Folk Singer v Entertainer

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: JHW
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 07:05 AM

One night at Robin Hood's Bay FC (North Yorkshire) Johnny Silvo was the guest. He weighed up an audience of folkies and holidaymakers and gave us a wonderful evening of mostly folk songs. I've never seen at any other occasion quite the whole roomful queuing up to buy a CD or perhaps just to speak to the man. A folk singer and an entertainer. RIP.
Independent

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 06:31 AM

Agree with most of that, Ray- I don't do many folk clubs these days, but I knew many of the 'source' singers and musicians and absorbed a lot from them. Over the years, I've developed a fairly eclectic repertoire, increasingly outside folk clubs, which are still mostly attended by people who have the background to be 'entertained' by predominantly 'serious' material with often a long history.
Humour is a great thing, but it is quite possible to be entertained and absorbed by a quality singer where humour is not the main aim of the evening.

   I make no claim to be 'traditional' 'folksinger' 'entertainer' or any of those terms, although others have applied all three terms *and others! to my music.

I once read with interest a review of a CD I did some years ago. One of the reviewers' comments was...
'Jim just sings the songs he likes'- now I think that was meant to reflect my approach to the music, but if you take it literally, you have to wonder- what is the alternative to that?

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: r.padgett
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 04:00 AM

Folk song should be educational tell a story and in such a way be capable of getting to the feelings of the song ~ a Folk singer should be singing to empathetic (or those capable of empathy) or at least be able to understand what and why the singer is singing it (might simply be a nice tune of course) ~ not sure why anyone would learn a tune or song that didn't say or impart something that is NOT worth hearing

Entertaining well! ~ folk singers could fall into at least two sorts those singing funny songs and those singing serious songs ~ the likes of Tony Capstick whose introductions and jokes were the funny ones and the songs by and large serious often traditional

Well I subscribe to the traditional side of course! Entertainers not singing traditional/or contemporary could find an audience anywhere maybe ~ traddies of course need a specialist following who understand their roots ~ now professional singers (singing for money) is a whole new ball game

Ray

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 09:28 PM

I've seen a lot of folk singers who were not very entertaining , also seen a lot of very good entertainers who were not folky at all! Why does it matter ? And why is it asked in the terms of one vs the other ? Nonsense really, more holier than thou folkie bollocks !

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 07:30 PM

'does that make me an entertainer, or what?'

what....?

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 05:46 PM

That whole first page of comments... oy.

"Meyer has pointed out that condition, that contradiction, which afflicts everyone who thinks at all: the more you strive to be sensible and serious and meaningful, the less chance you have of becoming so. The primary objective is to laugh." - Freefall in Crimson, John D. MacDonald

To Don Firth's 17 Dec 2012 post I would add:

entertain late Middle English: from French entretenir, based on Latin inter 'among' + tenere 'to hold.' The word originally meant 'maintain, continue,' later 'maintain in a certain condition, treat in a certain way,' also 'show hospitality' (late 15th century). - Webster's New World

entertainment is a form of activity that holds the attention and interest of an audience, or gives pleasure and delight. - wiki

"An Old Testament Cantor, the chanteyman and Harry Belafonte all seek the same goal… enchantment. They want to harness the energies of the audience to get something done – Praise the Lord; haul the bowline; pay the rent." - Phil d'Conch to Gibb Sahib

I was being flip about Belafonte but one cannot seriously deny the man's ability to enchant and entertain a live audience. He still does.

The standard definition of "recreation" is based on "leisure" however this ignores the well documented history of the shanty, cadence &c as a form of recreation part & parcel to a work environment. They "recreate" and "renew" our "spirits" as we work. (see Capt Forrest's remarks on the celeusma & fatigued crew.)

It's as basic as sleep, water & food. Go too long without recreation and your brain will shut down. The "second wind" a shanty or cadence provides is something science still struggles to explain

Don't forget to breath... & laugh.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,Ebor Fiddler
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 03:18 PM

I suppose I've been singing for about 50 years now, man and dog, but I don't consider myself a "folk singer". That label is best applied to people like the Stewarts of Scotland, Harry Cox or the Copper family, who learned their songs by family osmosis. On the other hand, I learned most of my stuff either from books or recordings - not a traditional learning method. The only stuff I learned through the folk process are the ragbag of bits and pieces I learned on the school yard.
Not only that, I tend to slip in modern(ish) pop stuff like Janis Joplin's "Mercedes Benz" and the theme song for the Robin Hood TV series - definitely not trad. But people like them, even in today's folk club equivalents - does that make me an entertainer, or what?

Chris B.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 01:10 PM

Why can't folk singers be entertainers- is it so difficult?

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 12:41 PM

The line between performer and an average, competent session player is blurry. Some of the session folks think they're due an audience because someone has said "I like your song". Sometimes they ARE that good, and sometimes they aren't. Personally, I find it hard to trust my own opinion of myself. I suppose if you can keep an audience who will give you money for your music, you should keep gigging. You're getting paid to entertain, no matter how erudite or esoteric your songs are, or how silly. People want to hear them.

The average "folk singer" gets to sing, whether anyone wants to hear them, or not. And that's how it's SUPPOSED to work. You get a turn. You get a chance. If everyone's lucky everybody will find something to enjoy about it.

Opinions-Я-Us

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,DTM
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 11:40 AM

The minute you turn professional, you cease to become a folk singer. You are now an entertainer. (Said with tongue in cheek, btw).

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 05:18 PM

wheres jed seagar?

---

https://www.facebook.com/events/836095416481572/?ref=3

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 08:36 PM

:-)

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 08:18 PM

... not in the bedroom I hope

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 08:00 PM

'we all know those individuals who love the limelight, but who make you cringe to be in the same room when they try to play or sing.'

I wonder where he caught my act.....

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 07:43 PM

"Is it possible in this day & age to "legitimately" continue a musical tradition when so much of our way of life has been altered? Or do we preserve as much as we can and move forward on a new path?"

If any part of a tradition is being "preserved", then it is no more of a tradition than a mining museum is an industry (with the exception, of course, of the tourist industry).

Real traditions are learned, respected and built upon. And this is true of any day & age.


(As for "performing" in bed, I can't think of anything that could possibly be less "fulfilling" .. .. BRRRRR, I shudder to think of it)

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: sciencegeek
Date: 25 Dec 12 - 07:15 AM

Labels... even the bible acknowledges the human need to put a name to things... LOL

Is this person a traditional singer according to these attributes? Or is that one more a singer-songwriter than a folk singer?

Is this song or tune traditional or was it "composed"... as if any song didn't get its start from a single source. What happened to it over time, well... there's a tale in itself.

I know people of moderate skill who are able to engage their audiences and put on a good show. I know others of consummate skill who "hide" behind their instrument on stage. And we all know those individuals who love the limelight, but who make you cringe to be in the same room when they try to play or sing.

Is it possible in this day & age to "legitimately" continue a musical tradition when so much of our way of life has been altered? Or do we preserve as much as we can and move forward on a new path?

These are questions, no answers... points to ponder. Music is a form of communication... there are many messages.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Dec 12 - 04:17 AM

have agood new year, betsy

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Betsy
Date: 24 Dec 12 - 08:25 PM

Folksinging is like making love - if the other party has been fulfilled by the performer then happiness prevails. Extend this premise as you wish e.g. if the other party has not been fulfilled them might it be construed that the performer has been thinking purely about his/her own satisfaction.
Alternatively if the party had been expecting a more "interesting" performance , then then the folksinging / folksinger may have turned out to be disappointing. 'Tis a difficult one indeed.
Not something to dwell on too much on the Christmas day, and I wish you all which you wish yourselves, and have a peaceful day.
Betsy

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 24 Dec 12 - 07:20 AM

Ha, yeah, priceless.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: ripov
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 07:45 PM

Could this be the basis of a new definition?

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 03:44 PM

"Within folk music, it is much more common for non-musicians to take part in the music making"

Crikey, you can say that again. There's a moment of sanity in a thread gone mad.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: John P
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 12:30 PM

Sorry, Al, I'm not sure what you are saying or who you are saying it to. Can you elucidate? As an inveterate pebble picker-upper (literally and figuratively), I agree with the sentiment but am not clear on how it relates to the conversation. If you are saying that we shouldn't be quick to tune out performances that are not in our preferred style, I couldn't agree more.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 11:37 AM

I think you are giving too little importance to the intelligence and critical faculy of the consumer/auditor/receptor/audience member.

Henry Moore, the sculptor said that someone who picks up an interesting pebble from a beach is making a creative decision, committing a creative act.

When I'm at singarounds, I often see people disengage when they think a performer has nothing to offer, and in my opinion - more often than not - they are missing out. They don't pick up the pebble.

Its possible that something may be entertaining and have substance - but just be in the wrong place. Anyway that's what I think.

This doesn't mean you can't have strong opinions about the nature of folk music. It just means we all need to expand our horizons.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: John P
Date: 23 Dec 12 - 10:29 AM

Getting back to the topic, I would say that people who play music are musicians. People who perform music are musicians and performers. This is true for all genres of music. Within folk music, it is much more common for non-musicians to take part in the music making, or rather I should say that a greater percentage of the people within the genre are musicians (in that they play music) than with other genres of music. This is great, but it doesn't mean that a performer of folk music isn't also a folk musician. They're just usually technically better at it and are willing to get up on stage and offer performances of it. The thread title and many of the posts seem to assume it's an either/or question. I strongly disagree.

As for what defines a performance of folk music, that is entirely subjective. The only thing we can say about it is whether or not we like patter between the songs, whether or not we like highly arranged music or simple statements of the tune or song, or if we like it when performers change the songs to suit one's fancy or ones idea of what the audience might like. None of this has anything to do with whether or not a someone is a folk musician or a performer. It's just about our personal tastes. It seems obvious that anyone who plays music for other people to listen to is a performer. How they conduct themselves within that is beside the point.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 07:06 PM

steve shaw, why dont you go away and play, you clearly have not got anything to get seriously depressed about.
i mean if you were seriously ill, for example i have a neice with ms that is something to get depressed about, for goodness sake

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 06:46 PM

Folk is a niche market

I can't begin to tell you how depressing I find this comment.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 09:35 AM

I was once playing in Caseys cabin, Baltimore (about 15 years ago) when a man came up to me and said i had the tune of St Patricks day wrong. I said I realised it was a slightly quirky version, but I got it from an LP of Leo Rowsome's 78 recordings. He was a piper and we had a perfectly civil conversation about it- however at the end he said 'Ah well, but you're an entertainer, not a traditional musician'.
I took it as a compliment, but had no idea that you couldn't be both?
I think the Good soldier is right in that if you are being paid by a pub or folk club, you have a DUTY to enertain in the sense that you CAN'T do anything BUT just that, on your own terms- they won't ask you back if you don't realise that

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,JHW(cookie on old computer)
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 07:27 AM

Folk is a niche market; we might expect to be appreciated by an audience who has deliberately gone to a Folk Club, without having to be a standup comedian who sings songs. I'll take longer to choose a set than it takes to sing them but I wouldn't go out to sing to a non-folk audience because I expect I would not entertain them.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 02:49 AM

then go away.
classical music has used sponsors or patrons for centuries, so the commercialisation of classical music is not new.
tradition musicians who are not being paid meet up in each others houses and play exactly what they want, it is only when you start playing in pubs and getting paid that you have to start entertaining or pleasing the drinkers, then the performer has to compromise

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:45 PM

I'm losing the will to live

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 02:37 PM

Matt Milton: " joyous arty dance-pop"

Throw some names about Matt, I love euphoric dancey pop!

Listening to R4 the other day discussing the hey day of Smash Hits and someone (Toyah I think) commented that the innocent excitement of the music of that period has been lost, I would say it's most definitely out there now. I'm fond of The Go! Team and Handsomeboy Technique, both of whom have been with us for several years now and there must be lots more where that came from.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 12:58 PM

I first encountered the correct usage of amateur in the academic fields of paleontology and "natural history", where social status had quite an influence over who could become professors ... but still submit articles to scientific journals.

For that matter, Albert Einstein was relegated to the Swiss Patent Office due to his heritage and lack of patronage... until his papers on physics were published and doors opened for him around the world.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 12:15 PM

good points, Ripov.i rememb er some very good amateurs the northumbrian shepherds wille taylor and co, the singer willie scott, bob roberts, walter pardon

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: ripov
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 11:14 AM

Without getting involved in long-winded arguments (ie I'm sitting on the fence here), I can only say that I have the greatest respect for musicians and entertainers like the Levellers and Kath Tickell, who not only play and entertain on stage but also join in the session with the "folkies" in the pub.

Regarding amateurs, the original, and main, meaning is someone who does something for the love of it. Unfortunately several dictionaries miss this, and only refer to its derogatory sense, as someone not good enough to make money out of their "hobby" (as though money were the only worthwhile goal!).

Borodin was a chemist, Elgar a shop assistant. Amateurs!

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 09:30 AM

colin holt have youread my post properly, i am only partly agreeing with gill

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,colin holt
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 08:05 AM

I agree Matt... nice one !!

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,Colin Holt
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 08:03 AM

Mr Gill & GSS
Lets make a New Year resolution.. Lets respect our roots and not forget them....BUT Lets un learn the tradition....just let it sweep across us like a gentle breeze. Lets UN approve the traditional style in favour of creativity....Y'know what ??... I aim to fidget loads in 2013 !!!!

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: matt milton
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 08:01 AM

"However, they also need to be told that unless their music is rooted in a strong tradition with depth, unless they learn and respect that tradition, it will more than likely end up as mere aimless fidgeting."

To my mind, saying that implies an idea of authenticity that is belied by really good pop music. There are plenty of people that enjoy listening to both Pierre Boulez and AC/DC, both John Coltrane and the Beach Boys, both Leonard Cohen and Stockhausen, both Beethoven and Nick Drake, both Giacinto Scelsi and Frank Sinatra, both Bob Dylan and Beethoven.

This year I've mostly listened to music by Micachu, C Joynes & Stephanie Hladowski, Gerald Barry, Harrison Birtwistle, Roy Harris and Aldo Clementi. In other words, high-concept 20th century classical music, joyous arty dance-pop and stripped-down English folk. Some of that comes from a tradition, some of that comes from an "anti-tradition", some of it is much more intuitive and eclectic.

Fact is, classical music is just as "commodified" as pop, only in a different way (it owes a lot more to public-sector funding and big-business sponsorship). Fact is, self-consciously commercial music can still produce great art (eg Beatles, Motown, hip-hop). Worth remembering that Mozart had patrons; he needed his operas to be hits just as much as Stock, Aitken & Waterman needed their 80s dance singles to be.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 07:08 AM

I agree to some extent, however if a player performs a traditional piece to an audience who are not particularly concerned with the player playing in an approved traditional style,it can be performed well. Dave Swarbrick springs t mind with fairport convention, fairport are not particully my cup of tea, but audiences who could not care a toss about a proscribed style loved them.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:28 AM

I agree that anyone that tries to make home made music needs to be encouraged. However, they also need to be told that unless their music is rooted in a strong tradition with depth, unless they learn and respect that tradition, it will more than likely end up as mere aimless fidgeting.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 04:52 AM

i do not agree with Gill, There is some music thats not to my taste, i do not particularly like some of the music made by a couple ofthe contributors to this thread, it is competent but in my opinion lacks feeling, but that is a matter of taste
   but there is a lot of classical music i hear that is very good, and a number of musicians on the uk folk scene, nic jones, martin carthy, Tom Paley TO NME A FEW.
anyone that tries to make home made music needs to be encouraged, perhaps we need another skiffle revival

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,Ebor_Fiddler (Well-known pedant)
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 08:16 PM

Well - I never thoughtI'd be in full agreement with Lord Gill, but I agree with every word in his last comment> I must be getting soft in my old age ...

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 07:47 PM

Me??? If I don't entertain then guess what??? The phone doesn't ring... Entertain first and foremost or risk sittin' around playing for yourself... Now if you are that talented you might get by on strictly on your music but I wouldn't bank on it...

I'm a blues player and I talk a lot of shit between songs... I mean, stories, jokes, anything that will engage the audience...

"After tonight I ain't gonna drink no more... (PAUSE)... Unless I'm by myself or with someone"...

Next song...

B~

p.s. stole that one off R.L.Burnside...

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 06:40 PM

steve shaw, I have.
hows the oboe

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 10:25 AM

ha, Well I certainly am anti most music. Or at least, what seems to pass for music these days. For the vast majority of it is mere shallow commercialised commodity. And even the vast majority of what is left, after one discounts the shallow commercialised commodities, is either the shallow self-indulgent ramblings of rootless worthy deaf wannabes or the aimless fidgeting of lazy rootless fashion cliques.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 09:58 AM

re: your rude comments tell me a lot more about you than about singer-songwriters. You are anti-music..

Whether Micheal is anti music or not is irrelevant. The issue of importance is whether he can be regarded as a tradition or a fashion clique... me I'm just a lawnmower... you can tell me by the way I walk

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: John P
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 09:49 AM

I don't think people should denigrate others because of the music they like to play. I also am not a fan of most singer-songwriters, but I understand that they play the music they are called to play in the way they are called to play it.

Michael Gill, your rude comments tell me a lot more about you than about singer-songwriters. You are anti-music. Since this is a music site, perhaps you'd like to go find somewhere else to talk your trash.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 09:41 AM

twilight zone post earlier... ??? try two

thread drift alert:

A favorite Sunday afternoon treat in my youth was watching Leonard Bernstein's Young Peoples Concerts broadcasts. And later my mom found rebroadcasts of Howard Goodall's BBC shows which I enjoyed greatly and recommend to anyone interested in gaining perpectives in Western musical history. Many of Goodall's stuff in on youtube & Bernstein's is on DVD.

One thing I always seemed to strongly respond to in "classical" music has been the use of traditional tunes and motiffs within the larger musical form. And this even before I knew where the melodies came from.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 09:03 AM

I agree with all of that Geek.

And yes GUEST, it may well be anal gazing, but the reasons I like/ enjoy/ relate to/ feel educated by/ get turned on by stuff interests me. If nothing else, it makes it easier to sift through the dross to find stuff new to me that I can like/ enjoy/ relate to ... etc.

And whether something could be regarded as a tradition or a fashion clique is directly relevant to the above. And I would say it should have relevance to anyone who likes any of the traditional musics of the world.

And there is a sound reason to refer to the baroque, classical, romantic and modern periods of "western art music" by a generic term. It's because they were all strong, deep and brilliant traditions that morphed into one another.

For example, the quality of Mozart's "classical" music can be defined by the combination of the depth of the classical and baroque traditions , the level of the his respect for those traditions and the level of his ability to communicate his experiences and reactions to the human condition.

And this is why, for example, a modern singer/songwriter can never be as good an artist. The very best of them may well have extraordinary abilities in communicating their experiences and reactions to the human condition, but their art will alway be let down by the shallowness of their chosen traditional medium. I traditional medium that could easily be described as a mere fashion clique

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: sciencegeek
Date: 20 Dec 12 - 07:09 AM

LOL... we are talking about people here... both those making music and those listening.

People are multi-faceted not little cardboard cutouts. Each brings their interest, background and experience with them. We can't help it- it's who and what we are.

What may entertain one person, bores another to death. So it you try to come up with definitions, you need to find ones that work across the board, and there needs to be agreement about the meaning of the definitions... otherwise it's an exercise in futility.

Add to that the lumpers and splitters... LOL.. I grew up listening to "classical music"... in reality, I was listening to music from the baroque, classical, romantic and modern periods. But the convention is to lump them all together into the generic term "classical music". As long as you know the "rule" of the definition.. no problem.