers demanding their interpretation be THE accepted definition?

Perhaps the way I see it with songs the problem (which seems to be much greater on the Internet than I've observed in the real world) is that there are two conflicting camps in terms of "what is folk" and some can not agree to disagree.

Anyway, the way I see it with tunes and in terms of the sessions I go to is that they are selective in terms of what is appropriate and I guess it does work more in the traditional type way? ie. a new tune either fits in with the session and gets played more or it it doesn't without any folk definitions or any arguments as to why a particular tune must be a folk tune and therefore must be played.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 08:15 AM

"Yes, glueman, that is the question"

...and rather a big one if I say so myself. Because if folk definitions rely on the folk club 'community', the definition of that word has been stretched beyond what was originally intended by the proposers of 1954. And if it doesn't, why not include the output of the English speaking people and the entirety of genres and styles they have adopted?

The reality - and one many traddies have come round to - is 1954 has sealed the tradition off, whatever its advocates claim, because there is no sensible definition of community that obtained when the definition was mooted. Until someone comes up with a definition of the word that reflects the plurality and diversity of style, setting and treatment, there can be no inclusion.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 06 Nov 11 - 11:25 PM

I don't give a damn about the 1954 definition. Traditional folk music, for me, is not historical, not set in stone, not revived, not anything except the music I love to play and listen to. Why does everyone have to demand lines and definitions? There is nothing inherently academic about learning and playing the music. It's just music. Why does it piss people off so much when anyone says it's a different genre of music from contemporary folk music? Why is it so important that there not be a few clubs where traditional folk music is the rule?

If you can't tell the difference between traditional folk music and contemporary folk music, you're not listening very hard. Also, the gray area between the two is so huge as to defy description.

If you want a song of yours to be accepted by the traditional folk music community, here's how:

1. Play nothing but traditional folk music, with other players of traditional folk music, daily, for 15 years.
2. Write a song or a tune.
3. Play it for your traditional folk music friends.
4. See whether or not they like it and start to play it.

Here's how to get a song of yours accepted by the jazz music community:

1. Play nothing but jazz, with other jazz musicians, daily, for 15 years.
2. Write a song or a tune.
3. Play it for your jazz musician friends.
4. See if they like it.

I could, of course, go on with any other genre of music. Why not just go play at folk clubs that welcome contemporary folk music, which includes very nearly all of them?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 03:01 AM

Why not just go play at folk clubs that welcome contemporary folk music, which includes very nearly all of them?

Just like almost everyone else has said, John, and most people are in complete agreement, including myself. But the whole premise of this thread is that folk clubs are guarded by some sort of Folk Police who will not allow any new music and frown severely upon anyone who dare have any fun. I know it isn't like that. You know it isn't like that. Everyone that goes to folk clubs regularly knows that. But for some reason there is a faction who think that folk music needs to be 'occupied' by something else. Go figure as our American friends would say.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 03:30 AM

A slight aside (but germain to the discussion I think) Back in the 80's I wrote a tune (My only one BTW) for the Molly side I was working with at the time. It's called "Fairlop" (after a Central line tube station.) Imagine my surprise when I found it being lustily played in a session at a festival a year later. I'd just popped in for a light lunch (not even playing)..Half an hour later, I asked the chap who had started the tune about it's provenance. He said "Oh, it's hundreds of years old....!" I didn't have the heart to tell him that I'd made it up 3 years earlier!
I didn't inform this chap that he was wrong. And in a strange way, I quite like the idea that a tune that I wrote has wormed it's way into the tradition. Am I upset? Not at all.
I do agree that the tune side of the scene is more forgiving and encompassing than the singers perspective. Songs obviously have a lot more power, as they are making statements in words. Tunes just noodle around.
Everything is right. Nothing is wrong.
The idea of "Occupation" is pants.....a bit like knitting fog.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 03:32 AM

No you've missed the crux of the argument.

Blair Dunlop debuts his first album at Cecil Sharp House. In the tradition.

Gerry Lockran never got invited to play the place. Derek Brimstone in a very long career got to play the place twice when he was accompanying someone or other. never invited to play in his own right. In folk clubs.

The problem is lack of respect from one side by the other. The insinuation that lies at the heart of it is that if you're not 'in the tradition' you're some sort of flash harry - barely one stage up from the protoplasm that plays the X factor. Whereas 'in the tradition' are serious artists.

Go figure.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 04:15 AM

C#Ho can invite who they like. As can any other club. You can't compel them to have what they don't want, and they can't and don't prevent you from having what you want. They don't want to invade you AFAIK. Why should you invade them?

Incidentally, I don't see why you call X factor contestants "protoplasm" - on one of those talent thingies a couple of years back there was a very short clip of two contestants singing just for fun as they walked down the street - no instruments, and dammit they were GOOD, once you took the razamatazz crap so central to the Tin Pan Alley aspects of the programme away.

Glueman - the expression "community" in the 1954 definition has to contemplate discrete communities, not a whole nation. Think about it. The question in modern times is whether a "community" needs to be physically contiguous, or can be connected in another way - as an online community is.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 05:31 AM

Yeh, but Cecil Sharp's gang of heavies are a focus for all the inequalities and injustices of the present system. So the heavy weight reviews get denied to the great mass of even traditional players, let alone contemporary artists. Blokes like our own Dick Miles.

Meanwhile a reviewer spends an entire column giving Rosie Kemp one star for her album, regretting that that sainted family have for once slipped from grace. Meanwhile some other poor sods lifeswork is lucky to get a mention in the AND THE REST pile.

Basically all this tradition and 'in the tradition' business stinks. Its just a mask for those fine old English traditions of nepotism, favouritism and 'jobs for the boys-ism'.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 05:49 AM

I think I am missing the crux then, Al. When you say, of Derek Brimstone he was 'never invited to play in his own right. In folk clubs'
I know that to be untrue because I am have seen him at our folk club and a few others. I guess what you mean is that he was never invited to play etc. at C# house folk club.

In which case - Yes, I accept your argument that there is a folk club that does not invite some non-traditionalists. One. At C# house. There are hundreds of folk clubs all over the country that will invite DB, Gerry Lockran and uncle Tom Cobley and all. Provided that they have the space and money of course. And as Richard says - They can invite who the heck they like anyway.

Is the crux of the argument that C# house is so influential that it dictates the policies of all English Folk Clubs? I think not. Just what is the crux of the argument then?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 05:59 AM

Sorry Al - can't go with you here. How much of what Cecil Sharp House does or doesn't do is actively a part of the mindset of all the people who run clubs, singarounds and sessions? Very little for the most part, I suspect. I've never had a yen to even go to Cecil Sharp House, much less perform there - why should I when there's so much going on in my locality? And when I was gigging in London in the '60s and '70s, the main target was to headline at somewhere like the Cousins or the Troubadour, or even Bunjies. They were the places to be - not C#H.

As for folk awards, I never bother with them and they don't impact on me one little bit. I read the odd music review in the Guardian or the Observer from time to time but, to be honest, unless you're of one mind with the reviewer, they're often a waste of space. What gets me to gigs as part of an audience is hearing records that friends recommend, hearing the buzz from people whose musical tastes I trust, and my own knowledge gleaned from all sorts of sources. To say that:

Cecil Sharp's gang of heavies are a focus for all the inequalities and injustices of the present system

is investing them with too much power and authority, IMO. They become men of straw - puppets to be put up and knocked down as the source of all problems. There are all sorts of reasons why good musicians don't get gigs - and some of them are complex and personal - but nominating a "gang of heavies" seems a slightly simplistic catch-all to me. No offence intended to you, Al, but I'm not convinced with this one.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 06:03 AM

No Dave.

But you know the old Australian joke. How do you get fifty poms in a phone box? Make one a foreman, and the rest will crawl up his arse.

Its a bit like that. Make one a member of Steeleye, The watersons, Fairport......etc.

I was making a distinction between what what was going on in the folk clubs. and what was happening in this abstraction....' inthe tradition'.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 06:24 AM

Well said Mr Fly.
As far as I can see the level of patronage and nepotism in the folk scene is no different from that seen in all aspects of life.
Cecil sharp House is in its own words "a membership society with 4000 members" and London-centric; its impact on the wider scene is minimal.
As with any form of club the members will have common interests or it would'nt be a club. If some clubs prefer the more traditional end of the folk/roots/acoustic spectrum that is their right as is their right to book who they want.
If you want something different go to another club or start your own event.
The group I play with wanted a more open type of event so we started our own -         
"Accoustic Jam session, bring an instrument and join in, all musical styles and abilities welcome."
string theory
Get out and play instead of naval gazing would be my motto.
John

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 06:29 AM

"Glueman - the expression "community" in the 1954 definition has to contemplate discrete communities, not a whole nation. Think about it. The question in modern times is whether a "community" needs to be physically contiguous, or can be connected in another way - as an online community is".

Nice try. The question in 'modern times' is whether folk means people who belong to clubs and sing in the back rooms of boozers. I put it to you in all conscience that it clearly does not and never did. Hobbyists and enthusiasts and historians are not The People. Not now. Not ever.

As for nationhood, why bother talking about English folk music if the nomenclature has no meaning?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 06:35 AM

I really am sorry, Al - I know it is me being thick. I still don't understand the issue. If what is going on in the majority of folk clubs is OK, why does it matter what goes on at C# house? Neither I nor any other organiser I know have taken any instruction from C# as to what we should do or who we should book.

I could be completely wrong here but I think you (and Lizzie) are seeing enemies where they don't exist and barriers that were pulled down 40 years ago.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 06:47 AM

"But you know the old Australian joke. How do you get fifty poms in a phone box? Make one a foreman, and the rest will crawl up his arse."


Absolutely, Al!!!! :0)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 06:47 AM

I'm not sure where this is going. I've played C Sharp house many times over the last 40 years...Either booked/paid, Floor spot stylee. As a sound engineer mixing for bands. whatever.
Never a sign of exclusivity, and also the chance to explore the amazing library.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 07:03 AM

of course you're right jc. Its no worse than Carruthers at the Foreign office and half the front bench of both poliyicaL parties having fagged for each other at Eton.

As the poet/folksinger said, "Its life and life only....."

Sorry richard, not a real folksinger, singing real folk music.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 07:07 AM

Like most grass-roots movements or activities, folk music is essentially anarchic and therefore cannot be subjected to either definition or central control. The assumption that an arbitrary and sweeping definition made almost 50 years ago can in any way be relevant to the music as it is today (or maybe even as it was then) is, to my mind, ludicrous.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 08:08 AM

Paranoia and conspiracy theory are all very well, but the bottom line is here that ENGLISH FOLK is a disparate cultural phenomenon entirely dependent on the passions & enthusiasms of those involved with it on any number of levels from musician, singer, journalist, folk club / festival organiser, producer, MC, radio host, etc. etc. whose only agenda is the love of the thing, rather than its definition. In my experience ENGLISH FOLK is an inclusive musical phenomenon that's about as easy to define as CHRISTMAS. Of course there will always be those eager to tell you all about The Real Meaning of Christmas - taking it back to the events in Bethlehem some 2,000 years ago; or yet further to the time when Ancient Druidic Sun-priests first spotted a gap in the Solar Market - but the fact o' the matter is, and in terms of Genuine 100% Folkloric Custom, Usage and Authenticity, Christmas begins when Santa Clause is flying high in the food hall of the Trafford Centre and will 'mean' something different in every single beating heat of every single person who sees Him hanging there. How can it possible be any different?

Same with Folk really. Ultimately Folk is whatever it means to the individual, be it writing comedy songs on uxoricide or shamelessly plagiarising the artistry of Martin Carthy ballads and passing them off as being somehow Traditional. Folk accommodates all shades and shapes of self-confessed Folkie, no matter how broad or narrow their particular Church happens to be; and no matter whether they think the 1954 Definition has any currency whatsoever other than as an in-joke on the same level as the one about the many-haired fellows with the long faces. Folk is simply observing that it can be any number things on any number of occasions and realising that Folk is Right There at any given time, and yet at other times it might not be there at all. Folk is not telling other people what is is, or what it isn't, because right around the corner there'll be someone else telling it differently. Folk lives in our Hearts and comes out in a collectivity which will ALWAYS be about a myriad of unique perspectives, however so impassionedly felt or curmudgeonously expressed, but the common denominator will be the willingness to partake, and call it Folk, and bask in the pure transitory Joy of the thing.

Folk is like Art. What is Art? Is it Art? Who cares? Art is all things to all people. I'm a recent covert to the genius of Grayson Perry who crosses over into much that also defines the Folk Aesthetic too - for me at least. We popped into the wee exhibition at the Manchester City Gallery the other day and were highly delighted, not least by his Print for a Politician, though I'm sure you could re-label it Print for Folkies and have some fun changing the categories too: traddies, singer-songwriters, purists, English concertina players, Anglo concertina players, Folk Police, Death Eaters, Muggles, Morris Dancers, Strawhead fans, Bellamists, Guitarists, Dulcimer players, EFDSS members, non-EFDSS members, Mudcatters, Fylde goers, Sidmouth goers, hurdy-gurdy players, bagpipe players, bodhran lovers, bodhran haters, banjo players, banjo jokers, balladeers (unaccompanied), balladeers (accompanied), head singers, nose singers, naval contemplators, tankard wearers, Folk Righteous, Christian Folk, Pagan Folk, neo-Folk, nu-Folk, no-Folk, post-Folk, Shanty Fans, Chantey Fans, Forebitters Only fans, Catheyites, neo-Cartheyites, Folk Against Fascism, Folk for Nationalism, Whistlers, fiddlers, Comedians, Storytellers, Poets...   

Occupy English Folk Music? Last time I looked, it was already occupied; but the sign on the door said Come-All-Ye and, yeah, that door was forever open to all with plenty of room inside for Thousands or More to pass therein. Folk is big enough and small enough to accommodate all and their mutterings, their loves and their hates, their pride and their prejudice; so much so that one may never say quite what it is, just say that it is there, for better and for worse, in the hope that people will one day just get on with what they do without feeling the need to barf up their sour grapes in public and make it unpleasant for everyone else in the process. But maybe such barfing is part of it too? Which is fair enough, just as long as they are made to clean up after themselves. As in life, we come, we go; we pick up, we let go, we move on; and, as in life, Folk's too precious a thing to waste by moaning over what ought to be when it's always going to be exactly what it is regardless of what YOU happen to think it ought to be.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 08:17 AM

Wonderful post, SA. But at the end of the day I KNOW that us Anglo-concertina playing, guitar strumming, antediluvian, repressive, suggestive, digestive, bottom-feeding, left-wing pinko, traditionalists are better than anyone else :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 08:47 AM

Me too, DtG; though the flip-side is a deep seated inferiority complex dating from the time when my potential Hero Status at School was denied me by a copy of the Penguin Book of English Folk Songs. It went something like:

Headmaster: You do realise, Sweeney, that songs about incest and sunsequent sorocide are going to be deeply upsetting to certain pupils, especially those of a nervous disposition?
Unrepentant Adolescent Self: Yes, sir.
HM: Quite apart from the fact that the subject matter of such a song can be said to obscene regardless of the fact that you almost caused young Daisy Michaelmas to have a nervous breakdown?
UAS: Yes, sir.
HM: Poor girl didn't sleep all weekend according to her mother, who only got the full story when on the one occasion she did get to sleep she woke up screaming in the wee small hours. I suppose this one of those new fangled Punk Rock songs that the media is currently up in arms about, is it?
UAS: No, sir.
HM: No? Then, what the devil sort of song is it, boy?
UAS: It's a Folk Song, sir.
HM: A Folk Song, you say?
UAS: Yes, sir.
HM: A Folk Song as in - Lovely Joan you mean?
UAS: Yes, sir.
HM: And where did you get this - Folk Song, Sweeney?
UAS: From a book, sir.
HM: A book, eh? A what book might this be?
UAS: This book here, sir.
HM: The Penguin Book of English Folk Songs, eh? Edited by Ralph Vaughan Williams and A.L.Lloyd. My goodness, Sweeney - I'm impressed.
And - which song was it that so upset young Miss Michaelmass?
UAS: It's on page sixty-five, sir - right after Lovely Joan.
HM: Sixty-five. Ah! Yes. Lovely Joan. Lucy Wan. Jolly good. Now this casts an entirely different light on the matter - quite a different light altogether. My goodness, Sweeney - to think that such songs are still so much a part of the shadows of our collective subconsciousness that they might still have such a profound effect on the tender hearted - even in this day and age. Not your fault at all, of course, though you might like to assess your audience more carefully in future.
UAS: Yes, sir.

35 years on, I still live with the shame.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 09:16 AM

The insinuation that lies at the heart of it is that if you're not 'in the tradition' you're some sort of flash harry - barely one stage up from the protoplasm that plays the X factor. Whereas 'in the tradition' are serious artists.

How is it that I and almost everybody I know have been playing folk music all our lives and don't really experience this? Could it be that it only exists in Big Al's head?

Big Al, what the fuck are you talk about? Taking your words as written, you're talking about me and everyone else who likes traditional music. Where do you get off being such an asshole?

Speaking of assholes, I have encountered traditional music pedants who wanted to tell me how what I was playing was WRONG. I've also met singer-songwriters who wanted to tell me that my music lacks creativity because I didn't write it, and people who have said that one should only sing songs that one agrees with the message of -- as singer-songwriter-centric idea if I ever heard one. But the whole point is that I didn't blame any other people for these people being assholes. I just figured I had met some assholes.

As I have now. Big Al, the biggest thing that pisses me off about folk music is when people tell me -- or anyone else -- that we ought to be doing one thing musically instead of another. Or that we ARE doing something which we aren't. Which, like it or not, is what you are doing in this thread while complaining about it being done to you by an unspecified "them". In spite of the fact that EVERYONE in this thread except you and Lizzie have given you lots of explanations along with descriptions of real-world experiences that show your complaints to be imaginary, you continue to barf up statements like the one above. Sorry to be so rude, but everyone has been really nice to you so far and you've just been offensive in return. I get tired of it.

If you want to be involved in a conversation, it is usually a good idea to actually respond to what other people say. When you don't, the conversation doesn't really go anywhere and people get frustrated. You could start by answering some questions I asked earlier:

Why is it so important to you that there not be any places where traditional folk music is the rule?

Why would you want to play music in a club that programs a different genre of music?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 09:33 AM

'Sorry to be so rude'

Yes i can see it gives you pain.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 09:49 AM

Actually, I am sorry. I don't like calling people out on threads. But I like even less having people like you turn threads into offensive fantasy slams at me and other people. Any chance you want to engage in the conversation instead of endlessly repeating statements that have already been responded to and proved to be untrue? Here's a place to start:

Why is it so important to you that there not be any places where traditional folk music is the rule?

Why would you want to play music in a club that programs a different genre of music?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 09:53 AM

Oh right

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 10:25 AM

I've also met singer-songwriters who wanted to tell me that my music lacks creativity because I didn't write it

I've regularly argued that working with Traditional Folk Song inspires a degree of creativity far greater than that evident in the work of many popularist singer-singwriters who are quite happy to stick to well-trod formulas and cliches. As an idiom, singer-songwriter style tends to revert to a path of imitation and repetition greater than anything you'll find in the far wider parameters of Traditional English Speaking Folk Song, which is also a good deal less insistent of its own righteousness, be it in terms of music, or (God forbid) message and (horror of horrors) fecking comedy. Traditional Song inspires new life, new ways of looking at things, and fresh outlooks; whereas rehashing the three-chord trick in servility to the graven image of Dylan is just plain tedium and an insult to our hard-won intelligence.

Either that, or I just don't like it. Opinions, eh???

Thing is, I love great songwriting: Kate Bush, Tori Amos, Gillian Welch, Dave Cousins, Sandy Denny, Robert Wyatt, Scott Walker, Daevid Allen, Captain Beefheart, etc etc but much of the Folk Style just doesn't do that much for me. I'm not about to negate it though, much less place it into some false opposition of Us & Them. My personal Atheism is all consuming; I regularly play alongside people who do it with aplomb. I welcome them into my singarounds and sessions as I would anyone else because Folk is a very Broad Church and whate'er my personal tastes & consequent musical philosophies might be, I will recognise a common Joy when I see it. I will even bask in it; I will even join in on my violin & venture into such idioms where appropriate. The one thing most certainly does not preclude the other. Heavens, I even know people (whisper it mind!) who dare to do both...; likewise those who take a more catholic approach to both Traditional and Popular Idioms and synthesise them with canny & idiosyncratic knack no more or less valid than any other. It takes all sorts, which is just as well because all sorts are out there doing it, instead of sitting on their computers telling the rest of us what we ought to be doing & thinking and why they are so justified in feeling so very hard done to.

So love what you do by all means, but soon as you start saying your way is somehow better then you've lost the plot completely - because there are any number of ways of saying that it is (quite possibly) a good deal worse. The Folk Police are only ever the delusion of very paranoid imaginations; those that not only will create its devils in its own image, but then will send them raging against itself in an imaginary war.

In the words of Edgar Broughton: Out demons out!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 10:30 AM

there's a plot to this?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 10:32 AM

Alright. My last word.

Let us assume that you and Richard are correct You have read the smoke signals correctly and you have divined what is the tradition of English folk music.

I have no quarrel with you having your little enclaves, covens whatever wherein these black arts - hidden from the general population - are practised. Exclusive as you like. No riff raff.

What I object to is the elevation of these opinions into a code of practice, that disciminates and plots against the careers of people not in your frame of mind about what is the English tradition.

Now your side gets any subsidy going. It gets the World Council Tours. It gets the one hour long BBC2 documentaries and concert specials. It gets more review space. It gets slots on BBC arts programmes. It gets the invitations to appear all over the world at folk festivals. It gets the Brit awards and the Mercury awards and the OBEs, and the MBEs. It gets the invitations to supply music for Shakespeare plays at Stratford. Even a radio 2 programme and plays on Andy Kershaw and other interested parties.

Our side - well we get to bitch about the inequality of it. And we're not giving that up.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 10:43 AM

Yes, I like great songwriting as well. At the last folk festival I played at, I played two sets. One was traditional Swedish folk music. The other included songs by Joni Mitchell, the Indigo Girls, and folky/bluesy versions of Summertime and songs by Beatles and Led Zeppelin. I don't have any problem calling all of it folk music, since the word has taken on a different meaning since the sixties, but I'm also keenly aware of the differences and similarities between modern composed music and traditional folk music.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 10:51 AM

"differences and similarities between modern composed music and traditional folk music"

I think most people are......

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 10:56 AM

I `ad that Sublime Ashtray in my cab the other day.
I said, "`ere Sub, I saw your skit about the schoolboy and `is song on that Mudcat thread, "Occupy English Folk Music". You`re wasted `ere. You ought to be with the BBC or someone."
`e said, "Ta Jim, it`s nice to know someone appreciates me. But you and your lot do gigs all over, what`s your take on English folk music?"
I said, "Well, put it this way. I thought "Chasing the WREN" was an English folk song until I joined the Navy and discovered SMIRNOFF!!"

Whaddam I Like??

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 10:59 AM

If I may address that last word, Al.

There is no code of practice as far as I know. I would be happy to be proved wrong by anyone highlighting it's existence.

There are plenty of subsidies to art forms outside the English tradition. I would be happy to get the details of all the grants if that were possible but I suspect a tiny fraction of them go to the traditional folk world. In my own experience we have had grants awarded for our festival when it is based primarily on modern folk - Our guest list has looked like a who's who of singer-songwriters or modern cover artists. We have not applied for a few years because we have downsized but the main guests this year were Paul Metsers and Marie Little. Neither of whom are exactly representative of the traditional folk scene.

Plenty singer songwriters get documentaries on TV. Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, James Taylor, Mark Knopfler - I have seen docs. on all of them and more. If you mean that there are no documentaries about unknown singer-songwriters then, yes. I agree. There are no documentaries about unknown traditional performers either.

More modern songs are reviewed by the media than are traditional ones. How can that be in any doubt when all you have to do is open any of the music papers?

There are festivals all over the world that cater for all types of music. I suspect there are less dedicated to traditional folk that there is to modern music but must admit that is a guess.

How many Brit awards go to trad musicians and how many go to singer-songwriters? I will let someone else do the research on that but I am pretty sure it will be a landslide victory for modern music.

Need I go on any more?

Honestly, I don't think that anyone here is getting at you. I am certainly not. But to say that the media is biased towards traditional folk music is just plain wrong!

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 11:05 AM

everyone fighting to have "THE LAST WORD" now THAT is funny!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 11:11 AM

Al, I'm a huge supporter of the role of the singer/songwriter in folk music – to my mind it really is the continuation of the traditional craft put in a contemporary context – but I don't recognise the situation that you're citing. Have you watched the excellent singer/songwriter series on BBC4, for instance? Think how often you hear Mumfords or Martin Simpson as backing tracks on TV programmes. And, as far as theatre is concerned, the multi-talented John Tams is a master at producing songs for plays. Plus you frequently hear songs written by the likes of Mike Waterson et al performed alongside traditional material – as indeed they should be.

Splitting into 'sides' merely dilutes an already thinly spread audience for our music. Ad that's to nobody's benefit.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 11:27 AM

no I'm not fighting for Dave's last word. I just can see - people think differently to me. well that's okay - its a democrarcy.

die Gedanken sind frei - as Pete Seeger sang.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 11:35 AM

Grayson Perry, eh? I bought a cravat with one of his prints yesterday, a girl (presumably GP) pushing a pram outside some kind of factory. I only wished I'd have bought one of his pots when I first fell in love with them and they didn't require a mortgage to purchase. Oh well.

As I said some many posts back, both come all ye and abominable no men could make a case for being the true inheritors of folk. Neither have the intellectual high ground because the past is another country, so we make the future up as we go along.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 12:13 PM

OK - Ia m not going to post 2 to the other thread to make the century - but on here -

300!

And yes, people do think differently. That is what makes life such fun :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 12:21 PM

differently here, makes people squabble like old married couples.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 12:23 PM

Damn, I wanted that 300!

I suppose I now need to struggle with Sweeney's torrents of obfuscation.

As for you, glueman - read it again: -

"the product of a musical tradition that has been evolved through the process of oral transmission. The factors that shape the tradition are: (1) continuity which links the present with the past; (2) variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or the group; and (3) selection by the community which determines the form or forms in which the music survives."

Where are the words "the people" in that? What we plainly see is attention directed to separate communities.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 12:26 PM

PS - Al, we all think you are a terrific musician, songwriter, and entertainer. We just don't see the conspiracy that you and Lizzie do.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 12:41 PM

You'll just have to wait for the 99 on the 'This is Folk' thread, Richard. I'm sure it will not be too long :-)

D.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 12:46 PM

Now's your chance!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 12:50 PM

"...tradition that has been evolved through the process of oral transmission.."

So you accept that folk is past, gone and the door closed behind it by the gewgaws of modernity? If you'd have said that a few hundred posts ago we'd have agreed.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 12:54 PM

Jeez...Is this tedious thread still going? Lizzie knows how to press all the buttons obviously! The bottom line as I see it, is that all songs were written by someone once...whether it is in 1500 or 2005 matters nothing. Interpretations of such songs will either appeal or not. In the end, who cares?
If you like something....Great!
If you don't....Great!
If you want to suggest that people might like to listen to something you've discovered......Great!
Telling other people that what they ought to enjoy for their listening pleasure is wrong......not so nice. (and ultimately pointless anyway)
I personally don't go much for Lizzies examples of "Good" music, that we all "Must" hear.
It all seems a bit bland and anodyne to me, But Hey! If she likes it fine. It's just that her tastes are obviously different to mine. Therefore, when sh goes on about a new artist, I normally avoid them with a barge pole. (Sort of reverse publicity!)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 12:59 PM

Oh here we go again...no that's not what was said at all, and you know it, it's what YOU want to be!...god.... your intolerance is frightening, evolving and gone are count'em...two....two different things, so stop making look like you're right, because....you're not! Get used to it.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:00 PM

still pushing your own buttons then Ralphie boy...gawd you are tedious!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:04 PM

OMGG TFLA IAIA

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:06 PM

So you accept that folk is past, gone and the door closed behind it . . .

Nope. I play it all the time. I innovate with it on a regular basis. It's kind of hard to say something is dead and gone that I do so much and that engages so much of my creativity. Nor are there any closed doors. I add new tunes to the repertoire, as do others. I learn tunes from and teach them to other musicians. I witness melodies and words getting changed as they change hands. I am a member of a community of people who enjoy listening to and playing a specific type of music. Why, oh why is this such a problem for you?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:11 PM

if "folk music" didn't evolve and change, then it would die; but it's still here in't it? Live with it!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:14 PM

But its closed to new material because recording makes oral transmission of songs unlikely to the point of impossibility in a folk song context. It's alive in other areas like football chants, playground songs, boozy coach trips, where words and tunes are accidentally or deliberately swapped, but extinct in the hallowed back rooms of The Folk Club where the only variation is in delivery. And that doesn't fit 1954.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:30 PM

Oh stop it...I personally never much cared for "1954" it equates for me, to 1984, so that's irrelevant, and so are you, you'll never get it, so I'm not going to waste anymore time with you, than I already have, it's time I can never get back!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:36 PM

Well 1954 does or doesn't matter. It's only important if people cite it as meaningful or base judgments on it. If you want to abandon the thing as an irrelevant anachronism it suits me.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:38 PM

*yawn*

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:47 PM

The 1954 definition can be very useful as a label. As I said earlier labels are absolutley essential in some case (Poison - Do no swallow, Danger - High Voltage and so on.) It is not quite so essential here but I can fully understand why people would want to make sure that they get 'what it says on the tin.' If you want to see and hear the version of folk music that you enjoy, then it must be very frustrating to go to a folk club and find it is full of Paul McCartny covers or American Indian music. OK - I can already hear the keyboards clicking 'Yes - but that is all good music and how do you know if you like it or not?' That is not the point. The hypothetical club goer may go to a dozen ethnic concerts a year. They may have a collection of evry song the Beatles ever made. But if they want to hear traditional folk music then they should be able to attend a folk club in the reasonable knowledge that at least part of the eveing will be dedicated to that form of music.

If I go, and don't like what I hear, I usualy leave. I can afford to forfeit the door money but I will not waste my time if I don't like it. Some people may not have that luxury. They may be able to ill afford the fee. They may have travelled for two hours by public transport to attend the gig. They deserve to get what they pay for. That is what the label is useful for.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 01:52 PM

"I can already hear the keyboards"

John Tams has Barry Coope on keyboards.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 02:06 PM

I am pretty sure that his do more than click.

New Model Army had Ed Alleyne Johnson on violin.

Which bit of knowledge is more relevent?

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 02:06 PM

Discussing the topic can be like arguing with biblical fundamentalists. One person will insist on oral transition or source anonimity, another will say 1954 is a useful label but not to be taken as gospel. A third will admit it's a lovely idea but it's had its day and a fourth wants to destroy it as a shackle on their human freedom to perform.

My interest in the topic is because while I almost exclusively enjoy the music of what's called the tradition - at least as far as folk goes - I've never had much truck with the idea of it as a living entity any more than a crumhorn or shawm player in a mop cap is making Rennaisance music live. If I play Bruton Town to the tune of Lily the Pink it might fit all kinds of transmissional criteria but it wouldn't be folk music in the eyes of those who care about definitions, nor mine.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 02:09 PM

That's Renaissance.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 02:21 PM

if you say so.....and DtG...get a sense of humour...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 02:35 PM

Got one thanks.

I bought a Leonard Cohen Album the other day. Took back because all I could hear on it was some old bloke whinging...

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 05:06 PM

Well, I seem to have pressed all the right buttons in BTNGs I-Phone.
Not sure I understand his tirade though...Any help people?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 05:14 PM

whinging...hasn't that been what this whole thread has been?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 05:34 PM

That depends BTNG. If people want to tell others to get a life, or a sense of humour, or suck it up, or trade whatever insults they deem necessary, they forfeit the right to be taken seriously in a logical discussion. I'm happy to visit rough pubs and friendly locals and adjust my behaviour accordingly. Ditto message boards. There's no point coming on like Wittgenstein in the Sluggers Arms or Johnny Mental at the Ritz. Consistency is the key.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 05:38 PM

I've never intended to be serious, this is the wrong forum for that

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 08:09 PM

But its closed to new material because recording makes oral transmission of songs unlikely to the point of impossibility in a folk song context.

Only if you copy songs from recordings.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 08:17 PM

funny...I've learned new material (trad. songs, that is) via oral transmission and I can think at least a half dozen other people who have done the same thing...sooooo, once more your argument is bogus...no....I am convinced you want the tradition dead despite your protestations to the contrary.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Nov 11 - 09:42 PM

glueman - no. There are songs that I do that I picked up simply from listening to them being done. But as I've also said before the it is commonplace now to learn songs through an extended oral transmission - one example being youtube - in which one person sings the song to his webcam and another hears it on his computer - not in real time of course - but that's oral transmission with an additional medium interposed.

Most performers learn words from written texts - but think of teenagers who know all the words to pop songs. They have written nothing down in most cases - the input to them is wholly aural.

The songs so learned are then modified by the creative impulses of the individual.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 02:03 AM

But you don't allow new songs to be described as folk music Richard, so the only variation can be in setting, not material. That to me is a sealed body of work which will only ever disappear further into the past. Lots of traddies accept that and I have no issues with it. The conditions that gave rise to the original material have gone, never to come again probably - although if the world economy heads the way it's going who can say - but it certainly won't be from a club in the sense we have them now.

I'm simply asking for logical consistency.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 02:15 AM

Or better yet, a re-writing of 1954 that acknowledges the social and technological changes that have occurred in the last half century.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 02:53 AM

glueman, again you fly in the face of the definition. Once the new material has been (as I argue it may be) transmitted via the wider understanding of "oral transmission", been modified as described in the definition, and achieved currency in a relevant community, then it has passed the gateway. And therefore Lizzie's views about a conspiracy to stop her preferred music being called folk music are unsustainable.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 02:58 AM

Okay, so how is contemporary music that isn't a football chant, playground song, etc, - in other words, a song recognised by traditionalists as folk music - going to find its way round the 1954 definition. With examples please.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 03:17 AM

The problem with definitions is that they need to change and be updated to stay relevant. Why else would my friend, the renowned lexicographer Tony Cowie, even though he's now 80, be continualkly working on ipdating The Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English? A definition from 1954 is way past its sell-by date.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 03:46 AM

The problem with '54 is it gives the appearance of aperture and inclusion, while effectively closing the thing off. It plays well to certain folk constituencies because it provides legitimacy for their preferences and a stick to beat off dissenters, while providing only a virtual environment for new material. Unless someone can come up with new material that has entered the traditional canon by the approved method, I believe we can declare the definition seriously wanting, if not dead.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 04:40 AM

The question, "what is Folk Music?" has, of course, been debated to death, resurrected umpty trillion times and killed again over and over and over. I suspect that this will go on ... and on and on until the sun becomes a red giant and consumes our planet.

Nevertheless, the truly interesting question is embodied in this thread, i.e. why are some people so desparate to occupy/colonise the Folk Music genre? I've always believed that there exists a vociferous group of 'folk fans' who don't really like Folk Music and don't really understand, or are uncomfortable with, or bored by, traditional material. These people want the genre to be more like the popular music of their particular era - in general they usually seem to want want guitar-based music which "rocks" - even though they can get that anywhere.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 04:50 AM

"...the truly interesting question is embodied in this thread, i.e. why are some people so desparate to occupy/colonise the Folk Music genre?"

No, the truly interesting question is why people continually throw a definition at others in the manner of a fait accomplis but can't provide a single example of transmission that fits the criteria in the half century since it was invented. Surely given the thousands of historic songs that fit the criterion, a few dozen will have entered the canon? A handful? One?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 05:09 AM

"No, the truly interesting question is why people continually throw a definition at others in the manner of a fait accomplis ..."

Off the top of my head, glueman - because they don't want to be occupied/colonised by guitar-based music which "rocks"?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 05:25 AM

Well folk music is either a time capsule heading deeper into history with each passing year, or a living tradition which its proponents claim? If it's alive and sets store by its own definitions, I presume someone can give evidence for the transmission which is so important to its claims of vitality?

IMO the important thing is the singers. If they lay claim to a tune, if they adopt it, it IS folk. What other definition of a living tradition can there be?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:13 AM

I presume someone can give evidence for the transmission which is so important to its claims of vitality?

Oral Transmission is the life and soul of any musical genre; it happens billions of times a second in the ever changing flux of musical action on Planet Earth, and quite possibly elsewhere in the universe too, for where there is sentient life, there will be culture, language, technology and, of course, music. That said, I doubt we can call the Ancient Tradition of Triple-Anus Singing of the Blind Moon Priests of the Planet Qwertyuiop Folk Music just because it fits the letter of the 1954 Definition. All music does that, even so-called Folk Music, so best we ditch The 1954 with the Dead Horse and look at other factors instead - such as the usual cultural, aesthetical, musicological factors we would use to figure out what any particular Musical Tradition is all about.

The 2011 Definition of the 1954 Definition - an insane credo the exact meaning of which might only be understood with reference to the conditions of class condescension and social apartheid in which it was conceived. One that implies that The Folk are in every sense inferior to the enlightened scholarly minds that produced it. One that insists that Folk Music can never be understood by The Folk themselves because if ever they do educate themselves, they are no longer Proper Folk. A product of outdated and outmoded paternalism of an outdated and outmoded bourgeoisie / intelligentsia. The credo of a handful of reactionary conservatives for whom Folk Music has the appeal of a religious comfort blanket instead of a living, breathing, joyful, vital and infinitely diverse creative musical universe populated by people who do it because they love it, much like any other musical universe, be it Jazz, Hip Hop or the Ancient Tradition of Triple-Anus Singing of the Blind Moon Priests of the Planet Qwertyuiop.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 10:02 AM

Leaving this 1954 thing aside for a mo', and all its socio-cultural-political baggage (both real and imagined)I would like to provide a refreshingly different perspective (he said modestly). When I was a child I always liked 'story songs' - or 'narrative songs' as my more pretentious older self calls them. This interest continued through my childhood and adolescence. Meanwhile many of my contemporaries preferred 'guitar-based popular music which rocked'. In my late teens I discovered my local folk club and a veritable cornucopia of narrative songs. Nevertheless, the ubiquitous, guitar-based rocking stuff was waiting in the wings just dying to take over; and in some clubs, of course, it did.

To my mind narrative songs and guitar-based rocking stuff provide different sorts of pleasures (although, of course, there are overlaps). But the guitar-based rocking stuff is, as I said above, virtually ubiquitous and much more popular while narrative songs are a more specialised interest - and there is nothing wrong with that!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 10:11 AM

I'm wondering why we need to be catering to glueman in the first place, other than to give it errr him the attention he obviously craves

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 10:18 AM

Glueman, you're repeating yourself and not paying attention to what's already been said on this thread.

You asked. I answered. Here's the answer again:

If you want a song of yours to be accepted by the traditional folk music community, here's how:

1. Play nothing but traditional folk music, with other players of traditional folk music, daily, for 15 years.
2. Write a song or a tune.
3. Play it for your traditional folk music friends.
4. See whether or not they like it and start to play it.

If you want specific examples, I have written at least three tunes that have been played and recorded by other musicians. All of them were changed slightly in the process. Here are a few other examples off the top of my head:

Josefins Dopvals
She Moved Through the Fair
Summertime
Boys of Bedlam
and almost any blues song

I'm sure a quick look through my CD collection would turn up several more.

As for your worries about the 1954 definition, you may want to consider letting it go. I don't know anyone who plays traditional music who pays the slightest attention to it. Most have never heard of it. I was 25 years into a deep focus on traditional music before I ever heard of it. It's academia. Which, to me, makes it almost the opposite of traditional music making. You may find that everything makes more sense if you think about these things less and play traditional music more.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 10:22 AM

To my mind narrative songs and guitar-based rocking stuff provide different sorts of pleasures

Might I suggest that the two aren't necessarily exclusive and offer you this for both your consideration and enjoyment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWeFPWa9z38

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 10:36 AM

"Might I suggest that the two aren't necessarily exclusive and offer you this for both your consideration and enjoyment?"

did he perform all 67 verses..?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 10:42 AM

Can we have an agreement that we'll all ignore BTNG until he/she stops saying things like "I'm wondering why we need to be catering to glueman in the first place, other than to give it errr him the attention he obviously craves". There's no need, B. It doesn't add to the discussion and it just comes across as boorish and unpleasant. And you keep doing it, so it's boring too.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 10:49 AM

you'd know all about boring of course

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 10:50 AM

I have next to no interest in rock music or guitars but fail to see what that has to do with the subject in question. I know what trad. means, I'm saying traddies are ensuring it's all in the past tense.
John P I respectfully suggest that hearing a variation of ones own song is not the seamless pluralism and timeless aggregation the definition alludes to. Or do we have that rare thing, a new stab at a definition, one which states how many steps from source is admissible as Folk? And it comes out as 'one'?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 10:51 AM

John P

As for your worries about the 1954 definition, you may want to consider letting it go. I don't know anyone who plays traditional music who pays the slightest attention to it. Most have never heard of it.

I've been involved in traditional music for getting on for forty years and had never heard of the 1954 definition before I joined Mudcat. I have never heard it discussed outside except when I mentioned it to a friend who hase been involved in traditional song far longer than me and far more deeply. She found the idea of someone forming a committee to decide what folk music was hilarious.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 11:17 AM

If it wasn't for actual documentation, you'd have thought the whole 1954 thing was a sketch either written by Barry Took and Marty Feldman, the I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again gang or Monty Python.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 12:11 PM

I reckon the problem is that when we talk about English traditional folk we're all talking about slightly different things.

I don't believe we're talking about a living tradition that can be added to and developed by the people whose tradition it was. We're talking about nothing more than a series of slightly random snapshots of a past tradition that no longer exists in any sphere outside of the specialist enthusiasms of traditional music fans and academics. We can't develope or add to the tradition because there is no tradition left to develope or add to. What we can do is to add to and develope the canon of songs that exists in the revival folk world. This is a completely different thing.

Can we add to the folk canon? The answer to which is clearly "yes". Can we add to the tradition? The answer is "do you want to borrow my time machine?"

So the argument is not about the tradition but what people want the folk scene to look like. I'd say that as ever, there's plenty of room for different versions of what the folk scene might include and its a big enough tent not to get into any fights. It's only a hobby.

So when Al (for example - nothing personal!) says that traditional folk is not the music of the people, he's absolutely right. But there again, neither is he right to substitute the work of folk scene singer songwriters. If anything is the music of the people right now, its the x-Factor and whatever else tops the charts for long enough to demonstrate it's not just the kids that are buying it.

Bloody hell. I think I'm convinced.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 12:30 PM

right

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 12:41 PM

The music's the thing for mutability, for it's the music that defines the diversity and the ebb & flo & eddy of the thing, be it rocking guitar or something more (how shall we say?) artful, febrile, delicate, gossamer, exquisite, filligree, depending on taste of course, for what one DOES with an Old Song is entirely up to you. Remember - the Tradition of English Speaking Folk Song was essentially Unaccompanied. So, to dig up the old Harvest Home adage from five years ago: A lap-top is just as valid a folk instrument as a concertina. How true, how true.

Even singing Unaccompanied there are still a myriad parameters by which to make a song well and truly ones own, depending on how far one wishes to push the accepted envelope, or even accept that such an evelope exists at all. Personally, I don't, but that's just me; I get sick & tired of being lectured on Absolutes and Correctness in the name of a Tradition which was examplified by the Idiosyncratic Diversity of the most diverse voices you're ever likely to hear, supposing one gets any joy out of listening those guys at all, which I do. I hate the term Source Singer - it implies the Revival Singers are somehow better. They aren't - just different.

The Old Songs offer such a lot in all respects; they don't insist on anything in return other than a knowing sort of respect which is hard won via research and the process of learning them, letting them into your heart where they will change your life most assuredly for the better. So whilst I don't believe that a Revival Singer / Artist / Band is part of The Tradition, they can partake of a wonderful creative process of Interpretation by which they might conduct the seance with the old songs which will bring them (the artists that is, not the songs) well and truly alive. The old songs are already alive; they are vivid in their undiminished potency and ready and willing to revivify any revival singer who feels the call.

A new maxim: It's not a matter of us reviving Folk Song, it's a matter of letting Folk Song revive us.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 12:45 PM

GUEST at 10:51 AM was me.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 01:53 PM

A new maxim: It's not a matter of us reviving Folk Song, it's a matter of letting Folk Song revive us.

GUEST,Suibhne Astray, you have said, in one line, what it takes others endless paragraphs to say....Thank you for being so succinct!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 01:57 PM

I think we have been allowed to bury 1954 in this thread. No flowers please. Donations to a landlord of your choice.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 03:52 PM

Suibhne Astray, you have said, in one line, what it takes others endless paragraphs to say

It takes me endless paragraphs too; probably a good deal more than most around here actually.

I think we have been allowed to bury 1954 in this thread.

Don't bank on it, glueman.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 04:12 PM

"Don't bank on it, glueman."

Well at least it's been killed as a topic for serious discussion. Flat-Earthers will always be with us.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 04:17 PM

and you should know glueman, and you should know...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 05:30 PM

Sorry if anyone has read this, or something similar, before. I did try similar arguments on another thread. My mistake - It was the wrong one and for obvious reasons my points went un-addressed on there. Maybe I can get some answers on here?

Although the 1954 definition is not one I apply, I understand why, in the absense of any other agreed definition, it can be important. Until such a time as another group of influential people get together and re-define folk music, it is all we have. No amount of derision or insult will alter that. Only a genuine alternative would prove constructive. And one that we can all agree on at that!

Anyway, on with the questions.

Why is it that those who would 'Occupy English Folk Music' would have us believe that they are the liberal ones, moving forward with the times and not stuck in the old traditions? Yet not one person, as far as I cam tell, from the 'side of the traditionalists' has suggested that 'modern' folk music should be occupied, banned or replaced by something else. Yet those very liberal, fun-loving 'modernists' are quite happy with the concept that traditional folk music should be replaced. Presumably never to seen again.

Why on earth would anyone want to remove the choice that people have now and leave us with just one type of folk music? Why not just tollerate all types of folk music, even if you don't like it, and accept that what some people enjoy is not to your tastes? Give people the choice. Let them decide if they want to hear Child ballads sung in their traditional form, boogie on with drum and bass hornpipes or watch American Indians performing Eurovision style stage shows?

Answers on a postcard, please, to -

Obershturmfurer Cecil von Sharpe
Folk Gestapo Division
Much Boring in the Tradition
FU2

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 05:37 PM

right

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 05:42 PM

The issue, that's been discussed at length, is not on the validity of traditional music or the freedom of anyone who chooses to sing it. It's on the nonsense surrounding a definition which has lifted up the ladder behind it while pretending it's still in place. New music can never enter the canon. Transmission is impossible. The conditions that obtained when it was written are gone, if they ever existed in the first place. It is not under threat, it survives in rude good health as a finite, historical genre of music.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:02 PM

rubbish

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:03 PM

you need to learn the difference between fact and personal opinion, then and only then will there be progress

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:03 PM

I don't think that is the issue, glueman. The thread is about something else occupying the place that is currently taken by traditional English folk music. At least that is how I read it. Maybe the opening poster could clarify?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:08 PM

If it's rubbish can someone provide examples of contemporary music that has entered the traditional canon, i.e. songs accepted by traditionalists as traditional that meet all the criteria of the 1954 definition re. adoption, adaptation, transmission.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:25 PM

"I don't think that is the issue, glueman"

I beg to differ Dave. As long as I've been listening to traditional music fans have been saying it's under threat. As I said near the start of the thread, the music is in better health than I can remember it. The threat is always 'out there' somewhere, people with guitars, rock music by the back door, the whole them and us thing that bonds groups together in adversity. There is no adversity. Traditional music is no more under threat than rap or house music.

The OP was making one of her regular jibes at the dinosaurs and they roared in unison. Someone suggested a George Gershwin song as trad earlier. I can't find any examples of incremental change in Summertime that warrants the title trad and until someone provides one I shall consider the definition extinct.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:43 PM

You're probably right, glueman, but it doesn't give me the answers to my questions. I do hope you are not suggesting that the thread was just a wind up after all? Well, I am dissappointed...

:D tG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:46 PM

Oh aye - I was going to add. Ted Edwards (Coal Hole Cavalry, Ladybird etc.) did a re-write of Summertime.

Suppertime, and the liver is greasy.
Fish are jumping
And the sausage is high

Does that count?

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 07:01 PM

Like I said glueman it's your opinion, for what it's worth.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 11:20 PM

glueman, I gave a few examples of music that was composed and is accepted by the community of people who play and listen to traditional music as being traditional tunes. Why are you still saying the same things over and over again? A few of us on this thread have said that we have experienced learning music from other musicians who learned it from other musicians, etc. We've also said that we have experienced music changing slightly as it changes hands. Why do you keep saying that traditional music is moribund? To people who are part of it not being dead you just sound silly. It's sort of like the guy at a party who goes on about how cats don't have any reasoning skills. All the cat owners in the room just look at each other and roll their eyes. Since you don't believe the first hand experiences of the people you are talking to, it makes me wonder why you are here.

Get this:
It's not about history.
It's not about trying to revive anything.
There is no torch being borne.
It's not about whether the culture that produced most of the music is still alive.

It's about whether the music is still alive.
The culture, now, is the community of people who listen to and play traditional folk music.
It's all just about the music.

You seem to be obsessed with trying to make a very simple general definition into something very complicated. You come across like an academic who is studying traditional folk music and needs to draw lines around things.

Most of my favorite songs and tunes came from other musicians. Sometimes I even get a couple of versions, like, "Here's how I learned it years ago, but now I play it like this". Or I find songs in old books and piece together how I want to play them. If you want to call that a revival, go for it. I call it finding cool tunes in an old book. I then teach the music to my friends, who teach it to theirs. All while I'm learning the cool music they learned and sometimes adapting it somewhat for my own purposes. I also sometimes learn music from recordings, but even that doesn't necessarily stop the process. A few years back I heard the album I learned a song from for the first time in about 20 years. Without ever meaning to do so, I had made some notable changes in 20 years of playing it without reference to the recording.

The band I'm playing in now does traditional Swedish music. As I learned the music, there was rarely a CD with the tune on it. I can sometimes find the notation on-line somewhere, but it's always an approximation of what actually gets played anyway. The only way for me to learn the music is to learn from my bandmates, both of whom lived in Sweden and learned the tunes from other musicians at dances and parties.

Sorry, but your thesis doesn't pass the real world experience test. It only makes sense if you chain yourself to the 1954 definition and try to wring every last legalistic drop of meaning from it.

It's just not that complicated.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 12:41 AM

traditional Swedish....I shouldn't involvo myself with that, it might abba bad side effect or two.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 02:27 AM

I had a friend who married a Swede. It was a turnip for the books.

:D

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 03:13 AM

"Suppertime, and the liver is greasy."

This, if I may say so, is not the transmission 1954 was invented to flag up. I'm pointing out the absurdity of a defunct definition. If it's still valid prove it with real examples - not light entertainment or we'll include the output of BBC comedy for the last forty years.

"Get this:
It's not about history.
It's not about trying to revive anything.
There is no torch being borne.
It's not about whether the culture that produced most of the music is still alive."

Is that an opinion or the 1954 definition?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 03:51 AM

I find it interesting that Lizzie, having (once again, and not for the first time) opened up this particular can of worms, is conspicuous by her abscence on her own thread...It would be enlightening to hear her views, Don't you think?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 03:55 AM

probably not Ralphie

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:01 AM

Ralphie, you keep telling us how tedious this thread is but you keep coming back to try to have a go at Lizzie. You're turning into a bit of a troll, I'm afraid. If you're not interested in what's being said, why don't you just stay away?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:02 AM

As someone who listens to traditional forms of music from a number of different countries, it fascinates me that we're the only country who seem unable to separate an old song from a new one without a guide to tell us the difference. Is it some national characteristic that makes us want to apply taxonomies to our preferences? Is it the folk club network of the last 50 odd years that's applied academic definitions to the product it deals in? Why can't we trust the evidence of our own ears?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:02 AM

Just catching up on this thread and note that DtG made a good point somewhere above:

"Why is it that those who would 'Occupy English Folk Music' would have us believe that they are the liberal ones, moving forward with the times and not stuck in the old traditions? Yet not one person, as far as I cam tell, from the 'side of the traditionalists' has suggested that 'modern' folk music should be occupied, banned or replaced by something else. Yet those very liberal, fun-loving 'modernists' are quite happy with the concept that traditional folk music should be replaced."

For a start, yes, I agree, the 'modernists' are really just as illiberal as they (continually) claim that we 'traditionalists' are.

I still think that it's because an interest in traditional material doesn't conform to contemporary musical tastes or fashions. Some people are outraged by the fact that venues exist which attract audiences but don't present material which conforms to those people's contemporary, fashionable musical influences.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:41 AM

Just to clarify....

Who said traditional music should be 'replaced'? WHERE has that been said? And by whom?

My *original* post:

>>>>>YEAH!!!!!

Bring in The Singer Songwriters!
Modernise it!
Take it OFF The Holy Shrine of All That is Holy!

Let THE PEOPLE hear The New Traditionalists, for THEY are The 99%!!

:0) <<<<


What I was saying is that it's time to appreciate the singer songwriters far more. Time to recognise they are the New Traditionalists, writing the songs that will also be taken up by new generations to come..

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:55 AM

The contemporary folk musicians and songwriters I know have a deep and abiding love of traditional music. We don't want to replace the tradition, just continue it. The 1954 definition is a barrier to this, so we just tear it up and throw it to one side as we walk across the unenclosed common land that is folk music and set up camp.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:14 AM

so we just tear it up and throw it to one side as we walk across the unenclosed common land that is folk music and set up camp.

Or and more realistic. There are plenty of venues that welcome "contemporary folk", the opportunity to start your own venue also exists. No one is even going to try to prevent this and the basic premise of this thread is bullshit.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Banjiman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:28 AM

In my day to day folk world both traditional & contemporary folky music live very happily side by side.

All the clubs and singarounds I attend welcome both.

I put on both at the Village Hall concerts I run.

All the festivals I attend welcome both.

(Just about) All of my favourite artists do both.

I love some of both genres (and dislike some of both genres)and value both on their merits.

Why all the squabbling ??????? It has nothing do do with the real world.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:29 AM

"the basic premise of this thread is bullshit."

In that case, why are you posting here?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:30 AM

"Let THE PEOPLE hear The New Traditionalists, for THEY are The 99%!!"

What's stopping THE PEOPLE from hearing the "The New Traditionalists" (whatever they are), Lizzie? Oh, I forgot - it's us old, fuddy-duddy traditionalists! I'll go and abolish myself right away! Mustn't stand in the way of progress!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:33 AM

"the basic premise of this thread is bullshit."

In that case, why are you posting here?

Hmm... mostly to disagree with some of the comments made.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:54 AM

"Hmm... mostly to disagree with some of the comments made."

Well, if the whole thread is bullshit, that must make your comments bullshit as well, surely?

I would totally endorse what Banjiman says.

As an aside with regard to the 'set up your own club' comments, we were recently asked to perform at an open day at the Yorkshire Waterways Museum, singing some of our self-penned stuff. Afterwards we were approached by someone who is considering starting a local folk club with a traditional bias and we were asked if we would be interested in being the residents. Like I said, we're not looking to replace the tradition, just continue it.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:59 AM

Who said traditional music should be 'replaced'? WHERE has that been said? And by whom?

Ah - Thank you Lizzie. I am still a little unclear - My fault, I know - but you have now clarified that you do not want English Folk to be 'Occupied' -

occupied
adjective
1. in use, taken, full, engaged, unavailable three beds, two of which were occupied
2. inhabited, peopled, lived-in, settled, tenanted The house was occupied by successive generations of farmers.
inhabited empty, deserted, vacant, uninhabited, unoccupied, untenanted, tenantless
3. busy, engaged, employed, working, active, tied up (informal), engrossed, hard at work, in harness, hard at it (informal), rushed off your feet I forgot about it because I was so occupied with other things.

I mistakenly assumed the standard definition of occupied and as that is to fill-up, take, engage or any of the above definitions I am sure you will forgive me for guessing the thread was about occupying the space taken by English Folk Music and replacing it with something else. Thank you for letting me know that is not what you meant and it would have saved a lot of discussion had you have made that reply earlier.



What I was saying is that it's time to appreciate the singer songwriters far more. Time to recognise they are the New Traditionalists, writing the songs that will also be taken up by new generations to come..

I agree wholeheartedly. I do appreciate the singer-songwriters. I am sure if you look back through the thread you will find that everyone agrees with you. I am not sure what I am to appreciate them 'far more' than but if you mean appreciate them far more than the usual stuff that the music industry inflicts on us then yes - I do.

So, in a nutshell, no-one wants to replace traditional folk; we all appreciate good singer-songwriters; They can both live in harmony (4 part I should think) and everyone is happy. Yes?

See - easy when you take the time to explain.

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 06:00 AM

Well, if the whole thread is bullshit, that must make your comments bullshit as well, surely?

I said the premise of the thread.


I would totally endorse what Banjiman says.

You mean you agree there is no problem in the real world. Might be me but I thought you had been suggesting otherwise...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 06:23 AM

I think we are now all agreed, Jon. There are no issues. Both trad and modern folk are appreciated and everything in the garden is coming up roses.

Apart from the 1954 definition which was never mentioned in the OP and probably deserves a thread of it's own

Hope that helps.

:D

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 06:33 AM

Thanks for the clarification, Dave.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 06:45 AM

"You mean you agree there is no problem in the real world. Might be me but I thought you had been suggesting otherwise..."

That's not what I'm saying at all. I endorse the idea of all approaches to the music living side by side. It's what happens in good clubs and festivals but around my neck of the woods it doesn't always happen. If you'd care to do me the courtesy of reading my posts instead of putting your own garbled interpretation of my words in my mouth, you'll see that what I have complained about is those people who seek to define and segregate the different strands of folk music instead of welcoming and celebrating its diversity. A "do what thou wilt" attitude would be much more beneficial to folk music.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 06:46 AM

The '54 definition is relevant to the thread because it's the single weapon of choice used to discredit the singer songwriter/ nu-folk/ guitar playing barbarians waiting to batter down the pub door and impose whimsical ballads on our hearts of oak. Without The Definition traddies (me included) would have to get on with what they like just because they like it, not because they have a Neville Chamberlain document of assurance, or because they've replaced Mornington Crescent with Cecil Sharp house, but for the simple reason it tickles their fancy.

If 1954 is shown to be the set of intellectual lace curtains - if not lace knickers - it is, the Folk World would be a better place, IMHO.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 06:53 AM

The '54 definition is relevant to the thread because it's the single weapon of choice used to discredit the singer songwriter

Seeing as the original disagreements seem to have gone away I am happy to discuss the 54 definition on here. I was 1 in 1954 BTW :-)

Who uses it to discredit whom? I am not saying it doesn't happen - Just I have never in my 30-odd years of folk clubs come across anyone saying 'You can't sing that coz it's not 54'. Examples would be good.

Nearest I had was going into a folk club in Bedford, wrapped ip to the nose in a green Kagoulle because it was pissing down outside, and being told "You can't come in here like that - You look like some sort of folkie!" :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 06:56 AM

Oh dear, Leveller...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:08 AM

"Who uses it to discredit whom?"

Well I can think of a number of characters on this site alone who never miss an opportunity to tell people what they like is all very nice but it's not proper folk music. Their single source for that opinion is the 1954 definition.

If the definition holds up in a modern context they may have a point, if it doesn't we may have to re-think what we mean by folk music. I think it's flawed in the very places people hold it up as useful and I've pointed out why.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:15 AM

Well I can think of a number of characters on this site alone who never miss an opportunity to tell people what they like is all very nice but it's not proper folk music.

And the opinions on this site (and this thread in point) matter because? It's not as if anything said here, anywhere on the internet, by Bob Copper, Bob Dylan or Bob's your uncle have the slightest effect on what people listen to and enjoy. OK - If you are 14 and under peer pressure to listen to only the songs that are given the thumbs up by MC Godinhisheaven then yes, reviews may be important. But to us in the folk world? Come on - Most of us are too long in the tooth to be told what to listen to!

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:26 AM

One of the more intriguing misgivings of the revival is a particular cultish off-shoot that thinks of itself as The Tradition, be it in respect of Old Songs or New. I've heard Scowie & Giff's When All Men Sing described as having passed into The Tradition, as with many others. This doesn't have much bearing on the precepts of the 1954 Definition, for things may pass into this Tradition unchanged by dint of their perceived folk character alone, and qualification is entirely a matter of communal concensus. Bob Copper and Peter Bellamy's The Old Songs is a similar sort of song - like When All Men Sing, it's a New Folk Song about Old Folk Songs and the singing thereof in the sort of singarounds which are, perhaps ironically, very much a phenomenon of the modern revival.

Like Speen said some way above, or below, I'm always keen to keep the two things quite seperate. The Tradition is a sacrosanct musical and cultural phenomenon which we know only through the efforts of early collectors who sought to document it as best they could, to preserve it, or at least the manifestations of it, whilst they had a chance to do so. The Revival - or more properly revivals - is an entirely different thing; for a start it operates at several very significant cultural removes from The Tradition, that is as far as The Tradition can be said to have existed at all, rather than the Idyll that has come down to us determined by the sort of song that was likely to have been sung by a certain sort of person at such-and-such a point in history - be they farmers boy, huntsman or collier lad. Music has always been an important part of working-class culture, but just because a music is of the working class doesn't necessarily make it Folk Music, and the 1954 Definition is an attempt to clarify this. My personal objection is mostly one of philosphy and interpretation; I believe the entire concept of Folk is essentially a Myth - be it Folktale, Folklore, Folk Art, Folk Dance or whatever. In all cases Folk is an agenda-ridden construct hatched in scholarly isolation from the thing itself, much less the creators and participants, who were cherished for their very special purity, without which they were no longer considered to be Folk - like much of the Lancastrian processional Morris tradition which Sharp rejected as being somehow tainted. That such Traditions are alive and well today as Fluffy Morris is of genuine Folkloric significance, yet few folkies, it any, are interested.

In this day and age, our concepts are perhaps a little less weighted; a term like Community is broader and more flexible in terms of the pragmatics of usage, so any reading of the 1954 Definition becomes, in effect, a nonesense. We recognise that all culture is in constant flux, and that notions such as purity are, at best, entirely bogus. However, the pure blood myths still endure, the notion of untainted cultural authenticity is still carried in many a Folkie's heart; the belief that, somehow or other in the mass-morass of 20th & 21st Century European Culture there exists a genuine 100% Authentic Folk Tradition Entirely Uninfluenced by the Outside World or The Folk Revival is one I have met with on any number of occasions. Naturally, I refute both this and the specious grounds on which it is invariably predicated; indeed, I reject the notion of cultural purity as an essentially right-wing nationalistic fantasy, and reserve my waryness when I hear Folkies opine that Folk is 'Their Culture' on a level with the ethnic cultures of (say) the Islamic communities with whom we share our true nationhood.

It is a similar weariness I have when I hear people insisting that New Folk Songs are The Traditional Songs of the future. For sure, there are New Folk Songs, and many damn fine ones too. You may catch one of ours on the Radio Three iPlayer for the next day or so; it's also on the current fRoots download compilation album. This is an Idiomatic Folk Song distantly inspired by a notion of Appalachian field-hollers (rather than a slavish immitation of actual examples) using (somewhat accidentally) the Javanese pelog mode, and a pentantonic fiddle style derived (mostly) from my life-long love of Michael Hurly, but the song is our creation. It is modern, but anciently idiomatic; whether or not it ever becomes part of the Folk Canon depends on people other than ourselves being moved to sing it, but even if they do it won't be part of The Tradition. For sure, it echoes The Tradition (as a concept) it acknowledges The Tradition (as a construct) it even celebrates The Folk Process (the words are built on a riddling sequence of images as though they were a mondegreened fragment of something else), but like other Modern Folk Songs, it's too self-consciously A Folk Song to ever become Traditional. This is both the essence and dilema of Folk (which is why I often use the term Steamfolk) but one which is, I feel, essentially very positive and highly productive and very Joyful indeed. Just look at all the amazing Revival Folk Music that has been made over the last sixty years...

When we deal in Traditional Folk Songs and Modern Folk Songs we're dealing with subjective dialogues on the nature of Folk itself, which is essentially a post-modern cultural reaction, often for the very best of reasons, and occasionally for the very worst (hence Folk Against Fascism which I would hope is very dear to us all). We do this thing out of individual choice, it asserts an individual identity - not a cultural one. Indeed, Individualism is our Culture in the the UK; it is Diverse, Complex, Multi Ethnic, Fraught With Difficulties and yet, ultimately, it is Wonderful. If Folk is about anything at all it's about certain individuals being moved to make those sort of choices, but once it becomes anything more in terms of proscriptive cultural correctness, then I really don't want any part of it. That is not my Folk, nor yet is it my cherished multi-cultural UK. Real Folklore is still measured by a complete innocence of folklore; even Bob Trubshaw acknlowdeges that much by quoting Warshaver in his very fine and highly recommended Explore Folklore (Heart of Albion, 2002 - read more HERE), thus real folklore just happens, entirely innocernt of the fact that it's folklore at all. So, despite all the mass-media talent circuses in the world, culture will always be what culture will be, and what the cultural landscapes of the future will yield are not for us to say. Will Folk exist? Does Folk exist now? Who can say? The best we can do, therefore, is just to keep on doing what we love to do and encouraging others to do what they love to do without creating false oppositions by looking for trouble which, in the present instance, just isn't there.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:28 AM

I agree in your analysis Dave. I still think the steady drip of patronisation and pedantry creates a de facto pecking order for what's 'real' and what ain't. I can say this because my tastes are very much of The Tradition (lots of traditions, actually) but hope I recognise it as the conservative reaction of a middle aged man, not because of some spurious documentary validation or imagined attacks on my preferences.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:28 AM

Lizzie's last post was somewhat disingenuous, it is the title of the thread which has resulted in the arguments, not her initial comment.
As for the 1954 definition it may be more productive to consider an up to date view as expressed by the ICTM in its aims
"International Council for Traditional Music
The aims of the ICTM are to further the study, practice, documentation, preservation and dissemination of traditional music, including folk, popular, classical and urban music, and dance of all countries."

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:47 AM

"Oh dear, Leveller... "

I accept your apology.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:47 AM

you'll see that what I have complained about is those people who seek to define and segregate the different strands of folk music instead of welcoming and celebrating its diversity. A "do what thou wilt" attitude would be much more beneficial to folk music.

Anyway

I agree with a "do what thou wilt" attitude and believe that there is health in diversity but:

Do what thou wilt to me means

If you wish to use the 1954 definition for discussion or other purposes, feel free to do so. Similarly if you wish to use say a "meaningful words" definition" feel free to do so. In both cases though, be prepared to accept that not everyone will agree with your choice.

It also means to me. If you wish to run your event with a narrower definition or focus feel free to do so or enjoy it. Similarly if you wish to include everything that anyone could possibly consider to be folk, feel free to do so but in both cases be prepared to accept that not everything will be for everyone.

Do what thou wilt to me does not mean enforce "free for" all definitions and policies on everyone any more that it means enforce "1954 rules" on everyone.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:48 AM

Missed name above.

And no Leveller, I disagree with you.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 08:01 AM

I enjoyed that, Suibhne O'Piobaireachd (How DO you pronounce it?). I struggled a bit but persisted and I think I have got the gist of some of it at least.

The 'tradition' is what was collected and is now fixed at a point in time. Revivals have used the tradition as a reference point but not actually added to, or detracted from, that fixed point. The culture from which the tradition was born no longer exists. Using the tradition to define cultural constructs is not, therefore, possible.

Is that OK so far? - I would honestly rather you correct me that let me go on with false assumptions.

If so, could we say that, at some as yet undetermined point in the future, what is termed the tradition will change as the songs reflecting the culture of a particular revival will be collected? At that point do we then have two traditions, the old and new, or do we call the old tradition something else? Do we then end up with arguments that the very songs that people wish to 'occupy' English folk music with become the tradition? Someone in Mudcat v 11.7 (the revenge) will announce that songs of Seth Lakeman, The Oyster Band and Mumford and Sons are for old hoary gits and should give way to the younger generation?

It all gets far too complicated for me after that point, which is why I do not, personally, use any definition but my own. And my own is so subjective that I would not even dream of discussing it in public, let alone trying yo inflict it on anyone!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 08:20 AM

I don't think I have seen so much rubbish in a long time.

I am also baffled why people want to call what they do "folk music" when clearly, they don't really want there to be any folk music. Every time I re-read the 1954 definition I feel how obviously sensible it is - and as for the sneers about academics and teachers taking over, I have never ever read so much pretentious twaddle as those here who spend usually about an A4 page replete with polysyllabics, pushing the boundaries of where piles of words slump into meaninglessness, trying to rubbish the eminently sensible definition.

It is also obvious upon a simple reading that the definition of "Folk music" is nation and style free. So the traditional chants of Qwertyuiop (as cited above) would be, if existing, folk music.

Certainly, I have never used the 1954 definition to discredit singer/songwriters. It's not about dismissing what they do. They can do it if they want to, and people can listen to it if they want to. It's about explaining the difference (to, I may add, apparently the ignorant).

There is, in fact, largely, a "do what you wilt" attitude (although I'm not quite clear where the Hell Fire Club comes into it) which is why Lizzie's original point is senseless.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 08:37 AM

Your post is contradictory Richard. It seems you're promoting 'do as thou wilt so long as you don't call it folk music'. I'd like to know once again, what new material has entered the tradition, to the satisfaction of 1954 taxonomists and traditional singers, that fits all the criteria of the definition. Because so far as I can tell there isn't any. There's stuff that sounds traditional but and there's material that meets the criterion (footie chants, playground songs, comedy settings, etc) but I see no evidence of the continued transmission of song 1954 suggests.

I appreciate I sound like a stuck record but it's important that definitions represent what they seem to, especially when they're wielded with such confidence. And if they don't, and 1954 can show no reasonably modern songs to set against the mass of antique material, one can only conclude that the definition in this aspect at least, is thoroughly flawed.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 08:57 AM

"And no Leveller, I disagree with you. "

Fair enough. But, then, you've already called this entire thread "bullshit", so I think you need to be a bit more specific. Sorry, but I couldn't make head nor tail of your last post.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 09:07 AM

Suibhne O'Piobaireachd (How DO you pronounce it?)

Sweeney O'Pibrock (i.e. Suibhne as in the mad bird king of ancient Irish poetic literature and Piobaireachd as in the classical music of the highland bagpipes; both have obsessed me since childhood and continue to do do today...)

I struggled a bit but persisted and I think I have got the gist of some of it at least.

Essentially, I strive to be fair, inclusive and open minded in the belief that we all have the right to feel these things the way we do, and we're each going to be feeling them differently anyway. It's damn near impossible to be truly objective, but if we can be subjectively inclusive, and appreciative of other's passions, then things is cool.

The Revival has given us some truly creative wonders, and continues to do so today, be it in session, singaround, concert hall or wherever, much as (say) Medieval Music has given us some truly modern classics. This might seem contradictory, but all music is of its time & era and thus is the cultural Zeitgeist determined, however we come into it. For me it was around 1967 when as a curious 6-year-old I flipped over my mother's copy of All You Need Is Love and listened to John Lennon's weird modal clavioline playing on Baby You're A Rich Man and heard in there something significant to all sorts of things. Essentially what I heard was Folk's idiomatic passage into Pop, however so exotically couched, but then Popular Music is synonymous with folk anyway; an unbroken tradition these past 50,000 years & quite possibly more.

Folk, of course, is a more conscious selection, which is ironic given the precepts: one is reminded of Maud Karpele's comment that Jean Ritchie wasn't a real Folk Singer on account of her education. It was Maud, of course, who gave us the 1954 Definition in the first place (thanks, Maud!) as part of the Orwellian-sounding International Folk Music Council, which is now, as johncharles reminds us below, the more ethnomusicologically sensitive International Council for Traditional Music, whose remit is very wide indeed. I've known ethnomusicologists study everything from Elvis Impersonators in Blackpool to Barbershop Quartets on Teeside; and I've seen ethnomusicological methodology applied to The Folk Scene in an early Channel 4 documentary by David Toop which really wasn't what Folkies wanted to see or hear at all.

The Revival will change; it's changing all the time & there's no second guessing how it'll turn out. The Tradition, on the other hand, is fixed, unchanging, and sacrosanct on various levels. We may draw from it, use it, bask in it, interpret it, squabble over it, study it, but even though I doubt we'll ever truly get the measure of it, it'll never change. The Tradition of English Speaking Folk Song & Ballad is finite, and it is cherished, but it is dead as a process, and that we have any sort of understanding of it all is a bit of a fluke really, but there it is, like fossils. In that sense The Folk Revival is a bit like Jurrassic Park, or those CGI interpretations of extinct life you see on TV - some masquerade as scholarly studies, others turn it into a more blatent form of entertainment. Like The Tradition, the fossil record remains finite, but subject to a myriad possible levels of reconstruction and interpretation; but no CGI recreation will ever make it into the fossil record no matter how instructive it might prove in our understanding of dinosaurs. This in no diminishes paleontolgy, because without it, we'd have no understanding of dinosaurs at all...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 09:13 AM

But, then, you've already called this entire thread "bullshit", so I think you need to be a bit more specific.

No I found the basic premise (Lizzie's opening point) bullshit.

Sorry, but I couldn't make head nor tail of your last post.

Oh dear...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 09:15 AM

glueman, I see, is still trying to foist his rather dubious opinion off, on this thread, as if it were stated fact...it's not

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 09:20 AM

Somebody earlier asked about songs written since my birthday (1954) are considered traditional nowadays...
Well, virtually everything written by Cyril Tawney for start. Various songs from the writings of John Tams, Brian Peters, Pete Morton, Bill Caddick, Peter Bond, and myriad others. Many of which I have heard performed by other people (and very nicely) All of the performers thought that they were traditional, having learnt them 3rd or 4th hand from other singers. Or in a singaround. That sort of blurs the boundaries anyway. It's even more blurry when it comes to tunes.
A lot of tunes played in sessions and known and loved by many, appeared in the last 10 years!
It's always nice to know the name of the writer of a song or the provenance of a tune. I really enjoy threads about such subjects both here and other places.
But it doesn't prevent my enjoyment of a great performance even if the performer hasn't a clue as to where it came from.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Vic Smith
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 09:21 AM

I wonder if those at the conference in 1954 realised what a lovely bit of fun they were going to make with their definition just 57 years later. I am totally immersed in this music - but I find that the last 150 or so posts in this thread err on the side of being rather weird and obsessive.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 09:29 AM

Actually If you consider it sensibly, 1954 is a meaningless date in lots of ways. The revival actually started with the invention of the phonograph. That was when performances could be recorded, and allows people today to listen to songs/tunes how they were played then. Before that, It was either aurally transmitted (and changed) or just written down in some form or other.
So the Tradition died with Edison.
Everything after that is the Revival.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 09:40 AM

if you say so, Ralphie boy, if you say so

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 09:48 AM

"A "do what thou wilt" attitude would be much more beneficial to folk music."

Reminds me a bit of the 'trickle down theory' of economics - which, as we all now know, turns out to be nothing more than self-interested wishful thinking. I predict that "do what thou wilt" would, in practice, mean hundreds of inept cover versions of the latest pop hits.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 09:57 AM

The Revival will change; it's changing all the time & there's no second guessing how it'll turn out. The Tradition, on the other hand, is fixed, unchanging, and sacrosanct on various levels.

But, as I asked earlier, when someone begins to collect and categorise revival folk music will that then become the tradition for later revivals to be based on? Or, as Ralph says, can there no longer be a tradition? I would certainly concur that there can be no tradition based on Aural collection but could it not be based, if the future, on some other Media?

EG - this is from the tradition when people used to record things on Philips hand-held cassette recorders (snigger, snigger). Or this is from the odd traditions of the Mudcat dwellers who based most of their songs on the ramblings of a few insane seers.

In Moorcock's 'Dancers at the end of time' series he mentions that Billy the Kid was the famous astronaut and entrepreneur of the twentieth century who had the hind quarters of a goat. In another (Count Brass possibly) The four ancient horsemen of the Apocalypse were Jon, Pawl, Jorg and Rhungu.Who knows what will happen :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 10:07 AM

glueman, you just officially became a waste of time. Your dismissive attitude toward everyone else is tiring. People spend a lot of time and care writing things in response to your concerns and you dismiss the whole thing with a snide comment. You pretend to be asking serious questions, but it becomes obvious that you only ask the questions so you can say your same piece over and over. You obviously don't know how to carry on a conversation. Please go bother some other thread. Maybe we should start a "beat the dead horse" thread where you can say traditional music is dead, Big Al can say there's a conspiracy against him, Little Hawk can say everyone else is unconscious, and Ron Davies can say that atheists kill people. Over and over and over again.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 10:14 AM

I see someone else finally caught on as regards glueman

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 10:35 AM

Insults aside John P and BTNG, on Ralphie's list of Cyril Tawney, John Tams, Brian Peters, Pete Morton, Bill Caddick, Peter Bond, etc, while I'm confident in saying they've become folk club standards, I'm fairly sure they're not what Maud K was referring to in her definition. They operate on a different level, that of the popular revival song which is, as I think Suibhne circumnavigated, a different beast to the one Ms Karpele intended. I also doubt whether the more single-minded inhabitants of this forum would consider them traditional at all, no matter how loved by club-goer's.

That aside, I'm pressed to disagree with anything Sweeney has said on the matter and from the 300 post mark the thread has become as tiresome to upload as it is to read.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 10:43 AM

That aside, I'm pressed to disagree with anything Sweeney has said on the matter and from the 300 post mark the thread has become as tiresome to upload as it is to read.

Tiresome because some people won't agree with you, and you're going to take your football and go home!


Insults...insults in pointing that you just might be wrong...oh come on! I caught onto you along time ago, and now someone else has...you're a waste of time...oh and if her name, must be uttered by you.. it's Maud Karpeles.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 10:46 AM

BTNG, your style is too well know frpm your other board name to take seriously. Different web identities do not denote separate opinions.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 11:18 AM

What is the gluemamn bashing about? Kindly desist forthwith in the name of common decency; it's people like you who give folk a bad name, resorting to ridicule when they feel under threat; not good, man; not good at all.

*

when someone begins to collect and categorise revival folk music will that then become the tradition for later revivals to be based on?

I'm of the opinion that true Folk is essentially obvious of its own existence; it can't readily define its own tradition, or even insist that there is one, whatever the model of that tradition might be. If there is a New Tradition, then that's for others to say, not us, although, like all musician we partake of traditional process, but to call that The Tradition, or liken it to The Tradition is, I feel, a tad conceited. What happens in sessions & singarounds in a rare old melting pot of all sorts of ideas and idioms and songs and tunes and quite frankly after the second pint I've lost track entirely. I regularly participate with master musicians who can take songs by other song writers and make them into something else entirely; wonderful things, pristine, sparkling. Some may even feel they're continuing in The Tradition by so doing, and certainly that's in the nature of Traditional Music, which according to both Ethnomusicological Method and the ICTM pretty much includes everything anyway.

This is the beauty of the 1954 Definition. When it says The term can be applied to music that has been evolved from rudimentary beginnings by a community uninfluenced by popular and art music and it can likewise be applied to music which has originated with an individual composer and has subsequently been absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community that no such community ever existed in the entire history of humanity. But when it says The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready-made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk character you just know the most perfect example of this is an Elvis Presley impersonator doing his best to sing Suspicious Minds after ten pints of Stella.

When Patrick Street picked up Simon Jeffes' Music for a Found Harmonium it instantly became a session classic, and I've heard it describes as a Traditional Irish Tune on more than the one occasion. Similarly, I've heard one of Purcell's Abdelazer Hornpipes described as being 'Folk Processed' and 'Traditional' because it was published by Playford as The Hole in the Wall, and you regularly hear William Byrd's Earl of Salisbury Pavan played by Folk musicians. Such things are the Folk Standards, much as Monk's Goodbye Porkpie Hat is a Jazz Standard. How they get to be that way is all part of a musical process but there's nothing unique or mysterious about it. Like the songs you hear in singarounds, their provenance can be as convoluted as you like involving serious academic research and painstaking reconstruction, or it can be as basic as copying it off a record, or another singer, without paying too much regard or respect for their own relationship to it. Generally, I think we ought to be careful about treading on toes, but I carry a lot of songs I've acquired off other singers and musicians I've worked & performed with, just as I'll do my best to re-source these as acurately as possible. Then again, I've got three songs in my ready repertoir that I sing pretty much as they appear on The Albion Country Band's Battle of the Field album even though I've sourced them back to quite different originals; fact is they appear to be stuck the way they are! Where possible, I like to trace a song to a Traditional source, be it sung or written. I won't do too much to consciously change it, if at all, apart from losing the occasional ballad verse here and there, but the setting will be very much my own, and I think we owe that to both ourselves and the songs. Like I say - letting them revivify the singer rather than the other way round.

Each new revival must address itself to the same original Tradition, as each singer must; the old chestnuts will nourish us afresh, and forever after, and if Folk Revivals do have a habit skipping a generation now and then I hope that someone born today will one day go on to sing Butter and Cheese and All in such a way that is every bit as invigorating as Peter Bellamy, or MtheGM, or Jon Boden, or the young Australan chap from the Folk Degree Cource I heard sing it at the Cumberland Arms in Byker five years back who brought the house down. Revivify! But you can be sure they'll be taking taking it back to the source of the thing and drink of it afresh - to the mastery of Cox and Larner, which - for me at least - is the sacred earth on which we dare tread.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 11:31 AM

<<<< As for the 1954 definition it may be more productive to consider an up to date view as expressed by the ICTM in its aims
"International Council for Traditional Music
The aims of the ICTM are to further the study, practice, documentation, preservation and dissemination of traditional music, including folk, popular, classical and urban music, and dance of all countries." >>>>



Nowt wrong with my title, thank you. It's a very 'up to date' one too.

Oh, so the ICTM are into Hip Hop? WOW!!

Cecil HipHop Sharpe House...It has a nice ringyzingzing about it. I think it could catch on.

Maudie Karpeles..now THERE was a woman! I think Ol' Cecil had a twinkle in his eye for Maudie, if you ask me. ;0)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 11:33 AM

glueman take me seriously or not, I could care less...but your spouting the rubbish you are spouting is beyond the pale as

GUEST,Suibhne Astray has stated

"Kindly desist forthwith in the name of common decency; it's people like you who give folk a bad name, resorting to ridicule when they feel under threat; not good, man; not good at all"

you have no argument, and all the ridiculing in the world isn't going to change that.

You simply want everyone to agree with you and when you can't you stamp your little foot and pout...and now I know who you remind me of...thank you..... :-)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 11:48 AM

GUEST,Suibhne Astray has stated

"Kindly desist forthwith in the name of common decency; it's people like you who give folk a bad name, resorting to ridicule when they feel under threat; not good, man; not good at all"


If you'd taken care to read the relevant post GUEST / BTNG or whoever the feck you are, I was speaking in support of glueman. Don't use my name in support your irksome Trolling and abuses, conveniently delivered from behind your non-ID. I thought the Mods were supposed to delete posts like that anyway?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 11:57 AM

GUEST no name, I'm neither stamping nor pouting and anyone who knows me will tell you I take my folk music seriously, which is to say always with a smile. The software is the main reason I stay away for months at a time, it doesn't allow editing and gives no indication of intervening posts, hence the end of Maud Karpeles name going missing in an adjoining word change. The board is virtually unmoderated, meaning posters can be serially misrepresented without any accountability from those making the mischief. It's mob rule, take posts seriously and you're told to lighten up, engage lightly and someone will accuse you of taking the p***. Truth by consensus has never floated my boat.

The 'vituperative intolerance' Peter Bellamy's obituarist referred to is alive and well in the folk community which is the reason why I consume the English scene at least, at (turntable) arm's length. Nonetheless I was musing at the time this thread came up why it is other folk communities accommodate new material alongside the old without diminishing either and why the general paranoia about definitions, which is why I was moved to chip in.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 12:08 PM

my cookie went amiss, I had no idea I wasn't logged in, for that I apologise, and for nothing else.

refresh my memory will you...Peter Bellamy's obituarist was whom?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 12:53 PM

If only we were all like Lizzie - PERFECT!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 01:08 PM

Oops! Should have read:

When it says The term can be applied to music that has been evolved from rudimentary beginnings by a community uninfluenced by popular and art music and it can likewise be applied to music which has originated with an individual composer and has subsequently been absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community you can be sure that no such community ever existed in the entire history of humanity.

I might add that it's thuis sort of bizarre fantasising that underwrites a lot of the more wonky notions of the early revival; the assumption that things can exist in isolated pockets of perfect purity unsullied by contamination by contact with the real world I find hard to understand. Likewise the insistence that only unwritten music can be a living tradition is patronising in the extreme. That means so much of the Northumbrian Bagpipe Tradition wasn't actually Folk Music, where individual composition was highly prized and little changed to this day.

Still if Richard insists it all makes perfect sense, then...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 01:33 PM

The idea of classification of music seems to be an important aspect of this thread. I know followers of Northern Soul who have such a restricted view of what it is, it is a wonder they have any music left to listen to. This is their right. Similarly many other genres; heavy metal, country and western, bluegrass etc. etc. are fiercely protective of what they perceive as their music.
Live and let live is my view. Intolerance is attempting to pressure others into accepting your views.
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 01:47 PM

well johncharles you're not, so please learn to live with it.......

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 01:53 PM

In summing up Your Honour:

Play the bloody music and screw classifications and those that try to place them on the music and the musicians

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 02:18 PM

Dear BTNG, non of us are...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 02:21 PM

that's none

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 02:28 PM

correct

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 02:35 PM

off to the pub guitar in hand. Playing traditional, modern, self-penned,
blues, and tunes old and new.
Good music, beer and good friends what could be better.
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 02:38 PM

Guitar? GUITAR?? Instrument of the Devil!

:D

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 02:44 PM

well good for you johncharles

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:45 PM

Can I refer y'all back to my post of 08 Nov 11, 10:42 AM? I find it works. It may for you, too.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:48 PM

god you're getting boring Cringe..and you bang on about me

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:52 PM

there never really was any discussion here, had there been I would gladly add something. it's either glueman banging on about god knows what or several of the usual suspects insulting LizzieCornish...which topic would you care to discuss...your choice, Cringe...go ahead

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:41 AM

Just to go back to basics for a moment, I'm totally confused as to what 'The Tradition' is. I've studied history, folklore and legends for most of my life and have never come across one great, overarching 'Tradition'. A huge range of more or less local traditions, certainly, but nothing that encompasses them all. So, I can only assume that 'The Tradition' is, in fact, an artificial construct of 'The Traditionalists', whoever they are (a lost race of intellectual giants, perhaps?).

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:42 AM

Playing traditional, modern, self-penned, blues, and tunes old and new. Good music, beer and good friends what could be better.

I'm sure that's as good definition of FOLK as any of us could come up with, much less abide by. It's true that whilst I've sessioned & soireed with jazzers, opera singers, brassers, classical players, neo-medievalists, violists and free improvisers, it's only in the collective Come-All-Ye Folk Session & Sing that a particular sort of magic sparks forth and all ones sorrows fall away. 35 years on and it seldom fails. Of course it's going to be different for everyone, but in my Folk Life I'm never happier than when it kicks off & roars and the pure JOY of the thing is all that matters.

*

Otherwise, a very nice thread were it not for this BTNG who seems to get pleasure from lurking under the bridge abusing neighbourly passers-by. Hitherto I've always had my doubts as whether Trolls actually existed, but BTNG is 100% proof. Still, let's not let it spoil things, eh?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 04:03 AM

I'm totally confused as to what 'The Tradition' is.

Aren't we all? It's going to different for everyone, but for me its something to do with a body of finite material what has come down us from collectors that indicates that once upon a time things happened differently than they do today. I think of it as The Fossil Record. To me The Tradition exists as the Folk Song, Folk Music, Folk Tale, Folklore and Folk Custom of the oft rumoured Simpler Times and Cultures, the collected evidences of which indicate common morphology and fluidity across oceans, rivers, language barriers and other cultural boundaries. It is there in the Brothers Grimm, Absjorsen and Moe, Max Hunter, Cecil Sharp, the Penguin Book of English Folk Songs, the Faber Book of Popular Verse and the note books of Annie Gilchrist. It is vast and diverse and quite possibly a figment of our imaginations, but at times it feels close enough to reach out and touch it (see my last post). Although long dead, it still feels weirdly alive to those who are that way inclined. I don't think of it as being merely Old Fashioned; we relate to far older things in everyday life - our number systems and our star signs for example, both of which predate anything in The Tradition by several thousand years - but The Tradition is such that it remains essentially timeless, however so remote, glimpsed on rare occasions as though through a glass darkly...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 04:47 AM

"Although long dead, it still feels weirdly alive to those who are that way inclined."

Indeed. When we were kids our local joke shop sold things called 'magic worms' which fascinated me to the point of distraction. Basically it was a small paper sachet containing a dozen pellets that looked like Rice Crispies. When these objects were placed in a glass of water they immediately began to expand into serpentine shapes and continued to do so until they filled the glass. It was the nearest thing I'd come to the idea of something from nothing and although I'm sure there's a plausible scientific name for these dessicated cells, the 'magic' of first seeing them has stayed with me.

I made the magic worm connection when hearing about the revival in Georgian folk music. In short, Georgia had been under the yolk of various invading forces for so long - not least the Soviet union - that there were no recordings of its traditional song or music. Nobody in living memory knew what it sounded like. None that is, save for a few made by pioneering British song collectors in the early days of mobile sound recording. From this capsule, this pellet of tradition, a whole culture has grown which is spreading throughout the country and overseas. Folk music is like that. If it's allowed to it will expand to fill all the gaps so long as the ground is fertile. You could argue that such a limited repertoire of sound is unrepresentative of the diversity of Georgian national music but it seems there was just enough to aural seed for the entire cultural greenhouse.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 05:12 AM

Well, Suibhne, I'd agree with that although I've never really thought of it as The Tradition - in my experience it doesn't have a name, it just IS. In fact, it's what the novel I'm currently writing, called The Wisdom of Stones, is all about. It's also what I write many of my songs about.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 05:48 AM

Suibhne "Playing traditional, modern, self-penned, blues, and tunes old and new. Good music, beer and good friends what could be better."
We did all of the above plus singing Happy Birthday and Whisky in the Jar requested by a group of people celebrating their friend's birthday.
Your comment proved to be right "the pure JOY of the thing is all that matters."
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 05:52 AM

Yolk above should have read 'yoke'.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Brian Peters
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 05:53 AM

"I have never come across one great, overarching 'Tradition'. A huge range of more or less local traditions, certainly, but nothing that encompasses them all."

A fair point, but if the same kind of thing was going on at local level in thousands of different places - for example the old 'Scarborough Fair' / 'Cambric Shirt' song being passed on orally through the generations in North Yorkshire, New England and the Ozark Mountains, then I think it's valid to see an overarching process there. The term 'The Tradition' is sometimes used a bit carelessly, usually as shorthand for "the kind of thing that used to happen", as SOP has been explaining.

[In your last post, Suibhne, you seemed to get perilously close to endorsing the concepts of Folk Song and Folk Lore. Surely not! Several nice posts from you, though - and overall a more civilised discussion than some I've seen here]

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 06:13 AM

"I'm totally confused as to what 'The Tradition' is." "Aren't we all?"
No we're not - the tradition is recorded researched and documented in many hundreds of published works, it is defined in dictionaries and encylopeadies, it is to be found in recorded example in archives all over the world and most importantly, it is to be found and immortalised in the voices of such TRADITIONAL singers as Walter Pardon, Tom Lenihan and Texas Gladden - all of whom knew what the tradition was and said so when asked.
And yeas - it is about history and preservation - otherwise the big ballads will never survive the present revalists who almost collectively seem to have developed 'acute goldfish-memoryitis' and eternally whinge about their being "too long".
The more of the many diverse and important aspects of folk music that attract attention, the better its chances of survival, and those who argue that all you have to do is sing, need to take a hard, long look around and count up just how many new and young faces are appearing at the geriatric-filled clubs.
A workable, (if in need of intelligent up-dating) well-researched, recorded and documented definition exists and is to be found in most good dictionaries, and until somebody comes up with an alternative, that is the one that will be passed on for future use.
I have never read such self-promotional, self-congratulatory, mindless waffle.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 06:26 AM

Well, there we are - Jim has spoken so we can all just shut up and go about our business.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,SteveT
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 06:27 AM

"Like The Tradition, the fossil record remains finite," ( Suibhne Astray).

I'll avoid getting too bogged down with the content of this thread but I do so love analogies and ought to point out that the fossil record is not finite, fossils are still being formed. It's just that fossilisation is a slow process and interrupting it before it's complete would mean you wouldn't see the fossil (in some cases just a partially-decayed mess!!). The most recent recognised fossils are probably things such as Lindow Man, from between 2BCE and 119CE, although there may be more recent examples such as organisms preserved in ice etc. So, if you wish to use that example, music and song are still entering the "tradition" – but you'll need to come back much later if you want to find it fully absorbed as a "fossil".

I'll add that my experience is that there are plenty of discrete "styles" around that coalesce into groups/clubs/sessions. I go to some singarounds that get bored if someone tries to sing an unaccompanied ballad or song and some that love old (traditional) choruses and ballads and don't really appreciate anything accompanied or from the 20th century (let alone the 21st). I go to music sessions (where they don't like songs) where they say "Oh no, lets not have any "diddly-diddly" music" (by which I presume they mean Irish) and others that are advertised as "Irish only". It's not that you couldn't do something else at these places, just that those who keep them running are not "moved" by them. You might say that they are prejudiced or you might say that they have a right to their preferences. For me I go to each and respect the views of the group that carry them on each week/month. I'm grateful for their love of live music and, if I feel like singing a Child ballad, I just make sure I do it at the right club. I don't need to occupy anyone else's space – I just go to the space that's already occupied by the style I feel like at the time. (I haven't yet been to the Klezma session, as I don't know the chord sequences, but I've been to the monthly "music club" which I would class as an open mike venue for singer-songwriters but, although I write, play and sing, I didn't feel my material suited so I've only been back as audience – I wouldn't want to occupy a spot that was better suited to others.)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 06:42 AM

you seemed to get perilously close to endorsing the concepts of Folk Song and Folk Lore

Yikes! I suppose what I'm trying to say is that there is The Thing* and our Concept of The Thing, which are two very different things (?!). My concept of Folk / Folklore / Folktale is largely determined by bending bookshelves stuffed with cherish volumes & collections & theoretical perspectives most of which I don't actually agree with but acknowledge as essential to the cause. My main passion, I suppose, is The Green Man; I've got dozens of books from Basford to MacDermott but it wasn't until the recent publication of Richard Hayman's wee book as part of the Shire series that I found one that echoes my own feelings and findings on the matter pretty much exactly - see AMAZON for both the book & my review. That said, I have dozens of dear Green Man friends and associates who feel very differently, but I'm quite happy to share notes, images, pints & field ventures with them. Same with Folk really - we agree on The Thing, but we differ on The Concept.

*Nothing to do with the classic 1951 sci-fi movie, or John Carpenter's ingenious 1982 remake. 2011 sees still another... Hmmm... Still, I got her along to the last two Planet of the Apes remakes & reimaginings (and she's happily half-watching episodes of the 1974 TV series I bought the other day) but how am I going to persuade her to come see The Thing with me? It's often a fine line between sci-fi and horror; District 9 she loved & hated in equal measure. It's like getting girls to like Beefheart or The Fall really, or Krautrock. Actually, I'm feeling especially positive right now having just unwrapped the copy of Tangerine Dream's 'Encore' that I bought in Fopp in MCR last year for £3 and forgot I had. Just found it & it's on there now; hardly classic Dream I admit (Zeit anyone?) but I neverthless remember it being the choice listening of a bunch of punk mates, circa 1977, who hadn't quite rejected their prog / Kraut roots. Looking back, I now realise it was a more a matter of prog rejecting them.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 07:39 AM

fossils are still being formed

Not of extinct species of dinosaur they're not, which was my point. Like The Tradition, the record is both finite and fragmentary and its interpretation is largely a matter of guesswork. The experience of it is a thing of pure Joy though (with significant exceptions, ahem) - but it's the same joy you get on encountering the dinosaur skeletons in the Natural History Museum, or the weird life-size plastic replicas in Blackpool Zoo. In this game we're all paleontologists, united, I hope by our ultimate love of fossils which, though long dead, still inspire us to create whole new worlds...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 09:26 AM

Jim Carroll is correct The Tradition is "about history and preservation". This I believe is a very valuable task. This is essentially an academic   exercise and as such will only ever be accessed by other academics and a vanishingly small percentage of the wider population.
However, this thread is addressing the real world of performers and audiences.
I note Jim Carroll passing interesting comments upon the real world in an article in
"Living Tradition - Issue 36 Opinion
Jim Carroll & Pat Mackenzie"
Audiences are changing in response to their changing environment and folk/traditional performers have to change, particularly if it is their means of making a living.
After all the one of the driving forces behind the first and second folk revivals was the fact that the singing tradition was dying out – changing times perhaps?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 09:27 AM

I'll leave Jim The Red and His Merry band of Theorists in the little dark back room down at The Duck and Prime Minister mumbling into their pint pots and admiring each others jumpers and actually get out there and play the music, a cappella, acoustically and electrically, variation that's the key...not tied down by someone elses idea of what I should be playing...is it folk? probably not.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 10:01 AM

BTNG,
As has been noted, your constant insults and snide comments are tiring. Please talk about the music and leave your boorishness home.

You said, I'll actually get out there and play the music, not tied down by someone elses idea of what I should be playing

No one anywhere, ever, is tied down by someone else's idea of what they should be playing. That is, in essence, what this tread is about, and the whole idea is simply bullshit.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 10:07 AM

I find myself put off by the concept of a "finite" body of work. Having witnessed that not being true, I have to disagree. But then, for me, the "tradition" is all about the music. The rest of life that made up what others seem to be talking about when they talk about the tradition is long gone. While I find studying history interesting, all the historical knowledge in the world isn't going to change or create a melody or lyric and doesn't have much to do with how the music actually gets transmitted and played today.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 10:12 AM

if you say so JohnP if you say so

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 10:42 AM

"I'll leave Jim The Red and His Merry band of Theorists in the little dark back room down at The Duck and Prime Minister mumbling into their pint pots..... "
Well - in the presence of such a well thought out argument I withdraw my comments
Prat
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 10:52 AM

all the historical knowledge in the world isn't going to change or create a melody or lyric and doesn't have much to do with how the music actually gets transmitted and played today.

The Tradition inspires new creations, new artists, new approaches, even new traditions which echo what Jim wrote in the article (quoted a few posts back by johncharles): folk/traditional performers have to change. That's just the way it is really, everyone has something new to bring to it, and so it goes on, ad infinitum. The Finite aspect is the Old Songs, and the cultural & historical conditions in which they arose. That's finished. Just as ploughing with horses is finished; just as steam railways are finished. They exist as revivals and recreations; things you see in a Living Museum like Beamish, but save for the passions of a few enthusiasts diligenty beavering away then they'd be gone. Is the Folk Scene a living museum? I don't think so - although it could easily be, and I dare say to many that's exactly what it is. I used to love museums - I still love the Pit-Rivers Museum and the random threadbare taxidermy & ethnographic clutter of the old Handcock in Newcastle before they ruined it. I see the Folk Scene as being like that - random clutter endangered by over-eager curators seeking to somehow clean it up and bring it up to date, or put to heavy a stamp on the public displays whilst the really interesting stuff is kept locked away in the vaults.

Looking forward muchly to seeing the Grayson Perry exhibit at the British Museum when we're down there in December...

By learning a song from a field-recording of a traditional singer that you're not keeping that tradition alive, rather you're doing something quite different. I respect the validity of that difference, and respect its outcomes, but as an artist it behoves me to stress that I'm not a collector or an archivist; neither am I an academic, but as an educated human being with a passion for Ethnomusicology and Folkloric Disciplines then I will continue to point out the glaring disparities between subject / object when it comes to a basic consideration of the various problems and agendas involved in one culture collecting the cultural residue of another, much less subjecting it to any sort of absolute definition or taxonomy. Problem is here on Mudcat it's difficult to have those sort of discussions without incurring the wrath of a couple of culprits whose orthodoxy and fundamentalism has inspired in me the notion of Folk as a Religion, rather than as a culture in its own right...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 12:52 PM

May have mislead you there Suibhne Astray,
"folk/traditional performers have to change" was my opinion. If you have a look at the article you will find something very different. the letters in response to the article are also very interesting.
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 01:09 PM

"Well, there we are - Jim has spoken so we can all just shut up and go about our business.
"I assume you have no answers to the points I made - your village idiot friend obviously hasn't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 01:28 PM

I am more than happy with the concept of the tradition. But I did wonder before, maybe non to clearly, whether the tradition is either changeable or if can be replaced by a newer tradition in years to come.

I am pretty sure we don't know whether the ancient Britons sat around arguing whther the new music or the tradition was more important, but seeing as we do it, I believe it would be a safe theory. If so then, what was their tradition? And will the one we are talking about now still be there in another millenium or so?

Or has the tradition, as Ralph put it before, now been frozen because we no longer pass songs and lore down auraly? Or all all these things just 'The tradition' and, at whatever point in time you are, the music that was performed beyond living memory the tradition? Or all of these things?

Interesting debate. Glad it took this turn and that the original concept of a take-over was killed off:-)

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:08 PM

Right Carroll......

And yeas(?) - it is about history and preservation - otherwise the big ballads will never survive the present revalists who almost collectively seem to have developed 'acute goldfish-memoryitis' and eternally whinge about their being "too long".

"the "big ballads" are too long?" you have documented proofs of these utterings and who uttered them I take it?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 02:48 PM

Right Boeteng:
Suggest you look on some of the other threads. I think there was actually a thread asking what should be the permitted length of a song at a club - it was proposed that songs should be no longer than three minutes by one clown - it's a constant whine by snigger snoggwriters.
What planet do you occupy?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:10 PM

Well I'm sure "the clown" was taking into account the attention span factor of many people (or perhaps not), which is a valid point, if meant. A constant whine you say? interesting choice of words...Carroll.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:19 PM

"which is a valid point,"
See what I mean Dumbo?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:27 PM

Probably me ....they're too long.

I believe the baresarks used to sing individual ballads for three days at a time.

Its probably a case of finding the mindset. Objectively speaking most of the ballads aren't as long as a Miles Davis solo. But somehow I don't find them quite as compelling.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:34 PM

Gawd let me put it plainer so you understand...if you have your audiences attention you have it you have them engaged, you have them enthralled, I would hope, with the tale you are telling, but if you lose that attention, you may as well give up and go home. Unfortunately there will always be those whose attention doesn't go beyond the two and half to three minute mark, they would have found The Animals version of House Of The Rising Sun (Four and a half minutes) too long and Martin Carthy's rendition of The Famous Flower of Serving Me (9 minutes) well that would be well nigh impossible.
For me, personally, if the narrative of the song, regardless if it's trad or not, grips me then that's what it does, if it doesn't then it doesn't, the length of the piece is irrelevant.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:41 PM

The Famous Flower of Serving Men

Martin Carthy's rendition of an everyday tale of infanticide, transvestism, deception, magical animals, and burned-at-the-stake execution... ;-)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:52 PM

I used to find ewan MacColl very compelling as a ballad singer, but I don't find his disembodied voice coming out of a record player engaging - not as I did the man himself. Whereas Miles - well i never saw him live. he was always disembodied - so to speak.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 03:56 PM

Al it's the case, I think, that some folk are better live than on records, however, like you, I've never saw Miles Davis in concert

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 04:01 PM

Perhaps Ewan needed to realise, he would be one day a disembodied voice. In a way - making a record is something different. You need to give the listener something to hang onto, perhaps.

I used to go anywhere to see Peggy and Ewan. The shorter stuff is still fine - particularly given Peggy's great accompaniments. But the ballads - I dunno, but I miss the charisma that his physical presence addded.

Anybody else feel like that?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 04:06 PM

But the ballads - I dunno, but I miss the charisma that his physical presence added.

I just finished listen to Carthy do Famous Flower, it's actually nine and half minutes in length , and while I was totally engaged from the beginning (being biased and all that to anything Waterson or Carthy or both together)I couldn't help thinking, that I really would love to be hearing this live in concert. to watch MC's guitar playing, while listening to him sing.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 04:39 PM

Yes I prefer watching MC on DVD to just listening. Theres a great version of Famous Flower on the Guitar Maetsro's series - the Martin Carthy edition. Theres also some nice playing from Martin on the Wizz Jones DVD in the same series - Martin interviews Wizz.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 06:27 PM

I've never saw Miles Davis in concert

Me neither, but I've been loving the DVD that came with the new edition of Bitches Brew and I've been blown away by the Isle of White footage on YouTube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmJwV3Xkl8M&feature=related

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 07:56 PM

Oh I liked the Miles of an earlier era, before things got electrfied. milestones and all that - the small groups - not Sketches of Spain, and Miles Ahead.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Nov 11 - 11:56 PM

Too many people are trying to stake a claim on the term "Tradition" or "Traditional." As if there is only one of them.

I remember being really annoyed at a graduate school classmate one time, as we went around the room introducing ourselves. She said she was from a "traditional American family" and proceeded to describe her Southern Baptist dad and Korean mom's ultra conservative and religious home life. Nothing like MY traditional family (Irish dad, Norwegian mom, four kids, dad was a teacher, mom stayed home, no religion to speak of, only in the distance, blah blah blah). In fact, neither of us was in a position to judge or be annoyed by the other's use (not appropriation) of "Traditional"

In the tradition of your communities, your counties, states, countries, you practice folk music. And no two Traditions are exactly alike.

SRS

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 02:59 AM

Thank you all for making my point for me so perfectly - 305 classic (Child) ballads - all no longer viable because they are "too long" for modern audiences - PATRONISING CRAP - IT'S THE CLUB ORGANISERS WITH THE CONCENTRATION PROBLEMS, NOT THE AUDIENCES.
I watched Peggy Seeger singing 'Fair Annie' to an capacity Irish audience last month - a room crammed full of people totally transfixed by a 14 minute unnacompanied ballad - but to be fair, traditional music is thriving here - half-a-dozen-plus weekly music and song sessions in this one-street town alone, and radio and television programmes on traditional music nightly.
I spent most of my life listening to and enjoying "too long" ballads - in MacColl's and Lloyds' and Belle and Sheila Stewarts', and Jennie Robertsons' and Duncan Williamson's and Walter Pardon's..... and all the other great ballad singer's cases, along with capacity audiences enjoying them with me - stop blaming the audiences for your own shallowness.
So you would jettison "the Muckle Sangs" (as Hamish Henderson put it) or "the high-watermark of our tradition - (MacColl) because you have driven away those audiences and replaced your residents and organisers with goldfish!!
That's what you "THAT'S WHAT YOU "COULDN'T PUT PLAINER" - PRATT!! (you stop this childish ill-mannered aggressiveness that you're noted for and I will).
It really is time to exctracted your collective heads out of your arses and take a look at the damage you've done to traditional music with your crass claims and your crap standards- it's the end result that counts.
"Too many people are trying to stake a claim on the term "Tradition" or "Traditional."
There is only one documented claim to "traditional" - the rest are undefined wannabe pretenders - but feel free to provide another definition at any time.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 03:24 AM

You've got your perceived traditions Jim, which you (quite rightly) feel strongly about.

I have my perceived traditions. Don't make the mistake of thinking I feel any less strongly about what I perceive of, as tradition.

Neither of us has the right to call each other's taste as crap. Not in polite exchanges.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 03:31 AM

the small groups

I have an especial fondness for the 2nd great quartet who were certainly moving apace in their prolific studio output, and live too where they concentrated more on standards than original compositions, such as this mesmerising rendering of Autumn Leaves from 1964:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX4i9CieZYk&feature=related

But I must admit my deep love of Miles begins with In a Silent Way and I regard Bitches Brew as one of the greatest things ever, though my all time favourite is the album On the Corner...

*

Music changes; traditional process is largely a matter of paying dues and moving it on; the career of Miles Davis is a classic example of this, even in this latter days when he was enchanted by a new sort of standard. His extended beguiling explorations of Michael Jackson & Cindi Lauper notwithstanding, I think I'm one of the only Miles Davis fan who thinks Doo-Bop is a thing of rare beauty, though Easy Mo Bee's rapping is tenth rate even by the old-school standards of the time. One can only wonder how it might have been had Miles teamed up with the more dynamic forces such as the Jungle Brothers or De La Soul.

Individual and collective humanity is the key to what music is; it certainly determines what traditions are; we each each have that unique spark of passion for our respective cause which drives us to love what do love, do what we do, and to love what we do. We are all of us Traditional in the sense of paying our dues and doing things our own way, whatever the idioms we're working in. In that I doubt we have any sort of choice at all. I don't think The Tradition was any different - certainly not if the Fossil Record is anything to go by; the six texts of Child #38 imply a dynamic culture every bit as fluidly creative as Hip Hop, and the lyrical dexterity of Butter and Cheese and All or Stanley Market examplifies the idiosyncratic mastery of a vernacular art on a par with anything before or since. Popular Music changes; it moves on as people move on as societal conditions change and priorities with them. Music only truly dies when people die, and people are greater than music; without people there would be no music. Music is always the result of individual human passion, genius & idiosyncrasy - be it Miles Davis, Davie Stewart or Tommy Armstrong: each payed their dues back to their community, each was a master of his respective tradition, yet each was well & truly 'out there' albeit loved & respected for it, however so guardedly at times. The Folk Revival revels in the notion of collectivity, yet it would be nothing without the specific individuals whose passion & genius shaped our notions of it, from Cecil Sharp to Ewan MacColl, Martin Carthy, Hamish Henderson, Seamus Ennis, Peter Bellamy et al. all the way down to we happy few who routinely squabble (for the best of reasons? God, let's hope so!) on this forum. All human life is here; long may that continue!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 03:36 AM

Jim said: "A workable, (if in need of intelligent up-dating) well-researched, recorded and documented definition exists and is to be found in most good dictionaries,"

Well, Jim, try as I might, I can't find any definition of 'The Tradition'. There are a good half dozen or more definitions of 'tradition', but that's not what I was talking about. I asked my lexicographer friend (editor of The Oxford Dictionary of Modern English Idioms, as I mentioned before) what was the definition of 'The Tradition' and he said, "you mean 'tradition'?". I replied, "No - THE Tradition," and he just said, "Which tradition?" Which is a long-winded way of making my original point: I don't understand what 'The Tradition' is. There's traditional music, traditional customs, traditional legends - in fact, plenty of varied, disparate and fascination traditions across the world, but no one, overarching thing called 'The Tradition'. Semantics, maybe, but I think we need to be clear what we are discussing.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 03:53 AM

I meant to add that it may be the onset of age-related pedantry, but it's one of those niggles that makes me cringe, just as when someone refers to their spouse as 'The Wife' – reducing their lifetime partner to a nameless, nebulous and largely irrelevant adjunct.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 04:08 AM

It really is time to exctracted your collective heads out of your arses and take a look at the damage you've done to traditional music with your crass claims and your crap standards

With all due respect, Jim - I think it's you who have the head-up-arse problem here. Just because a highly specialised audience have the patience to listen to a celebrity artist with a Goddess-like reputation singing a long ballad is of little relevance to people in the UK clubs who might well regard such things with suspicion. Horses for courses after all. The state-funded folk-show in Ireland is a different beast to what we have over here in the UK where if someone sings a 10-minute ballad it'll probably mean someone else might not get a chance to sing. Traditionally the long ballads weren't meant for this sort of consumption anyway, much less performance; same with storytelling. At the end of the day, it's all a matter of context, and respect, and stepping down from this absurd high-horse of yours whereby you insist that ballads are somehow of a higher standing than your average episode of EastEnders or Corry. People regularly sit through 30-minute episodes of Corry - I don't think even your most hardened Ballad Enthusiast could make such a claim, no matter who the singer was. As for storytelling - used to be that 'feature length' meant 90-minutes; these days you feel short changed if it's anything less than 120. So, attention spans are alive and well; just maybe not when it comes to artificial renderings of old story songs we all know the endings of anyway. I love ballads, but if it came to a choice of 13-minutes of unaccompanied Peggy Seeger or 90-minutes of Planet of the Apes, chances are I'd choose the latter. I routinely listen to Miles Davis tracks pushing the 30-minute mark; and one of my favourite things is a recording of My Favourite Things by John Coltrane, live in Japan in 1966, which comes in at the 50-minute mark. One of my favourite albums of all time is DDD by my friend Daisuke Suzuki which consists of a 50-minute unedited field-recording of ducks in a Tokyo park. I can sit for hours listening to Purcell sonatas or the sound of lapwings and curlews out on the estuary. But, if someone got up in a UK Folk Club and insisted on giving us their plagiarised rendering of Martin Carthy's masterful version of Ray Fisher's heavenly setting of Willie's Lady, I'd probably take it as a cue to head to the bar. Nothing to do with club organisers or a conspiracy ahainst The Muckle Sangs, rather just a sense of fair play really.

My favourite traditional ballad performance of all is THIS, in which Mrs Pearl Brewer brings an essential reduction of The Cruel Mother in at around the two minute mark.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 04:27 AM

"I used to go anywhere to see Peggy and Ewan. The shorter stuff is still fine - particularly given Peggy's great accompaniments. But the ballads - I dunno, but I miss the charisma that his physical presence addded.

Anybody else feel like that?"

Sort of, Al. The thing about Ewan was that he wasn't just a performer but also an "ideas man" (I think that he once described himself as such). Thus if you admired his artistry you also got, as part of the 'package', the opportunity to share his excitement in all of his ideas about art, music, drama, history, tradition, politics etc., etc. This, for me at least, was a heady brew. Again, for me, his performances of the traditional ballads were central to his appeal as an artist. Much as I am grateful that recordings of his singing exist and are available, they can, of course, never replace his live performances.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 05:57 AM

Tomorrow night at the Lewes Saturday Folk Club, Chris Coe and John Adams. Lots of ballads and traditional songs and tunes. Chris Coe did us an extended ballad session at last year's Lewes Folk Festival. We do at least one of those a year; we had Brian Peters this year. They are invariably well attended.
If you can't make that, try our Sussex All Day Sing at Barcombe on 21st January 2012. Starting at 11am with an hour of traditional tunes, it's then solid singing through to 11pm. Obviously not all ballads; we'd never get round the room. It was amusing this year when a young chap sang Simon and Garfunkel's The Boxer to a room full of crusty old traddies. We all sang along including the cymbal noises. "Lie La Lie (tusssh) Lie La Lie La La Lie Lie Lie, Lie La Lie (tusssh)...."

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Barb'ry
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 06:10 AM

I love ballads, love the sense of history in them, the story in and around them, their rhythm and pace and am thankful that there are still sessions in clubs and at festivals where they can be sung and celebrated. To me, they represent our heritage, both in words and also our 'aural/oral' history from the days before mass production of books etc.

I appreciate that many people go to a club to perform, rather than listen but (in my opinion) it is sad that we have, in many places, lost the ability to 'share' songs, to find out about them, their backgrounds and stories, in our need to be heard.

Don't know the answer but I would hate to see a 'time limit' on songs, removing chunks of our repertoires and history in one tick of the clock. This is just my take on the matter...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 06:23 AM

"The state-funded folk-show in Ireland"
You seem to be continulindg to distort (deliberately, to make your non existant case) the situation in Ireland.
Irish music has been ongoing as a performed art for at least the forty years I have been visiting here - so much so that the arts establishment are no longer able to ignore irt, as they did up to ten years ago.
Irish traditional music has not compromised as the English revival has, not complained that the songs are too long, the music too old hat or in need of modification to suit new tastes - it is, and has always stood on its own love of anf respect for the music - you do no good to your case by lying.
The same goes for your loaded and - as ever misleading post.
Your own performance makes clear that you neither like, understand or particularly care for traditional forms - fine; your choice, but at least make an effort not to try and force your own standards of others - dishonesty gets no-one anywhere in these discussions.
If we throw away the ballads because they are too long, we may as well throw Dickens and Tolstoy on the same bonfire
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 06:57 AM

"Goddess-like reputation singing a long ballad "
Equally distorting and dishonest (and typical)
One of the hearting things about Peggy's performance last month was the fact that the overwhelmingly appreciative audience wwas not one for "Goddess" like performances of traditional song.
This is their local festival listing at the Shannonside 13th Winter Music Weekend
Click here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 07:50 AM

Jim Carroll I believe lives in Miltown Malbay a place which by his own admission where he and his partner had years before found
   "amongst the singers and musicians of Co. Clare, they discovered a healthy attitude towards indigenous music. They recorded songs and stories from the region around Miltown Malbay" (http://www.folkmusic.net/htmfiles/inart558.htm)
In a post above he remarks that,
"traditional music is thriving here - half-a-dozen-plus weekly music and song sessions in this one-street town alone, and radio and television programmes on traditional music nightly."
In a very small community with a strong tradition and subsidised broadcasting it is no surprise that traditions persist. I live in a large working class town in the north of England where the predominant social interests over the last 30/40 years seem to have been beer drinking and pop music. I think that the fact that even small pockets of people retain an interest in folk music ( even if it may not live up to Mr Carroll's exacting standards) in this type of setting is even more remarkable than it surviving in a small time capsule in Miltown Malbay; which I notice advertises itself as the home of folk music in Ireland.
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 08:41 AM

' a large working class town in the north of England where the predominant social interests over the last 30/40 years seem to have been beer drinking and pop music'

Sounds the sort of place that has produced everything worthwhile and memorable in folk music. Not some folk park where the audience sit there 'appreciating' like a load of Japanese tourists in Stratford.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 09:17 AM

John
My picture is a national one, the grants are still coming from The Arts Council of Ireland, the almost nightly programmes are largely on National television and radio - the fortunes of traditional music - without compromise) is an Irish one.
We have 2 national Traditional archives (one - ITMA putting material on line regularly) which of of world class and a gradual blossoming of local archives - one in Clare (see OaC on the web).
I have lived in 3 of the largest cities in Britain (Liverpool, Manchester and London) and know the problems of presenting folk music in an urban setting, but please don't make it an excuse for compromising our traditional music out of existance.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 10:38 AM

From a recent Iris Times article
Jim Carroll

Music lovers may have less money to spend on gigs and concerts these days, but that hasn't stopped trad fans from breathing new life into sessions across the country writes SIOBHAN LONG
TO JUDGE by the volume of listings submitted to this newspaper's The Ticket magazine each week over the past year, there has been a steady rise in the number of traditional concerts, gigs and sessions throughout the country. This is happening at a time when punters' disposable income is shrinking.
The long-dormant Harcourt Sessions in Dublin were reignited on Monday nights last year, and many other examples can be found across the country. Are traditional musicians more inventive at a time of recession? Are more traditional music fans going to gigs than lovers of jazz, classical or rock and pop?
Flautist and promoter Conor Byrne recently established The Liffey Banks Sessions in the Grand Social in Dublin, a Tuesday-night club that's been called the "Meeting Place for the 21st century", in homage to the late, much-lamented folk club from the 1970s. The Liffey Banks Sessions has lured some of the best traditional musicians and singers to its stage over its two months in existence. Luka Bloom, Fidil, Lúnasa and recently, Máirtín O'Connor and his band, all performed.
"My whole life has revolved around organising clubs," Byrne says. His mother, Eilish Moore, ran a folk club in Mother Redcaps for years, and last year Conor ran The County Sessions in Dublin's Button Factory. "I really just wanted to generate a community of traditional musicians and lovers of folk music, and create a meeting place for those people to come together, staging quality music – new and upcoming – as well as music of the past; mixing them together in a quality venue with really good music production. That's always been my goal. And so far, that's the feedback I've been getting: people leaving the Liffey Banks feeling uplifted by the whole experience."
John Carty is a fiddle and banjo player who makes no secret of his pragmatism in the face of this downturn. Does the necessity of earning a crust in tough times mean that some musicians are tapping into aspects of their creativity that they mightn't have previously explored? "Absolutely," Carty says, and while acknowledging, "you can't get away from that word 'recession'", he's happy to be working as consistently now as he was during the boom.
"I find when I play with [trad fourpiece] Patrick Street, I tap into something different to when I play with Matt Molloy and Arty McGlynn. Andy Irvine sent me some new songs over the summer, and as Dónal Lunny said: 'They're not just songs, they're an obstacle course.'"
The real spark that keeps the music burning for Carty comes from learning new tunes from old masters. Of his recent acquisition of vintage Paddy Killoran recordings he says: "It's going to be a long winter, and I'll spend that time absorbing all that music. Then maybe later, I might create something, reinvent it and make it my own. To get something like that: it's gold dust."
Music Network curates, promotes and funds traditional, jazz and classical live music, building audiences through inventive programming. Sharon Rollston, acting chief executive, believes Music Network's long-term strategy of nurturing audiences is paying dividends now, with attendances up at its most recent traditional tour, featuring Breandán Begley, Tommy Peoples and Laoise Kelly.
"The success of that tour has led to the musicians talking about seeking further funding now to record together," Rollston says, "and that's an element that's over and above the actual concert experience, in terms of us helping the development of the musicians.
"Another Music Network tour featuring concertina and fiddle player Niamh Ní Charra, Basque Alboka horn-pipe player Ibon Koteron and guitarist Gavin Ralston has recently yielded a CD too, Ó Euskadi go hÉireann , as well as a Basque tour."
Louise Walsh of Music Network has also seen a rise in self-sufficiency and professionalism among traditional musicians. "Artists are far more proactive than before," she says. "We've had more trad musicians engage with us on various courses and schemes, such as Making Overtures, which aims to empower artists to get gigs and promote themselves. It goes hand-in-hand with the rise in online promotion and the whole DIY ethic around that."
Accordian player Christy Leahy has also been slowly building an audience in Ballincollig's music venue The White Horse. He's happy that the venue is drawing a growing audience by dint of careful programming.
"One of my biggest challenges was getting people used to coming to a completely new place," he says, "so we've been getting as many well-known names to begin with such as [Altan and De Dannan] with the idea being that if they enjoyed them, they might come out to see musicians they may not be familiar with. I find I'm energised by it because I think the more it happens, the more opportunities there will be for musicians to play and for people to hear new music."

Trad scene: venues to visit
Dublin : The Harcourt Sessions, Harcourt Hotel (Mondays); The Liffey Banks Sessions – The Grand Social, Liffey Street (Tuesdays); The Clé Club, The Flowing Tide, Middle Abbey Street (Wednesdays); An Góilín Singers Club, The Teachers Club, Parnell Square (Fridays)
Cork : Cork Singers Club, An Spailpín Fánach (Sundays); De Barra's, Clonakilty; The White Horse, Ballincollig; The Pavilion, Carey's Lane, Cork city
West and northwest: Barry's, Grange, Sligo; McGrory's, Culdaff, Donegal; The Crane Bar, Galway city

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 11:50 AM

Nevertheless for you lot to have a Calton Weaver or a Wild Rover to sing about, you had to have had an original bloke who was a Wild Rover or a Calton Weaver, and you can bet your bum he didn't hang around places like Bunratty Castle.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 11:52 AM

Dear Mr Carroll, I am not trying to compromise traditional music out of existence. I feel that I do my bit for the cause of traditional music. The following are ballads which I have sung and will no doubt continue to sing in public.
The Twa Sisters, The Cruel Brother, The Cruel Mother, Lizie Wan, Young Beichan, The Unquiet Grave, Little Musgrave and Lady Barnard, Lamkin , The Great Silkie of Sule Skerry, Mary Hamilton , The Bonny Earl of Murray, Hughie Grame, The Bonnie House o Airlie, Geordie, Bonnie James Campbell , Eppie Morrie , Lizie Lindsay, Andrew Lammie, The New-Slain Knight, John of Hazelgreen, Bonny Barbara Allen
I confess that I usually adopt some form of accompaniment when singing but I usually try to be sensitive to the song; e.g.
bonny george /james campbell
However, the audience for this sort of material is, given the changes in music culture, very small. There are some encouraging signs such as the recent start up of The Sheffield Ballads club.
sheffield ballads club
I don't believe anyone is wanting to deny the traditional heritage, and as you have said the recorded oral/written records will always be with us. It is the live music scene which has changed and unlike amateurs like me some people are trying to make a living from their music and must therefore be sensitive to their audiences.
John platt

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 12:03 PM

"However, the audience for this sort of material is, given the changes in music culture, very small"
True, but the audience for any sort of what is loosely called "folk music" is tiny, compared to the audience for pop, rock and rap.
So what?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Banjiman
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 12:08 PM

....... I know I'm helping to kill off folk clubs (by running one?), but we've got a dedicated ballad session (run by Mr Suibhne O'Piobaireachd himself) next weekend at The Kirkby Fleetham Micro-fest.

But, oh dear, we've got a songwriting competition as well....... it's the fires of traddy damnation for me now is it?

We've also got a mixture of acts..... some traddy, some who write their own songs. Actually most of the acts do both. I'm pretty sure most of the attendees will enjoy both as well.

......sorry, what was this thread about again??

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 12:32 PM

Thanks for mentioning the Sheffield Ballads Club, johncharles. It gives me an excuse to mention that our next Ballad Forum at the Lewes Saturday Folk Club is with Paul & Liz Davenport on 3rd December.

Thought your Bonny George Campbell was great.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 12:36 PM

it's the fires of traddy damnation for me now is it?

Why do people keep saying this? Who does this damning? Or are you saying that being told that there's a difference between traditional folk music and contemporary folk music make you feel like you're being put down in some way? Has anyone ever actually said you shouldn't put on whatever music you want to if you're doing the organizing?

You support both traditional folk music and modern folk music and, I presume, everything in between. Good for you! We all owe you our respect and thanks. Inclusion is always better than exclusion. Where do the fires of traddy damnation come into it?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 12:44 PM

bonny george campbell is a song i used to sing , i stopped singing it to me it is a fragment, a pleasant tune, but storywise not in the same league as tam linn or willy of the winesbury or matty groves or reynard the fox.
I put in the same trash bin as lord randall, although it does have a better tune. john charles singing is pleasant enough, but to me the whole point of ballads is the story, when you have f### all story as in george campbell, its pretty difficult to interpret.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 12:50 PM

furthermore, i dont rate nimrod workmans version of lord bateman,,it is sung by a singer who is over the hill, and has no idea[imo] about interpretation, a version i prefer was the one done by Pete Castle, but that is just my opinion.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 12:57 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5FZt0kV9zk&feature=share

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 01:04 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8ZFVD7qkRU, this is in my opinion the way to sing a ballad, peggy seeger singing the golden ball
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8ZFVD7qkRU

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 01:06 PM

It is a lament ( a story of loss), and for me its brevity enhances the sense of loss.
Each to his own I think.
john
p.s. I enjoyed listening to you play my guitar at Kiveton park.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 01:11 PM

"Dear Mr Carroll,"
You can call me Jim - even my enemies do.
"Nevertheless for you lot to have a Calton Weaver or a Wild Rover to sing about, "
You're assuming (wrongly) that that is what the Irish traditional repertoire is about
Best of three worlds here; Irish language, Native Irish in English; Anglo (and Scots) Irish.
There have been more Child ballads (50+) recorded from source singers in Ireland in the last thirty years than in the rest of these islands including several that have been missing from the repertoire for centuries (Maid and the Palmer, Tam Linn, Prince Robert, Lord Gregory, Suffolk Miracle, Green Wedding, William and Margaret, Lamkin, Johnny Scott) - many from Travellers. Most popular round here is probably Lord Lovell, closely followed by The Suffolk Miracle. The only field recording of The Demon Lover was recorded in Roscommon in 1983.
Don't judge the repertoire by The Dubliners and The Clancy Brothers - that's what they feed to tourists (because that's what they expect).
And the singing standard..... magic!
Dick
"it is a fragment"
It is a fragment - don't think it's ever been collected as a full version.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 01:21 PM

yes, john, I appreciated you lending me the guitar,and i enjoyed your spot, and you sing bonny george campbell well.
your points about george campbell are valid enough, and you are spot on about each to his own, the main problem is the medium of the internet which can give false nuances to a persons post, as there is a lack of body language.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Banjiman
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 01:30 PM

"Why do people keep saying this? Who does this damning? Or are you saying that being told that there's a difference between traditional folk music and contemporary folk music make you feel like you're being put down in some way? Has anyone ever actually said you shouldn't put on whatever music you want to if you're doing the organizing?"

John P...... I suggest you read Jim Carroll's posts.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 01:48 PM

In fact if the seven Yellow Gypsies turned up outside that castle, I bet they'd still want to hang them all.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 02:15 PM

in fact i would give you odds of 4 to 9 on, that they would., but whats new?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 02:41 PM

"John P...... I suggest you read Jim Carroll's posts. "
And I suggest you do as well - and challenge what you don't agree with rather than sniping from a distance.
I don't "damn" anything - I contradict if I believe it to be wrong and would hope that's what anybody does
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Bounty Hound
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 02:41 PM

Oh Paul, you are a bad boy, mixing up the traditionalists and those new fangled singer songwriters.

Hope you have a fantastic weekend, I'm sure you will, and the KFFC continues to go from strength to strength.

There was some talk earlier in this thread that a new definition of 'folk music' was needed. Firstly, I'd question whether a definition is actually needed at all, but if I'm ever pushed, I simply define Folk as 'the music of the people'

However, if people are going to create a new definition, then they should remember that the persons unkown who wrote the likes of Lucy Wan and Lovely Joan, presumably created the songs to sing them and where therefore singer songwriters, and although their songs would have been delivered very differenty to today, the principal is exactly the same.

John

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Banjiman
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 03:07 PM

"It really is time to exctracted your collective heads out of your arses and take a look at the damage you've done to traditional music with your crass claims and your crap standards- it's the end result that counts. "

.....and you dare accuse me of sniping from a distance Jim Carroll!! (to be fair I guess that wasn't sniping, it was a full broadside).


"The more of the many diverse and important aspects of folk music that attract attention, the better its chances of survival, and those who argue that all you have to do is sing, need to take a hard, long look around and count up just how many new and young faces are appearing at the geriatric-filled clubs."

um, actually Jim, ours isn't full of geriatrics. But then you've never been to ours have you...... and I doubt many other of the newer clubs either.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good theory?

Trad song is in good health here...... it just has to rub shoulders with other folky forms. It doesn't seem to mind though.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 03:32 PM

Certainly it is true that any traditional song was originally written by someone. The question is, what happened next?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 03:40 PM

the songs were altered by people over a number of years, however a good song does not have to become good through the folk process it can be good to start with.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 03:45 PM

an example of a song being improved is 3 score and ten, of course it doesnt follow that all alterations are improvements

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 04:41 PM

I'm happy to argue the case for what I believe to be folk music - I don't snipe, I state what I believe to be fact based on fifty years of listening - thirty of those talking to source singers - all on record and accessible to anybody who wishes to hear what they had to say.
I watched many/most of the folk clubs empty and then disappear completely; I stopped going when "folk music" ceased to have any meaning - when many of the clubs ripped the labels of the tin; thousands like me did the same.
I'm in a situation now where I can listen to jazz, the classics, blues... whatever kind of music I wish whenever I choose because nobody is trying to sell me something else as a substitute - it is no coincidence that this is why traditional music is flourishing in Ireland - and why I believe it is not in England.
It hasn't stopped anybody else from listening to what they wish to listen to, it means we know where we stand.
Ireland is now guarranteed a traditional music that will last for at least another two generations with youngsters hammering on the door to come in.
If anybody can tell me that this is the situation in the UK, then I apologise to all and withdraw all my criticisms - but that is not the picture I get.
I don't condemn the music or tastes of others - that would be subjective and arrogant. Nobody I've ever met involved in traditional music has ever told people what they should be listening to in my experience - but there a hell of a people who obviously don't like traditional music doing exactly that on threads like this, and it's people like them who squeal "folk police" the loudest whenever an opinion that contradicts their own is put forward.
As far as definition is concerned, John P put it in a nutshell "The question is, what happened next?" - that's probably as concise a definition as you will ever get.
There is a pretty clear, well researched and extensively documented definition of folk music, and, as I said before, unless somebody comes up with an alternative, that's that one which will survive.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 06:45 PM

Jim: I have lived in 3 of the largest cities in Britain (Liverpool, Manchester and London) and know the problems of presenting folk music in an urban setting, but please don't make it an excuse for compromising our traditional music out of existance.

Well in one of those big cities - Manchester - I don't think our 'mainly but not exclusively' traditional singaround is compromising our traditional music out of existence. It's a rather good night. I also think nights like Folk Threads - where the organisers chose a theme and traditional songs rub shoulders with new songs that fit the theme - is doing that either. Nor is the steady stream of traditional music coming out of Swinton Folk Club over the border in Salford. Nor even are the traditional songs that poke their head up between the singer songwriter fayre at Chorlton Folk Club. And there are plenty more examples. I think its A GOOD THING that traditional songs are sung in places that other stuff is sung. It might even bring them to new audiences.

Enjoyed you Bonnie George Campbell, by the way, John. Thanks for posting the link. Elle Osborne also does a lovely version on her album I put out earlier this year. Here she is tackling one of those long ballads: Fair Annie

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 07:03 PM

yes spleen cringe Elle osborne has a very innovative approach
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 07:24 PM

a good song does not have to become good through the folk process it can be good to start with

Yes, of course. I've never heard anyone say otherwise. Great songs abound. The question isn't whether or not something is good, but whether or not we should call it traditional folk music. That's been said at least a dozen times already just on this thread and yet comments like these keep coming up. Why? I haven't seen anyone who likes traditional music making any quality judgments about anyone else's preferred music, or claiming that traditional music is inherently better than any other kind of music. All that's being said is that it's different. And that it should be allowed to have it's own place if someone is willing to go to the work of providing such a place.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 09:01 PM

you do no good to your case by lying.

I'm not lying, Jim; all I have to go on are your revelatory accounts of the Folk Utopia in Ireland as oppose to the bastardised do-as-you-will free-for-all we have to suffer over here on the mainland. Never been to Ireland, have no intention of going; I don't think my ears could cope with purity of folk you have on offer there. Can we mere mortals taste Ambrosia? (and no smart comments about Tapioca Pudding at the back there!).

was not one for "Goddess" like performances of traditional song

I didn't mean her performance, I meant the reverence in which she's held.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Nov 11 - 11:38 PM

For Godsake GSS, this stuff is beneath our contempt. Folkmusic is about scruffy gits like us, never really accepted by the folkocracy.
Damn all to do with people in a castle invoking the names of Michael Coleman and John Reilly. Neither of whom could have afforded a ticket to these places.

For gawdsake come home ET. Banjiman is right. Ireland isn't ready for the twist, never mind the folk revival.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 12:18 AM

Back in the 50's there was a lot of discussion about "folk music for people who don't like folk music.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 04:51 AM

"I'm not lying, Jim"
You are deliberately distorting the relationship between Irish music and the Arts Council.
"The state-funded folk-show in Ireland"
After a long, hard slog The Arts establishment has finally recognised the social, cultural and historical importance of traditional music and, certainly up to the current economic downturn, is funding its progress totally and unconditionally without interference.
You're sneery summing-up of their involvement leaves me (and has in the past) with the impression that you are suggesting that it is they who is calling the tune - it is not - Irish music is being fundeed for what it is - an important piece of cultural heritage; this includes both in performance and research.
We have just learned that they have given another extremely generous grant towards the publication of a collecction of essays on folk song, and the only condition - that they are acknowledged in the publication for having done so.
"Goddess" like performances"
What struck me last month about Peggy's performance was an audience, most of whom would never have seen her live before, actually enjoyed what she did. Somebody we spoke to actually told us that, thanks to her reputation, she hadn't expected to and only came along because "there was nothing worth watching on tele" - she asked us where she could get a copy of one of the ballads.
MacColl and Seeger made an enormous contribution to British and American folk song and were respected for having done so, even by people who didn't like them very much. Your loaded language reduces their contribution to that of 'personality', a commonplace in today's revival.
It seems to me that you go through life belittling the work of others - maybe to disguise the fact that your own offerings are as meagre as they are (see - we can all deal in nastyisms when we put our minds to it)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 05:09 AM

'we can all deal in nastyisms when we put our minds to it'

Yes indeed Jim, a remarkable talent for abuse. If you were still in England, you could apply for a grant to develop and nurture it. Perhaps The Tate would put on an exhibtion.

I can see the posters now......

"Nastyism in the 21st Century: a retrospective"

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Banjiman
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 05:30 AM

"It seems to me that you go through life belittling the work of others"

Jim, why am I thinking of pots and kettles?

You continually belittle the "work" of folk club organisers in the UK...... and I've rarely seen you have a good word for any performer who wasn't in your gang or a source singer!


We also had Peggy Seeger on at a village hall (not ours) not far from here but bang smack in the middle of the Dales about 18 months ago. Absolutely packed out it was (about 130 people) including a fair proportion of "locals" who had never seen her before. I thought she was pretty good (with banjo & guitar) until she felt the need to get the piano out..... kind of spoiled it for me.

She also appeared to do quite a lot of "written" songs.......... she seemed to think that was OK?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 06:00 AM

Driving through Tow Law last night (even picking up some Xmas-dinner style sarnies at the Co-op which we scoffed along the road at Kirkby Stephen) I was reminded of the legendary concert put on by Ewan MacColl and A.L.Lloyd to give the Durham Miners back their folk song heritage. It was at this concert, legend has it, that they first met Alan Lomax who was presumably on his travels seeking out pure Untainted Folk Source Singers - and there was MacColl & Lloyd corrupting the fossil record. I must add, this is part of the Myth, Legend and Folklore of the Folk Revival, but underlines the general agenda-ridden idiocy whereby our noble collectors are more intersted in specific song types tham they were in the actual nature of the cultures which they so keen on plundering, if they'd had what they were looking for: that elusive beast called Folk Song which was driven to extintion by the odious incursions of Radio, TV, and records of popular music.

Remember: The term can be applied to music that has been evolved from rudimentary beginnings by a community uninfluenced by popular and art music and it can likewise be applied to music which has originated with an individual composer and has subsequently been absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community.

Still, nice to know they were finding such pure-blood communities and source singers in Ireland as recently as 1981, no doubt entirely untainted by nigh on 100 years of Folk Revival and Folk awareness; and nice to know that the Purity of its Virginal Source Singers is still highly cherished, and that, no doubt, The Wee Folk themselves are tormenting Darby O'Gill with promises of yet more treasures to come (or whatever the hell that film was about; haven't seen it since I was 5).

The Arts establishment has finally recognised the social, cultural and historical importance of traditional music

Where there is money for it, there will be pure-folk on tap; as pure as you want it. Don't be surprised to find more hitherto untapped reserves of hitherto uncollected 100% Proof Pure Irish Folk Song sung by 100% Proof Pure Irish Source Singers turning up soon in the Limerety-Limerety Hill Hockles*, totally and unconditionally without interference of course. I hear in Ireland they are planning to created hermetically sealed reservations where 100% Traditional Communities will exist entirely innocent of any of the other aspects of 21st Centure culture and technology that has so corrupted other countries. These will exist a bit like The Trueman Show, with carefully selected government operatives working on The Inside ready to collect examples of Pure Folk Song as and when they occur, using up to date digital recording equipment disguised as wax-cylinder devices. The inmates will be allowed no TV, no radio, and subsist entirely on a meage diet of potatos; even Soda Bread is regarded as being Too Risky. No actual education will be allowed, and medical intervention is to be kept to a minimum, although more prized singers will get the help they need, but without exposing them to the corrupting influences they are likely to encounter in 21st Century hospitals. Despite humanitarian concerns, the Government feels that any ethical considerations will be more than adequately compensated for by the purity of the Traditional Folk Song that will result.

Your loaded language reduces their contribution to that of 'personality', a commonplace in today's revival.

So Ewan MacColl & Peggy Seeger weren't celebrity folk personalities in their day? It's a matter of scale of course, I don't remember either being on Parkinson, but in terms of the Revival Scene they were, and continue to be, revered in exactly the same way.

we can all deal in nastyisms when we put our minds to it

Seems to me its second-nature to you though, Jim - throwing your toys around because someone dares question the hallowed infallibility of Holy Scripture and the myths it has given rise too, much less the more intriguing Tales and Folklore, such as the Tow Law anecdote which is put part of a vast body of Ewanlore, but part of his carefully managed celebrity.

* For those who don't get the reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMm-WVt6RQA

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 06:06 AM

...... I know I'm helping to kill off folk clubs (by running one?), but we've got a dedicated ballad session (run by Mr Suibhne O'Piobaireachd himself) next weekend at The Kirkby Fleetham Micro-fest.

But, oh dear, we've got a songwriting competition as well....... it's the fires of traddy damnation for me now is it?

We've also got a mixture of acts..... some traddy, some who write their own songs. Actually most of the acts do both. I'm pretty sure most of the attendees will enjoy both as well.


Personally, rather than seeing anything wrong with any of that, I think that's how things should be, ie. each event to its own aims and others free to pick the events (whether "traddy", "songwriter" or both) that suit them.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 12:51 PM

so who is booked at kirby fleetham?, any traditional singers such as bob lewis/jeff wesley, any revival singers of traditional material which song writers? please let us know .

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 01:05 PM

kirby fleetham folk

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Banjiman
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 01:06 PM

The Young'uns, Walsh & Pound, Zoox, Hissyfit, Rapunzel & Sedayne, Over The Yardarm, Hamish Currie, Mic & Susie Darling + more.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Banjiman
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 01:15 PM

We've also had Martin Carthy, Chris Wood & Phil Beer this year..... and next year (so far) we've got Katriona Gilmore & Jamie Roberts. Sarah McQuaid, Flossie Malavialle & Wendy Arrowsmith (on stage together) and Mawkin booked.

The microfest next November will be themed on distinctive regional songs/ music from from the British Isles.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 03:21 PM

"Seems to me its second-nature to you though, Jim"
I accept that as a compliment from someone who spends a great deal of time sneering at the work of others, yet goes into a mammoth sulk when it is suggested that he isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread
Get over it Sean.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 04:11 PM

goes into a mammoth sulk

What mammoth sulk? I'm taking this is good humour, and trying to get it away from the personal level you persist in dragging it down to.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 04:37 PM

Never let anyone say 'what vituperative intolerance?' about the subject of folk music. It's written through like Blackpool rock.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,The Shiznitz
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 05:45 PM

...and now for some folk music from Shiznitz

Hull's second foremost exponent of Stray Dance.

"Better than an empty Stage" - Leeds Irish Festival

"This band are literally the Shiznitz!" - Zoo and Logical Times

"That was the Shiznitz" - Alan Raw (BBC Humberside)

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 06:55 PM

How did they know when the mammoth was sulking.....?

It wouldn't take trunk calls from anyone.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 07:29 PM

Yeah, but it was the rhino on the horn . . .

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: ripov
Date: 12 Nov 11 - 10:29 PM

re references to rock music and guitars:-
I quote (to save anyone struggling to find it)-

www.earlyromanticguitar.com/erg/evolution.htm

"Tyler and Sparks point out that in Spain, in the 1700's, there were 2 styles of guitar playing: "noisy music" which consisted of much strumming by the commoners, and "court music" which consisted of refined compositions for the aristocracy. The term "musica ruidosa" was used by Gaspar Sanz in his method book of 1674. Perhaps this is the root of the "classical" versus "flamenco" guitar styles in Spain, as well as today's split between popular steel string and electric guitars, and the "classical" guitar."

England (the South at least) was as much european then as it is now, so it is reasonable to assume that at the time of its' writing (or whatever other means of production and dissemination existed, as writing down takes a product outside the "folk" definition), alongside what some now call "folk music", there was a strong popular "rock and roll" culture. Or possibly the two are the same?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 02:17 AM

"What mammoth sulk? I'm taking this is good humour, and trying to get it away from the personal level you persist in dragging it down to. "
I criticised your ballad singing - you threw a hissy-fit - nothing personal about that, just a comment on the way you sand ballads.
You typify a revival that has wrapped itself in cotton-wool in order to protect itself from any sort of discussion of performance other than sycophantic praise.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 02:44 AM

Sand ballads? A Wilson, Keppel and Betty thread? Now That's What I Call Folk Music!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 04:43 AM

You typify a revival that has wrapped itself in cotton-wool in order to protect itself from any sort of discussion of performance other than sycophantic praise.

Not on this thread though, Jim - that was somewhere else. And I hardly threw a hissyfit, rather speculated how you arrived at the rather absolutist conclusion that anyone could be a 'crap ballad singer' when it really takes all sorts, much less that they were a 'prat' when they pointed this out. And where's all this sycophantic praise you keep harping on about?

Over here on the British mainland, a ballad singer is simply someone whose love of ballads is enough to inspire them to sing them themselves. Unlike the situation in Ireland, there is no government funded elite 100% guaranteed source singers to ensure the purity of The Living Tradition - just a bunch of disparate folkie souls with a love of anachronistic soap opera, be it casual or obsessive. I might not be entirely right in thinking most folkies have a notion of singing, but of the many that do, a good few of them are sure to have a ballad or two up their sleeves. As with the other singing you'll hear in any mainland session or singaround, the approach to the singing of ballads will be determined by the singer rather than some hidden mystery tradition known only to an elite few. As with Source Singers, Revival Singers are free to do them exactly how they like. For sure I might dispute the usual myths (ballad singing is storytelling etc. etc.) and be suspicious of any Emergent Orthodoxy and other School of Correctness, but I respect their right to do it and I'd never call anyone's singing 'crap' much less call them a 'prat' for doing do. That isn't criticism, Jim - we know what it is, and you do yourself a disservice by even thinking such things, much less saying them on open forum.

If your precious tradition needs protecting from 'other voices' than the 100% Official Government Approved ones from the Truckly Howl Ministry of Folk, then I really want nothing to do with it - but, happily, I know that's bullshit. I know that there are no more Traditional Singers; I know the Tradition died the dead years ago and I know that any singer born in the last 70 years is Revival rather than Traditional. Revival isn't keeping anything alive, rather it is singing old songs along the new for the pure Joy of it. Oddly enough, the fossil record tells us that The Tradition wasn't too much different, and that once we get the inevitable pagiarism out of the way (the Carthy and Steeleye wannabes, but even they're more than welcome in my book) there is room for a lot of different approaches. I get this from the Old Singers, by the way; a life-time of listening, singing, exploring and, in two cases, being lucky enough to work alongside the Old Singers and know them personally. But if anyone lays claim to being such a singer now, and demands special consideration on account of their 100% Pure-Blood Authenticity, I'll be suspicious to say the least...

So there's my hissy-fit, Jim. Do what you wilt and encourage others to likewise; do unto others as you would have them do unto you. As in life, then so in ballad singing.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 04:43 AM

if you do it for a living Jim, you take praise anywhere you can find it sycophantic or otherwise. Like the character in Dickens - you have 'know your own worth'. And you're grateful for any praise -without necessarily believing the assessment. theres plenty of self appointed experts with penetrating analysis, with proof positive and abusive harrangues testifying that you're an asshole.

The question is , do you let these 'experts' deflect you from the course you have chosen. No you bloody don't - though they do manage to damage and hurt and discourage many of your fellow artists. young Sanjay Brain (18 years old) tells me he has become the target of much resentful criticism at his college, since being selected for the semi finals of the young BBC folk musician of the year.

No one ever bothered kicking a dead dog. Don't kill the creative urge particularly in the young - its just too easy to find a justification for it.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 05:20 AM

"Don't kill the creative urge particularly in the young"

Amen to that.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 05:50 AM

It might be interesting to zoom out of the current perspective and consider the whole business of traditional music over a much longer timescale - just to get a different slant.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the keepers of the flame of traditional music in Ireland are currently singing and playing folk music that's now between 100 to 200 years old. (This isn't supposed to be exact, just an arbitrary bracketing to point up the discussion). Now fast forward to 2060 - let's assume the same tradition is being preserved - and the same music is now between 150 to 250 years old. Fast forward again another 50 years - and the same music is now between 200 to 250 years old.

So here we are in Ireland, in 2111. Where is the Irish music of 2011 in all that? Is there any? What 100-year old songs will be played then? What 100 year-old tunes will be played? How will they have got into the tradition? Or will only the stuff which is being performed now be the stuff that's being performed 100 years hence? If the latter is the case, then that whole music will be a permanently ageing museum piece, unchanging, mummified.

If it's not the latter - if the young Irish musician and singers of 2111 are playing and singing folk music of a 100 years ago - where's it coming from? What are the rules or formulae or recipes or conventions by which it's all kept alive and bubbling? And not just in Ireland, in any other country? I've never yet heard the answer to this question in any of the "what is folk" threads.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 05:53 AM

"if you do it for a living Jim"
Whether you do it for a living or not, if you are stupid or arrogant enough to dismiss any adverse comments out-of-hand (especially if you are as damning without qualificatation of the work of others as Sean is), you become recognised as the arrogant prima don or danna that you are.
"there is no government funded elite 100% guaranteed source singers to ensure the purity of The Living Tradition "
You really are a mean- mindedly vicious and resentful pratt - grants are handed out at all levels of involvement and to all kinds of music from traditional to singer-songwriter, for both research and performance - you present a proposal and it is accepted on its merits and its viability; certainly not where you figure in any imagined musical heirarchy.
One of the greatest effects of opening the art council facilities to all has been a massive influx of young newbies who have been assisted, (sometimes just by providing musical instruments to those who can't afford them) to get more deeply involved in the music. Many of the youngsters who were give this start are now taking classes and helping to proliferate the music.
A major aspect has been to assist unknowns to produce their own albums.
Your definition of "elite" appears do be somebody who gets out of their armchair and actually does something other than pontificating.
I know I'm wasting my time again - but do you have any evidence of your "Government funded elite"?
"Don't kill the creative urge particularly in the young"
Your answer lies above Al - it is those that resent the talent of others when it overshadows theirs that kill enthusiasm - you have your example in Sean's spitefulness.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 06:44 AM

(especially if you are as damning without qualificatation of the work of others as Sean is)

Any criticism is a highly qualified suspicion of the assumptions, methodology, mythology and political implications of The Folk Revival as a socio-cultural phenomenon; I critise the credos, the holy cows, the agendas, the religiosity, and the psuedo-science and post-modern absolutism on which they are predicated. To me this like a UK citizen criticising the workings of the govermenent, or the ineptness of local council re-cycling schemes (and the myths that underwrite them), and the various episodes of our nation's history both with respect of its domestic and forgeign policies.

As a Citizen of the People's Republic of Folktopia I reserve the right to be similarly critical; but above all else, I love my country for all the reasons I've gone into on these last couple of threads, and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with my comrades in loyal solitarity to the cause, come what may.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 06:51 AM

I assume we are not going to be given any evidence of your "Government funded elite" and cn write it of as another example of yor resentful bile
Stop acting like a spoilt child
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 07:40 AM

Jim - its as well to write bile off as best we can, wherever it comes from.

We have all come to our positions on folk music by dint of getting off our arses and doing it (at least everyone in this conversation).

perhaps a bit of mutual respect for the others point of view needs to come into the equation.

Personally I find folk music a confusing subject. I am a recent immigrant into the West Country. Last night i went to the first concert I had ever been to of The Wurzels with a Young band the Skimmity Hitchers as a support at Bridport Electric Palace.

I've never heard music like that before. All traditional songs with a updated West Country lyrics. We didn't last very long as Denise is disabled and there was a very energetic mos pit and she couldn't see anything. I tend to leave concerts where disabled people are excluded or not thought of.

There are lots of diverse approaches to folk music. There were people there last night of all ages, and they obviously saw The Wurzels as the voice of their community. Music to dance and drink to. And the audience seemed to know all their songs.

There is diversity in folk music and we should try to respect each others efforts.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 07:57 AM

"So here we are in Ireland, in 2111. Where is the Irish music of 2011 in all that? Is there any? What 100-year old songs will be played then? What 100 year-old tunes will be played? How will they have got into the tradition? Or will only the stuff which is being performed now be the stuff that's being performed 100 years hence? If the latter is the case, then that whole music will be a permanently ageing museum piece, unchanging, mummified."

Some good questions, Will! I don't know the answer to them - but I do know that any answers probably doesn't involve 'occupying' the genre, throwing out all of the old stuff and replacing it with something like ephemeral, 'guitar-based music which rocks'.

I also think that the question, "is there a continuing tradition?" is not answerable at this present time; although I suspect the answer is either: "no" or "the form has altered and the consequences of the changes that it has undergone and/or is undergoing are not presently determinable". The same goes for the question, "what songs will be sung in 100 years time?"

If I'm honest though I don't really care about what will happen in 100 years time - the future will take care of itself, whatever I think. Human culture, like evolution and climate, is probably governed by the the laws of chaos and anything could happen.

Finally, I rather hope that some of Big Al's songs, and those of some of his contemporaries, do survive (talent deserves to be recognised by posterity) - but whether they will be classified as 'traditional' or not is another question.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 08:08 AM

"Jim - its as well to write bile off as best we can, wherever it comes from."
SORRY Al - Sean's attitude and his failing to back up his statement reeks of "If I can't get one it must be rigged"
A handful of us put in a hell of a lot of time and effort trying to tap into the Arts establishment in the UK - not for ourselves, but so a national folk archive could be set up - I like to think that the 'Bright Golden Store' project at the National Sound Archive was partially because of our efforts.
It comes over as pure sour grapes when Sean sounds off about elitism and then refuses to back it up with facts.
Thanks for the voice of reason in all this BTW
I don't basically disagree with you but I think any progress (which some here feel to be unnecesary) needs some clarity as to what we mean by "folk" - we lost far too many people when the lines got blurred.
This is in no way criticsm of what people listen to - despite accusations to the contrary, just how we communicate when we discuss it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 08:25 AM

As usual a provocative thread which mentions folk music degenerates into the old chestnut "What is folk music?"
In many ways the argument is futile in that it is carried out by groups with very different views of the world.
Academics, ethno- musicologists, field researchers, whatever you chose to call them will by the nature of what they do spend great time and effort in defining terms such as Tradition, Folk music, etc. This is fine, this is what they are expected to do by the various organisations and bodies supporting them. This group are an educated elite and very small in number .
When this group refer to the 1954 definition of folk music I am sure they are more than familiar with it and spend many a happy hour at conferences debating its meaning and possible re-formulations.
Non- academics, which I guess would include the majority of performers and audience come to the music in a relatively academically uninformed way, and if you were to ask any audience ( Mudcat excepted ) what the 1954 definition of folk music was 99% would not have a clue; and why should they, they are already listening and performing music which by their own everyday definition is to them Folk Music.
This is not to say one group is better than another just that the differences often mean that dialogue can often be difficult and fraught with misunderstandings.
Kate Rusby has recently released a new CD "while Mortals Sleep" which is a collection of Traditional South Yorkshire carols, tastefully accompanied by a brass quintet. I am sure it will sell well with many contented purchasers. Personally I like to listen to the carols in a crowded pub, surrounded by people who have been singing and thus preserving this living tradition for many years.
Preservation of these carols has been undertaken in the form of field recordings. Professor Ian Russell is a notable researcher making field recordings of carols (:1999 English Village Carols: Traditional Christmas Carolling from the Southern Pennines, CD, Smithsonian Folkways SFWCD 40476, Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC, fieldwork recordings plus 28pp article.)
I guess Kate Rusby's CD may be easy listening for him, but its academic interest in relation to the history of traditional carols is likely to be small.
This is obviously a somewhat simplified argument, as clearly some people will cross the boundaries between groups. For either group to attempt to dictate to the other is unreasonable.
The other issue which this type of discussion often degenerates into is what is a good singer/performer. I shall stick with the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 08:29 AM

If I'm honest though I don't really care about what will happen in 100 years time - the future will take care of itself, whatever I think. Human culture, like evolution and climate, is probably governed by the the laws of chaos and anything could happen.

Up to a point - yes - but our thoughts and actions and philosophies in the here and now are bound to have some influence on the future. And of course it won't matter to any of us a hundred years hence - but it might matter to some of us in, say, twenty or thirty years hence.

I've always thought of music making - like any art form - as an evolutionary process, regardless of the musical genre in question. Jazz evolved and continues to do so, with all styles sitting side by side. Blues evolves, with new music incorporating and extending the old forms - think of performers like Little Axe or Pig In A Can - and does so without debasing or "occupying" the music. Is folk music alone and apart from this natural evolution - bereft of creativity? If so, then why? If not, then how?

My original question, I guess, will stay unanswered...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 08:52 AM

It comes over as pure sour grapes when Sean sounds off about elitism and then refuses to back it up with facts.

I have no sour grapes, Jim; I have got on with my music in quiet humility for the past 35 years and I'm very proud of my modest CV which covers my passions in medieval, traditional & experimental music, and often unites all three, like when one of my compositions was featured on a Sonic Arts Network CD alongside my lifelong hero Karlheinz Stockhausen who is as much an inspiration as Phil Tanner. I have, in fact, rejected more Arts Council money than I've ever (directly / indirectly) received on the grounds that I regard arts funding as fundamentally immoral. What draws me to Folk is its essentially feral nature; it's what people do as part of life, and it is maintained and guided by the passions of a few dedicated souls - be they collectors, archivists, record producers, club organisers, festival organisers, shop owners, DJs, radio hosts, punters et al. I regard Folk organisations and degree courses with wry suspicion simply because in my experience Folk Degree and Folk Organisation are oxymoronic to the nature of the beast. I bear no grudges and count myself very lucky indeed to even enjoy the level of respected obscurity that I do.

I don't believe in cultural life-support; I like museums though, and I'm aware of a huge dichotomy / gulf / dialectic of social class issues that differentiates The Tradition from The Revival. I can't help this; I am a working class Marxist by birth though I refute the rights of any self-styled intelligentsia to speak for the proletariat in terms of their life, labour, struggle or art. That is why I insist that Traditional Folk Song & Ballad is the equal of any music on this planet and its value lies in the creative genius of the working-class men and women who made it that way no matter what the Revivalist have to say on the matter over the years. There has been as much cultural condescension as there has been reciprocal deference; this is the way of Folklore.

I think it's best summed up in Kipling's The Land; I find it supremely ironic that some see this as some sort of socialist polemic, when it is, quite obviously, a celebration of the continued servility of the rural working-class under feudalism. If anything underwrites the revival - yes, even to this day - it is ongoing fuedal issues that have never been resolved, and never will because Folk Music is no longer an aspect of working class culture, which has found better things to do with its precious leisure time.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 08:53 AM

"This is fine, this is what they are expected to do by the various organisations and bodies supporting them. This group are an educated elite and very small in number."
No it is not - I have been involved in research for thirty years - all carried out in my spare time when I wasn't being an electrician.
As far s I know there are very few (if any) full time researchers in Britain and your picture of spending "many a happy hour at conferences debating its meaning and possible re-formulations" is a total myth.
I'd have thought from your obvious knowledge of British folk music, that you would have known that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 09:29 AM

Dear Jim,
Two minutes on the internet has produced the following:-
Professor Ian Russell
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/elphinstone/staff/details.php?id=ianrussell
Dr Simon Keegan-Phipps
http://www.shef.ac.uk/music/staff/academic/simonkeeganphipps
hegemonic processes within England�s folk music industry and socio-political constructions of English national identity.
Professor Jonathan Stock
http://www.shef.ac.uk/music/staff/academic/jstock
Folk and Traditional Music BMus Honours
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/undergraduate/course/W340
The British Forum for Ethnomusicology is committed to holding regular conferences so as to provide a forum in which interested persons may share the findings of and engage in dialogue about their research.
http://www.bfe.org.uk/Committee.html
Total myth I think not. These are some of the academics who will no doubt along with others in the future spend many a happy hour analysing and often re-interpreting yours and others valuable field recordings.
john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 10:02 AM

Well actually Jim I think that's a brilliant idea - a national folk archive in England - (perhaps ones in Wales and Scotland as well). It deserves a thread of its own.

It could be a bit like the Royal Shakespeare Company is. A subsidised home of national traditional folksong, in the same way that the RSC is the home of classical theatre. Folkstars and promising newcomers working side by side - all working for Equity minimum. I don't think it would support a two and half thousand seater, plus a six hundred seater, plus a London theatre like Shakespeare does - but why not; something could be done?

Thanks to it - you don't get the RSC saying that everyone else is not real theatre.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 11:18 AM

An interesting case it put here by an academic for some of the "Traditional "   Irish ballads originating in England. I suppose the 1954 definiton of folk would cover this. However, it does show the folk process and there is every reason to suspect this continues today.
Around the Hills of Clare: Songs and a Recitation from the Jim Carroll and Pat Mackenzie Collection.
The songs are a mix of the very local, notably the bucolic title-track, 'Around the Hills of Clare', the grand pan-Irish, and a smattering of the general inheritance of balladry and narrative song in the English language. The latter suggests that broadsheet ballads, sometimes originating in England, were disseminated far and wide. In some cases, they doubtless found their way to the south-west of Ireland and were passed on from generation to generation long enough for them to mutate seamlessly into the local accent, to become part of the local tradition. Tom Lenihan's beautiful rendition of 'The Constant Farmer's Son' is an example of this, as is 'The Old Armchair' ('Fair Margaret and Sweet William').
(http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Around+the+Hills+of+Clare%3A+Songs+and+a+Recitation+from+the+Jim...-a0156004573)
DESI WILKINSON University of Newcastle

Dr Desi Wilkinson, has research interests in Celtic and Breton folk musics.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 11:31 AM

John - you are of course right - there are a handful of academics in the UK. I was reacting to your - them-and-us description, which I feel presents a totally false picture. My own experience began where research and performance fed into one another - singer/academics like Bert Lloyd, Vic Gammon, George Deacon, David Atkinson, Bob Thomson - typified by the only one I recognise on your list, Ian Russell - singer, morris-dancer, musician, collector - eventually professor. The rest of your list could be quantum phyicists as far as they have influenced what I understand as "folk". Over this side of the Irish Sea Tom Munnelly would be a main influence - knitting machinist, singer turned collector - awarded a doctorate by Galway University a month or so before his death. Even the early collectors - the hangovers from the Victorian era, actually got their hands dirty at the 'folkface'. Sharp and Karpeles - the favourite target of knockers like Sean, traipsed around the Somerset and into the Appalachians (and in Karpeles case, into Newfoundland) and brought back a goldmine of songs which they attempted to make sense of. Given their pioneering status, they didn't make too bad a job of it, though I would be the first to agree that it could do with updating. All of these have in some way contributed to my understanding of folk from the body of material we had in the early sixties. The much reviled 1954 definition worked for me as a singer seeking a deeper understanding of the songs I sang and it worked for me as a collector trying to find out how the singers we were recording understood and related to their songs - much of which we managed to record. I resent being told by armchair critics like Sean that I and people like me in any way attempted to tamper with what we found - one rather unpleasant piece of work described all collectors as "thieves" (though he boasted teaching his children sea shanties - making him a latter day Fagin, I suppose) The problem isn't that "folk" has come to mean something else, (to the vast majority of people it doesn't mean anything) but that it has lost any meaning whatever, in the revival, that is. We no longer have a consensus as to what we mean - that can't be good for either singers or researchers. Lloyd put it best in Folk Song in England; "If 'Little Boxes' and 'The Red Flag' are folks songs, we need a new term to describe 'The Outlandish Knight', 'Searching Fror Lambs' and 'The Coalowner and the Pitman's Wife' - to which I can only add "or vise versa'.

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 11:35 AM

Sorry cross-posted -
"Dr Desi Wilkinson"
Very fine flute player and singer.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 11:47 AM

Thanks for the heads up Jim, devoid of context as usual. Personally I think you're courting the martyrdom of being banned for antisocial behaviour, the final act of betrayal by an uncaring folk world. Anything collected without pay is a kind of theft I suppose, though I was making a different point entirely. As for 'boasting' of teaching kids shanties, I'm not into folk Legolands or Disneyworlds, state sponsored or otherwise. If the children know shanties, which they do, it won't be through my social engineering.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 12:47 PM

"Thanks for the heads up Jim"
Oooo! its the little grass who wuns to sir when he can't hack an argument - and who encourages his kids to deal in "STOLEN GOODS" in the shape of "thieved" folk songs
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 12:55 PM

My brother, twenty years my senior, had an undiagnosed mental condition (as many were in that era) that made him subject to wild mood swings, paranoia and precipitate violent outbursts, much of it based on flimsy or non-existent pretexts. I doubt whether anything you throw my way, will be unprecedented Jim. Enjoy your beliefs, whatever they may be but most of all be happy.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 02:46 PM

Over this side of the Irish Sea Tom Munnelly would be a main influence - knitting machinist, singer turned collector - awarded a doctorate by Galway University a month or so before his death. Even the early collectors - the hangovers from the Victorian era, actually got their hands dirty at the 'folkface'. Sharp and Karpeles - the favourite target of knockers like Sean, traipsed around the Somerset and into the Appalachians (and in Karpeles case, into Newfoundland) and brought back a goldmine of songs which they attempted to make sense of.
What about Peter Kennedy, you never mentioned him, the only man to collect neilidh boyle

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 03:25 PM

"What about Peter Kennedy, you never mentioned him, the only man to collect neilidh boyle"
We tend to not talk about Peter Kennedy - whatever 'good' he did was balanced out by his damage - still being repaired.
And for the record - Peter Kennedy recorded Neilidh Boyle along with Sean O'Boyle; it's fairly common that the people who introduced Kennedy to his informants don't get mentioned) and Alan Lomax beat them both to it by about two years (January 1951)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 03:48 PM

It's, out of the blue, one of the best, most intriguing, simultaneously fascinating and entertaining debuts out of the UK folk scene in a long time. Ian A Anderson, fRoots, on Sean and Rachel's Sons From The Barley Temple.

Luckily not everyone shares your views, Jim. And your repeated attacks on Sean for holding views contrary to your own do you no favours. Let's keep to debating ideas rather than getting personnal.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Nov 11 - 07:18 PM

yes its a bit of a dirty scrap.

There really is so much that unites us. Its a pity we can't isolate that, and just stick to it.

I suppose the thread title with its military ring is a bit of a rallying call for us to fall out. I don't want to occupy any space where I'm not welcome, and I suspect that's true of all of us.

In the seventies in Brum, when we organised a folk festival - every club in the city was invited to participate. We need a bit of that spirit of cooperation, if we are to advance our separate causes.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 02:45 AM

"And your repeated attacks on Sean for holding views contrary to your own do you no favours"
I think you'll find that it is the opposite way around Spleen - Sean as been maikg sweeping dismissals of folksong, researchers, academics..... and refusing to qualify, them on this forum for a very long time
A classic example has been is attacks on Irish music's success and the backing it has received from the Arts Council.
You might like to qualify your statement - he refuses to qualify his.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 04:08 AM

I dunno Jim. To be honest, we've got our share of swotty kids in this country - to be found at every folk festival in the land as they empty every performance space available, smirking their way through three slip jigs and a hornpipe.

I think what Sweeney is trying to say is that the Irish state sponsored folk scheme seems a bit 'maidens dancing at the crossroads' sort of thing. More Irish Post than Hot Press.

And the Irish Post has closed down.

I don't think he means any harm. He's just got reservations.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 04:49 AM

Jim... can you not see the difference between challenging an opinion and attacking the individual who holds that opinion?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 05:52 AM

"I think what Sweeney is trying to say is that the Irish state sponsored folk scheme seems a bit 'maidens dancing at the crossroads'"
Which is crass enough in itself but as he refuses to qualify what he says I am left with "I can't get a grant so the system must be crap"
The support for traditional music - after many years of it being marginalised has put Irish music, in all forms, on the map - especially with young people, and Sean's contempt is an example of one of the reasons that this has not happened in the UK - which was my reasong for bringing it up here.
I suggest that if you are really interested in what this is all about you look up the recent 'Robin Hood Ballads'thread
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:03 AM

An internet forum requires three things, first a willingness to engage with others, second, a commitment to logic, third, a sense of goodwill. If posters lack those it needs firm moderation to impose them. I see neither in evidence on this thread.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:03 AM

Jim Carroll

A classic example has been is attacks on Irish music's success and the backing it has received from the Arts Council.

You, of course Jim, never make any sweeping dismissals of UK folk clubs or the people that run them.

We had a great evening with Chris Coe and John Adams. Lots of excellent traditional and "in the tradition" music and song from them and floorsingers alike. Next Saturday we have Carole Etherton and Andrew McKay (who is very Welsh). As well as their own songs, strongly influenced by traditional music, they are sure to sing a few from Phil Tanner since they live in Llangenith.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:25 AM

think you'll find that it is the opposite way around Spleen - Sean as been maikg sweeping dismissals of folksong, researchers, academics..... and refusing to qualify, them

Jim, if you actually bothered to read my posts you'd find that rather than making sweeping dismissals, I'm pointing out basic problems of folkloric approach & methodology which in no way interferes with my overall relationship to the subject itself, in which I take a keen interest. You react against everything I say with a barrage of bluster, name dropping, put downs & personal insults. It's an irksome trend for sure, but all along I've striven to be civil, only to met with the irrationality and hysteria that typify your response to pretty much anything I say. Remember this is a discussion forum, not an academic peer-review; we're just talking about stuff, knocking ideas around. I really don't have the time nor the inclination (in this context) to reference and footnote everything I say, which is pretty much self-evident anyway.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:04 AM

have you got a blue clicky for that Jim?

Personally I'm sorry Sweeney can't get a grant for his endeavours. Sometimes its not the financial thing - its just recognition you need. I'm in no position to comment on his work - I don't know it, or him. However judging from all his contributions to mudcat - it must be something he cares deeply about.

I made an enquiry about a grant one time.   It was after I'd seen this really crap performance poet, who'd got World Council tours, his cd financed, and all sorts of subsidy - and I figured I could use some of that.

However you've got to face facts, some of us are just common as muck and whatever class system is in operation - we're at the bottom.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:19 AM

"have you got a blue clicky for that Jim?"
Sorry - never got my head around the blue clickie - about 2/3 weeks ago in the archive.
I'm sorry nobody in the UK gets the grants they deserve for their endevours - god knows, we tried hard enough when we were trying to launch a national archive.
I'm convinced that it won't happen until some sort of consensus is reached on what folk music is about
In the meantime - this gives an example of your 'maidens dancing at the crossroads'"
Jim Carroll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_music_of_Ireland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Traditional_Music_Archive
http://www.oac.ie/site/content/willie-clancy-summer-school-2011
http://www.pipers.ie/
http://www.artscouncil.ie/Publications/traditional_arts_eng.pdf

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:36 AM

I suggest that if you are really interested in what this is all about you look up the recent 'Robin Hood Ballads'thread

In which my only crime was to suggest (as the thread requested) a Robin Hood ballad to listen to. That my suggestion was our setting of Child #102, Jim responded with his customary stream of infantile bilious put-downs because it didn't fit in with his elitist state-funded scheme of how such material really ought to be sung - despite the fact that I've never heard any Traditional Singer sing Child #102, and only Revival singers I've heard were Spiers and Boden who did a version few years back, but many years after our recording was featured on the first volume of John Barleycorn Reborn (not that I'm suggesting their version was in anyway inspired or influenced by ours). Since Jim seemed so convinced that we were so off the mark in our interpretation, I suggested that he was privy to some darker secret lore on ballad singing; some heremetic tradition which qualified his absolutist hysteria, and his willingness to stamp out the efforts of infidels such as ourselves - and The Watersons, Mr Fox, The Young Tradition and Steeleye Span if I remember rightly.

as he refuses to qualify what he says I am left with "I can't get a grant so the system must be crap"

Like I say, I've rejected a lot of Arts Council money in my time & regard arts funding as fundamentally immoral when it could be better spent elsewhere. As of the present moment I neither want nor need Arts Council funding. This isn't an absolute rule, for there are many exceptions, and many deserving causes where I feel arts council money would come in very handy indeed, but, for the most part, the best of it happens because of the passion and hard work of those involved & pays for itself as a result. That's generally the way things happen over here anyway, for those who work very hard at the Folkface however thin the seam might be, and however small the reward.

*

I'm convinced that it won't happen until some sort of consensus is reached on what folk music is about

Well, you'd know all about consensus, Jim - meanwhile, Folk just does what it likes without worrying what it's about. Maybe we should start a What is Folk About? thread to address that very issue and see how many answers we come up with...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:50 AM

PS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_music_of_Ireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Traditional_Music_Archive

http://www.oac.ie/site/content/willie-clancy-summer-school-2011

http://www.pipers.ie/

http://www.artscouncil.ie/Publications/traditional_arts_eng.pdf

Maidens Dancing at the Crossroads

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:53 AM

I looked at that Robin Hood thread you directed me to, Jim. I don't see any evidence that Sean can't take criticism. Saying he's singing ballads the wrong way is not criticism, it's simply an assertion that there is an strictly defined right way of going about things that Sean (or Steeleye Span or the Young Tradition or Folk Choirs or anyone else who you assert doesn't measure up) falls short of. You are quite within your rights to say you don't like Sean's approach to ballad singing, even that you detest it if you want to: you don't even need to justify your stance - personal taste is all horses for courses. To say it's wrong, though, is elevating critical opinion to some sort of objective absolute.

If there is one true and correct way of doing it, what is it? And what is it measured against? And who is empowered to wield the yardstick? And who measures them? And where does it leave those of us whose tastes in ballad singing are different to or more liberal than that?

On the other thread you approvingly quote Ewan McColl as saying the greatest threat to folk music is that it should fall into the hands of people who neither like nor understand it. That's the sort of soul crushing statement that has the power to drain folk music of every last drop of humanity and joy. I much prefer what Martin Carthy said: words to the effect of: The worst thing you can do to folk music is ignore it...

Folk Against Absolutism. That's an organisation I'd join...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 07:55 AM

Whoops SOP. Cross posted.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 08:06 AM

it seems somewhat ironic given how great Ireland is in terms of funding and preserving traditions that:- "In 1984 the National Sound Archive began to acquire, preserve and catalogue the collection of field recordings made by Jim Carroll and Pat Mackenzie. The end of 1998 saw the completion of the project with the acquisition of the remainder of the collection and a total of 581 open reel tapes dubbed to recordable compact disc and fully catalogued on the NSA automated system." john

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 08:29 AM

581 open reel tapes dubbed to recordable compact disc

OMG! I hope they've kept the original reel tapes to go back to when the CD-Rs go on the fritz. All you need is a basic audio interface for your computer / laptop (try the Behringer UCA202 - £30 top) and you'd be able to do the job yourself on £30 software (I mastered our last album using Soundforge and we've had no complaints) & saving as WAVs / FLACs / even MP3s & backing up to far more reliable media than CD-Rs. Give me an earwax-cylinder any day - at least then you'd have something to listen to 100 years hence....

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 08:30 AM

Whoops SOP. Cross posted.

Great minds, Mr Spleen...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 09:08 AM

Speaking as a recorder of traditions, I'm seriously concerned about the reliability of current methods of data archiving. One chap I spoke to says half of his older memory sticks were corrupt and his CDs were degrading rapidly, even in optimised conditions. Hard drives are notoriously prone to letting go.
I foresee a real cultural disaster to make this board's spats insignificant when our last century of sound and vision go 'pfutt'.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:13 AM

OTOH - who needs a permanent record anyway? All culture is flux & flow; things come, things go & we could do without the accumulated clutter and people getting too much bogged down in the past. I believe, with good reason, that Popular Musical Culture is an Unbroken Tradition of some 50,000 summers duration, and counting. For sure, there will be cherished residue, but let's keep it in perspective. All things have their time; all things must pass; but the Tradition of Living Human Music will endure as long as there are Living Humans to do it (and others to sneer at the for not doing it right).

The answer to digital corruption is simple though: if you treasure it, back it up!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:22 AM

All you need is a basic audio interface for your computer / laptop (try the Behringer UCA202 - £30 top

In 1984 - 1998?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:32 AM

"I foresee a real cultural disaster to make this board's spats insignificant when our last century of sound and vision go 'pfutt'."

Then what do you suggest?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:40 AM

"Saying he's singing ballads the wrong way is not criticism"
Did I say he was singing them "the wrong way"? I seem to remember my comment (before the hissy-fit) was that they had become non-narrative and therefore something else - right and wrong didn't come into it. I went on to express the opinion that ballads, by definition, are narrative songs.
There followed a long and incresingly bitter tooing-and-froeing where I feel my argument was totally and rather spitefully misrepresented - prepared to pull out the relevent bits, but would rather not open old woundds.
Sean has contiued to distort my attitude - each time I have asked him to clarify his distortions I have been met with silence.
Sorry John - don't get the irony - our depositing our collecton at NSA was one of the instigations to developing the archive from non-British (largely African and Asian) to include British traditional material (Lucy Duran was in charge at the time and a massive instigator of this).
While we were happy that our recordings were to be held there we have always thought the whole archive could have been more usable - which is why we pushed for the development of a fully accessible archive - there or somewhere else. What I do find ironic is that the NSA houses the earliest and one of the most important set of recordings of folk songs ever made, the Grainger Collection, which, as far as I am aware, remains virtually inaccessible.
Personally, I still find the British Library, where the collection is housed, a fairly forbidding experience to visit and while we were happy to see the 'Bright Golden Store' project embarked on, its limited resources meant it could not even begin to tackle the recordings of traditional material existing unarchived in the UK, let alone make them generally available, which was the point of our depositing our recordings there in the first place - it still seems very much hand-to-mouth and inaccessible.
The Irish Traditional Music Archive, on the other hand, has taken full advantage of the change of heart of the Irish establishment and is putting up new material on a monthly basis - suggest you ask Malcolm Taylor or Derek Schofied how it has progressed
Sorry Sean - don't get the point of your link - we tend not to have competing threads entitled "Occupy Irish Folk Music" and fight for the scraps fallen from the establishment's table - Irish music caters for a broad church with a wide ranging congregation.
Explain please!!
What do you think of my "crossroads" examples?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:44 AM

In 1984 - 1998?

I was thinking of how the CD-Rs could be backed up and even improved upon from the original analogue tape-stock with excellent results for not much outlay other than precious time. And DAT would have been a far better option than CD-R. According to WIKI the CD-R / WO was introduced in 1988, a year after DAT. I'd be very surprised if any of them still work, unlike DAT. Time was, owing to the failure rate of CD-Rs I used to back up my digital archives on cassette; these days SD cards suffice - as well as the ubiquitous H4 (retired from field work, we now use it exclusively for mastering) we run a Zoom R24 for all our main recording work. Not a moving part in the entire operation until it makes it onto the lap-top...

That's a point - has anyone released an album on SD card yet?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:50 AM

I seem to remember my comment (before the hissy-fit) was that they had become non-narrative

No hissy-fit, Jim - and neither have they become non-narrative, only in your opinion.

Sorry Sean - don't get the point of your link

What link?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 10:57 AM

"Folk Against Absolutism"

Now that I like

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 02:03 PM

Dear Jim
I have just had a look at the National Sound Archive web site
http://sounds.bl.uk/Browse.aspx?collection=Traditional-music-in-England&browseby=Browse+by+performer&choice=P-R
I clicked on walter Pardon and had a quick listen, was suprised how much is available. Going to Folk club now but will check more later. It certainly seems to compare well with the Irish equivalent.
John

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 02:06 PM

BLUE CLICKY

national sound archive
JOHN

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 04:11 PM

John,
Thanks for that - I am delightd it has happened at last.
Still doesn't solve the problem of acquiring privately held collections (we listed around 50 twenty years ago), but at least it seems to be a worthwhile collection.
Can't really say how it compares with ITMA; they only started putting material up on the web a year or so ago, but I know their in-house collection is enormous.
One of the developments here is the setting up of local archives (usually county-based); the Clare one has some way to go before we start making our recordings available but we've bought a house in the town which has been renovated as a musical visitors centre.
Sean
The one you enigmatcally titled "Maidens dancing at the Crossroads"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 04:27 PM

The one you enigmatcally titled "Maidens dancing at the Crossroads"

That was a link to a picture based on something Big Al said; no point other than a visual take on the romance of it all, assuming that's what he was getting at. Clicking on the link now, it doesn't work. Here it is again:

Maidens dancing at the Crossroads

Looking for the image, I came across this poem in connection with it with I find deeply affecting...

She was a summer dance at the crossroads.
She was a card game where a nose was broken.
She was a song that nobody sings.
She was a house ransacked by soldiers.
She was a language seldom spoken.
She was a child's purse, full of useless things.

[Michael Hartnett (1941-1999), "Death of an Irishwoman," in Staying Alive: Real Poems for Unreal Times, ed. Neil Astley]

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 04:45 PM

to quote Fred Trueman, i dont know what the bloody hell is going on out there, can we get back to.. occupy english folk music

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 05:52 PM

It appears to have become yet another forum for what is and what is not folk, whatever folk means....

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 14 Nov 11 - 06:15 PM

some one should start a thread/campaign to open the digital archives so we can all share the music,after all our taxes pay for it.
I am not the best person to do this as I am not very good at organising but I would definitely suppport it.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 01:27 AM

600!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 02:59 AM

Just noticed the acronym "ITMA"....Not quite sure how Tommy Handley (It's that man again) is relevant....OK. Back to your discussion.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 03:46 AM

What is the topic in question here? Do you stay on topic when you chat in the pub? This thread is a bunch of opinions, not a PhD proposal. The democratic nature of the internet means there is no hierarchy, just people chipping in their two penn'orth, like it or lump it.

The pleasure of a forum is down to people being able to say their bit, exercise their hobby horses, disagree, kiss each other's a***s confident in the knowledge the topic will re-emerge somewhere down the line. There's too much pedantry as it is without putting meaning in harness to a subjective, intuitive riff of a thread title.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 04:05 AM

Sean
"Dancing at the Crossroads" was a phrase coined by DeValera back in the 30s - a romantic image of Ireland that he himself helped to shatter by allowing the church to outlaw the crossroads dances and drive the dancers and musicians into the newly constructed 'Ballrooms of Romance' (using the excuse of the protection of the chastity of the "maidens") It has nothing to do with Irish music today, if it ever had.
"Tommy Handley"
It's been commented on before Ralphie - problem is there's only you and me old enough to remember "that man again"!
John
Don't want to start a pissing English/Irish contest, but private collections such as ours are a minute part of the work of ITMA; it also houses (or aims to) every commercial recording of Irish (and related) traditional music ever made, and comes with a studio to interview, record and film visiting singers, musicians and researchers.
It co-operates in the issuing of new albums and published works and Nicholas Carolan, the director is now into the 14th series - (it began in 1994) - archive film of traditional music presented on national television in both English and Irish language versions.
It records many of the weekend festivals here, so it is not just an archive for past material - it is a living, working organisation which has been vital to the success of the Irish music scene here.
We went to the opening (it was opened by the President of Ireland, Mary Robinson) in 1987 with Malcom Taylor and were all gobsmacked when it only shared a couple of floors with the Irish Society of Antiquaries; they moved to new premises, an entire five storey Georgean house in the centre of Dublin.
It is one of two national archives of folk/traditional material in Dublin; the other is housed at University College Dublin and covers a wider range of material - tales, folkore, customs, etc.
Hate to hark back to the original argument, but this has not been achieved by flapping arms about and claiming "we don't know what "folk music" is any more" - if we don't, nobody is going to shell out taxpayers money for a non defined and diverse unknown entity.
There is room for all kinds of music in the set-up here, but the fact that all the work is rooted more-or-less in what is covered by that somewhat inconvenient '1954' definition means that Irish traditional music has a clear identity - and strangely enough, it is that identity that has attracted the youngsters to the music in droves, without them ever being aware of 1954, but simply by recognising it when they hear it.
Is the identity of our folk music really so complicated that we have to get involved in crassly titled arguments such as "Occupy English Folk Music" as if we're in some sort of a ******* war?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 04:37 AM

Thanks a lot for those Jim. I finally got it. I had to copy them all, paste them onto a word document and then look at them one by one.

I spent yesterday trying to access them from mudcat and of course given the ungainly size of this thread. My computer was going into the 'oh hell! whats this idiot doing now!' mode.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: MartinRyan
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 04:38 AM

problem is there's only you and me old enough to remember "that man again"!


Not true, I'm afraid - it still makes me grin regularly!

Regards

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Will Fly
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 04:49 AM

Can I do yer now sir?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 10:08 AM

ITMA was originally a reference to Hitler by the press of the time, but you could apply it elsewhere if you want......

Go here if you want to hear ITMA

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Nov 11 - 12:19 PM

US folk music got occupied back in the 60s.