traditional music is for entertaining

Subject: traditional music is for entertaining
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 04:46 AM

"Traditional music is for entertaining it is not for a further education class" Bob Davenport.
please discuss amicably [That means not calling people talentless morons]

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 04:49 AM

Good lad Bob Davenport, he knows what he's talking about.

Dave H

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST,davemc
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 04:53 AM

Absolutely.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 04:56 AM

Over-simplification. The two are not mutually exclusive, and both have their place. I tend to the analytic/scholarly/want·to·know·you·know category myself; but if you prefer just to listen & wallow & enjoy, feel free.

I know [or knew] Bob Davenport of old. He loved stirring things up [tho not quite as much as Robin Hall!].

≈M≈

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Ernest
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 05:19 AM

Ever heard the term "infotainment"?

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Brian Peters
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 05:22 AM

Agree totally with Michael. I'm actually giving a series of further education classes on English folk song right now, and I like to imagine they're entertaining. Different audiences - folk club, concert, pub, workshop - demand different kinds of 'entertainment' , and a good professional can gauge that. For instance, if I went to see say Jeff Warner at a local folk club, would I want to hear his great stories about the songs his mother and father collected and the people who sang them, or a stream of chorus songs interspersed with one-liners? Know what I'd prefer.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Vic Smith
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 05:28 AM

For instance, if I went to see say Jeff Warner at a local folk club, would I want to hear his great stories about the songs his mother and father collected and the people who sang them, or a stream of chorus songs interspersed with one-liners? Know what I'd prefer.


But apart from that.....
I reserve my opinion about the intentions of this thread but will refer back to this post if my suspicions are justified.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST,raymond greenoaken
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 05:29 AM

Folk music is like pop music with brains. And some pop music is like pop music with brains. Anything wrong with brains? We all came equipped with one.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 05:36 AM

"For instance, if I went to see say Jeff Warner at a local folk club, would I want to hear his great stories about the songs his mother and father collected and the people who sang them, or a stream of chorus songs interspersed with one-liners? Know what I'd prefer."
   it depends, I might possibly like to hear both it is entirely dependent on the quality of the stories or the quality of the one liners.
Brian, it is no good prejudging one liners or stories before they have been told.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Musket
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 05:54 AM

Superflous word in the title Dick..

Music is for entertaining. Any messages, subliminal or otherwise are decoration. Regardless of the genre, music is an abstract concept.

Although my love for classical music is rather strong, I am surprised. I can't listen to Mozart's 40th. Why? Probably due to school when we had to run our finger along the score whilst listening and the teacher coming round rapping knuckles of anybody who lost their place. Not the best way to introduce people to music!

Some traditional music suffered that way too. When you were forced to sing something at school, you aren't necessarily going to have much time for it later.

By the way, music is music with brains. Define folk or pop before letting the brain clutch out, it can stall if you aren't careful.

On second thought, don't define folk, you'll wake the monster under the bed.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 06:04 AM

"Some traditional music suffered that way too. When you were forced to sing something at school, you aren't necessarily going to have much time for it late."
my experience was different from yours, I loved having folk dancing and folk singing at primary school, the only problem I had with folk dancing at school was I sometimes ended up dancing with girls who were fat and smelly.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 06:05 AM

The monster under the bed has never slept!

≈≈Grr·ROARrr·Rrr!≈≈
                   ~M~

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 06:09 AM

do not wake i am sleepinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNVI2RBMPP8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Musket
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 06:18 AM

Aye, the older you get, the less sleep you need.

Dick, I recall enjoying dancing round the maypole and singing songs as a very young lad, but when music lessons as a teenager started dissecting and analysing....

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 06:23 AM

Bob Davenport is a man with an enormous chip on his shoulder, but about what I do not know. He is also extremely arrogant in attempting to dictate to people what they should and should not use traditional music for.

Yes, I love listening to traditional music and traditional songs, and on a world wide basis. It's bloody good stuff.

However, as someone who left school with no qualifications whatsoever, and just a garbled establishment version of history, the music and songs of these isles in particular were a revelation to me. They taught me who I was, and who my forebears were. In fact they taught me that the lower orders had a place in hsitory which was no less significant than all the careers of mad politicians and even madder generals that the world ever produced.

It is a rich seam of intellectual enquiry which I have relentlessly pursued ever since and it is one which has brought me immense satisfaction.

So I will willingly stick two fingers up to Bob Davenport, and all the anti-intellectuals of this world. I'll continue to derive enormous pleasure from listening to Michael Coleman and Joe Heaney and George Maynard and countless other traditional musicians and singers. And I'll continue to seek out every nugget of information about the sounds which they were good enough to share with us.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 06:24 AM

i accept what you say to a certain degree, but i will act devils advocate here, without some degree of analysis and musical self analysis it is difficult to improve.
i suppose the analysis must be self imposed rather than be imposed by an outside force, particularly if you are a teenager, when it is the natural thing to be inclined to question and rebel against adult teachers.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 06:27 AM

Putting any restriction og any type of music, song - you name the art form, is restrictive and arrogant - if they have any sense, people will take anything on offer from any of these - they all go beyond simple 'entertainment'
I am not surprised Bob Davenport made such a statement; my last memory of seeing him was at The Musical traditions Club, in London, where the guests were two of my favourite singes, Roisín White, and Aran Islander, Teresé Mullane.
Teresé sang in Irish and was thoughtful enough to explain each of her songs with short introductions.
We were unfortunate enough to be seated a row in front of Davenport, who spoke loudly and very pointedly throughout all of her introductions, until I became a bit pissed off and asked him to pack it in.
He replied, "I thought we got rid of all this talking shit years ago; I came here to listen to songs".
Pretty well in character for someone who once described Jeannie Robertson as "a terrible singer" (we have a recording of him doing so)
Boorish loutishness rules O.K.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 06:38 AM

could we please discuss the statement, not indulge in personal attacks on Bob Davenport, PLEASE STICK TO WHAT HE SAID AND DISCUSS THAT IF NOT GO SOMEWHERE ELSE,THANKS.no trolling or flaming please

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 06:41 AM

Please don't tell me how to make my contribution - you cited Davenport - I described his attitude to the singing of other performers in relation to his statement - perfectly in line with the topic.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 06:51 AM

Jim, did I adress you personally?, I did not, my comment was aimed at Fred, it is unecessary to call him arrogant or to refer to him having a chip on his shoulder.
funnily enough since you appear to want to discuss davenports statement about singing songs and too much talk, I was once castigated for introducing and talking abouta song, by a traditional singer Fred Jordan, who said to me Dick have you kissed the blarney stone since you have been to ireland just sing the song.
come on Jim ,whats the feckin difference between what Bob said and what Fred said, it appears to me that you are prejudiced against Bob Davenport,
would your response be the same to Fred ?,for interrupting a performer on stage, if it is, fair enough.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 06:53 AM

Agreed, Jim. Would add that drift or expansion of topics are a familiar & constant feature of this forum; and that being OP of a thread confers no authority whatever to dictate to other posters the form or direction of their contributions.

So just suck up what comes, Dick -- & live with it.

Regards
≈M≈

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 07:25 AM

There's only one thing that traditional music isn't for, and that's dictating to others what music "should" be for.

Some uses of music:

Entertainment.
Education.
Child care.
Crowd control.
Group bonding.
Ritual.
Physical exercise.
Mental exercise.
Torture.
Satire.
Group coordination.
Expression of identity.
Annoying other people.
Recording of history or myth.
Increasing emotional tension.
Reducing emotional tension.
Fashion statement.

People have used traditional music for all these purposes, and many more, often unintentionally. In fact, I'm writing a song at this very moment- nay, a cycle of synphonic and choral oeuvres (that's French for eggs, sophisticated or what?) of which the sole purpose is to get up Mr. Miles' nose.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 07:26 AM

GSS. If you were addressing my comments about Bob Davenport, it would have been sensible to say so.

I can only repeat that I have always found Davenport an extremely ill mannered individual, who is far too fond of rudely laying the law down and telling other people what they should and should not listen to.

I can think of quite a few examples to back that statement up. Here's just one of them. A few years ago Bob Davenport sang an Irish song called Patsy McCann. When he finished, and apropos of absolutely nothing, he launched into a tirade against Ewan MacColl. (NB., I don't want to re-open the MacColl/Davenport debate, but attacking MacColl is a favorite pastime of Davenport's, as many Mudcatters will know.)

The conversation went roughly like this.

BD. "In 1957 Ewan MacColl told Joe Heaney that a man with his reputation shouldn't go singing music hall songs like that."

Me. "In 1964, Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger recorded Heaney singing that very song."

BD. "Eh? What? How do you know?"

Me. "They recorded Joe Heaney singing Patsy McCann as part of that big long interview they did with him in 1964."

BD. "What interview?"

Me. (patiently). "In 1964 Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger conducted an interview of about five hours duration with Joe Heaney, during which he sang Patsy McCann."

BD. (aggressively). "I don't know who you are or where you're from!"

At this point several people intervened and restored some sort of equilibrium, before the matter got out of hand completely.

Personally I find it impossible to distinguish between Davenport's opinions and the way he expresses them.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST,JIm Bainbridge
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 07:32 AM

Regarding traditional music as entertainment, I recall when I was making a living singing & playing my 'gadget' in pubs (not folk clubs)in West Cork about 20 years ago, I was taken to task in Casey's Cabin bar in Baltimore by a well-known local uilleann piper. He told me that my version of St Patrick's Day was wrong. I pointed out that I certainly played it differently to most people, but I had picked it up from an LP of reissued 78s by Leo Rowsome, and while it was not the standard version, it certainly was not 'wrong'.

He wouldn't accept this, and then said- 'Ah but you're an entertainer, not a traditional musician'. I could hardly believe this, I've never claimed to be a 'traditional musician' whatever that is, but have treasured his words ever since- I have always considered it a wonderful compliment...

Whatever music you play, surely it's essential to communicate with your listeners- 'entertainment' doesn't have to be all funny songs, jokes and manic reels- you judge your audience & try to enhance their evening in whatever way suits all present. If you don't you b..... well should! Have had many evenings ruined by sequences of 'dreich' songs by knowledgeable people with no concept of balance over an evening, and outside of 'singing circles' even less idea of what non-folkie listeners might be 'entertained' by.

Bob Davenport would ALWAYS communicate (he'd hate that word too!) with his audience even if they didn't realise it and he always does 'requests' if he can. After all, if you're asked to sing the 'Wild Rover' and oblige that person, I've found you can do anything you like after that- I have received much good advice from Bob over the years, and still try to live up to his standards.

Bob will not be opening a college of tact and diplomacy, and he is quite capable of defending himself against people who do not share his
view of 'traditional' music, so I certainly won't be doing that.

I would just point out that Mr Carroll's experience would not have happened but for Bob Davenport. I think if you ask the organisers of the club he mentioned, they will tell you that their original interest in the music owes a hell of a lot to the inspiration of the man, and it is quite conceivable if they'd never met Bob Davenport, the excellent Musical Traditions club probably would not exist.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 08:04 AM

"I would just point out that Mr Carroll's experience would not have happened but for Bob Davenport."
Yes it would - I came into the revival about the same time as Bob and was influenced by people he was influenced by.
I find Bob's contribution to folk song somewhat chequered, to say the least and have always been at odds with his attitude of "art with a small "A" and culture "not being for the working classes".
Whatever enjoyment I may or may not have got from him as a performer, his input into my understanding of the music is virtually non-existent, if for no other reason than his disturbing habit of shouting down those he doesn't agree with.
I'm actually working on digitising a couple of hundred tapes of the Critics Group meetings at the moment - the group came into being when Bob, and several other prominent figures on the folk scene approached MacColl and asked him to give them singing lessons - the clubs were well up and running at the time.   
"it appears to me that you are prejudiced against Bob Davenport,"
I reported exactly the incident at the M.T. club -nothing prejudiced in that, and perfectly in line with what you quoted him as saying.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 08:10 AM

Jim. Very well said, and point taken. Peta and Ken are very close friends of mine, and I greatly value the work they've done with the Musical Traditions Club, and the Keith Summers weekend, and their involvement with Whitby, Sutton Bonington, The Downs festival and many other areas of musical activity.

And that is before one considers the enormous support they've given to a great many singers and musicians - me included; and before I take account of the many occasions I've flogged down at their place whenever I've been in London. (My only regret there is that I used to take a bottle of whisky down for Peta and somehow or other ended up drinking a large portion of it myself. Unfortunately, since my doctor ordered me off the drink, that pleasure has had to go by the board.)

However, the open and generous natures of the pair of them in no way excuses the boorishness of Bob Davenport, or the enormous King Edward spud on his shoulder, or his aggressive attitude.

Oh, and I nearly forgot. It's entirely due to their said generous natures that I am now the custodian of Keith Summers' enormous record collection. That is just one more thing for which I am eternally grateful.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 08:14 AM

Just to avoid any confusion, I'd better point out that my last contribution was of course a reply to Jim Bainbridge, rather than Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Brian Peters
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 09:33 AM

"Brian, it is no good prejudging one liners or stories before they have been told."

I'm not prejudging Jeff Warner's stories, Dick - I've heard and been entertained by them many times. Jeff is of course also funny, and a great judge of the right song for the moment. The point I was trying to make (as Jim Bainbridge has just done) is that 'entertainment' doesn't have to mean 'lowest common denominator', or to exclude anecdote or history. Jim B is equally right about the deadening effect of a succession of doleful ballads or endless introductory lectures, but it's the prescriptiveness of Davenport's original remark that I dislike.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 11:33 AM

yes,Brian,
my point was of a hypothetical nature,because you did not specify which chorus songs or one liners you were referring too, did you?
the point i am making is this that one liners and chorus songs can be equally good as stories dependent on the quality of each.
MGM you are being a silly billy AND a booby, as the op of the thread i have every right to ask people from not indulging in personal attacks but stick to discussing what Bob said.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST,Mike Yates
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 11:45 AM

I have just read through the above. Whatever happened to the comment in the first posting - "That means not calling people talentless morons" -?

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 11:52 AM

As an infrequent mudcat contributor, it appears to me that a lot of unnecessary animosity arises out of very little, and largely due to people with trenchant views (ironic, that!!) I have always tried to see both sides, but in order to conduct sensible discussion, accurate quotes are essential, and I do not appreciate words being put in my mouth.
AT NO POINT did I accuse Mr Carroll of being prejudiced against Bob, nor do I dispute his version of what happened at MT! All I did was to point out one aspect of the man's contribution (controversial or not) to traditional music...as I said, Bob is quite capable of defending himself.   
From a personal standpoint, since attending ONE meeting nin the sixties, I have never had time for the 'Critics' Group' although I don't doubt the value of researching this early aspect of the revival- good for you, but I'd rather hear Bob sing 'Memphis Tennessee' than hear the whole bloody lot of them, including MacColl- don't get me started! I admire the songs he wrote/plagiarised/invented, but that's as far as it goes.

On another point by Fred M, I am sure what the point is about Joe Heaney singing Patsy McCann, but I do know that it was one of the only two songs in the repertoire of John Doonan, the Tyneside piccolo player, if that's of interest?

OK- back to the entertainment business...

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 11:55 AM

where did the original quote come from?

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 11:58 AM

if POP music is bubblegum and sugary fizzy colas..
and ROCK music is blood red steaks and lager & Jack Daniel's,

then TRAD FOLK is stale scones & buns and syrup of figs....

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 12:00 PM

"i have every right to ask people from not indulging in personal attacks but stick to discussing what Bob said."
That is exactly what has happened - everything said here has been in relation to his attitude to fellow artists and enthusiasts - it is in response to what he has said, not what he is.
What you have quoted is exactly the stance he has always taken on Folk song
There are no "personal attacks" here, apart from those made by you directed at those who disagree with you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: ripov
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 12:01 PM

No it's for taking part in. Singing. Playing. Learning about. Otherwise it's just show business. Of course it's always good to hear a capable performer, but that's an entirely different aspect.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST,#
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 12:03 PM

There in paragraph 3, Jim.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/feb/26/singing-floor-folk-review-jp-bean

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Leadfingers
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 12:13 PM

A LONG time ago , I was I a Folk Club when the organiser stood up and shouted " You're NOT here to enjoy yourselves - Remember this IS a Folk Club"! -And he was DEADLY serious !
No one will EVER convince that when Grndpa Copper was singing his 'family' songs in Rottindean he was establishing a Semi Religious art form - He was being an ENTERTAINER

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 12:16 PM

Jim Carroll.Fred said
"Bob Davenport is a man with an enormous chip on his shoulder, but about what I do not know." that is a personal attack and has no bearing on what he has said.
I have not indulged in personal attacks.You dont SERIOUSLY consider r me calling MGM a silly billy and a booby[awkward fellow] a personal attack, if you are, you are being very sillybillyish
Bob has in my opinion contributed a lot to the uk folk revival, so when he says something it ought to be discussed without personal attacks and remarks about chips on shoulders..

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 12:29 PM

I also fail to see the relevance of this remark from jim carroll
"Pretty well in character for someone who once described Jeannie Robertson as "a terrible singer" (we have a recording of him doing so) what has his opinion of jeannie robertson" got to do with the original statement
"Traditional music is for entertaining it is not for a further education class"
you have also not answered my question in relation to Fred Jordan.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Vic Smith
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 12:35 PM

it appears to me that a lot of unnecessary animosity arises out of very little...... OK- back to the entertainment business...

Would that it could be so, Jim, but just look at the opening post. It contains a reference to a insult perpetrated in and carried over from a previous thread and sadly, Mike Yates did not know this and questioned why it was here.
I wrote at 09 Nov 14 - 05:28 AM -
I reserve my opinion about the intentions of this thread but will refer back to this post if my suspicions are justified.

My suspicions were that one of the main purposes of the thread would be to call for another round of insults to break out and this has been the case - see the post at 09 Nov 14 - 11:33 AM. The pattern of this type of thread is that once the insults start they accelerate quite quickly and then the people who are here to discuss and give and take points drop out. This would be a great pity because already some interesting points have been made.
One thing I do find strange however, is that these threads often hinge on statements that were made or positions taken up decades ago and focus on people who are either dead or no longer active. Meanwhile there are very many interesting positions being taken up by younger performers who have developed a love of traditional music and seem to me, when I talk to them, to have developed a different take on the music. They don't ever seem to share their thoughts on Mudcat. (Causley, Moray, Askews etc, etc,) Here we seem to get bogged down in historic situations, particularly the 50 year old Davenport/MacColl differences.
Perhaps we are reflecting the age of contributors here.
Strange, isn't it?

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST,punfolkrocker
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 12:38 PM

Eddie Upton of Folk South West is a positive example of a performer good at combining both entertainment & education..

I've not seen him for about 15 years, but I'd guess he still is...

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 12:43 PM

BOB entertaining
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yde-74PWNvc
can you do this Jim? Fred? lets hear you?

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 12:46 PM

Fred can answer for himself - as far as I'm concerned he responded to your original point - you cannot choreograph these discussion, people will answer them in any way they choose.
"so when he says something it ought to be discussed "
Whhich is exactly what is happening here - or would be if you allowed it to take place without your censure
One more time!
""Traditional music is for entertaining it is not for a further education class""
Both are possible and, in my opinion. highly desirable - only a tyrannical folk-bobby would suggest otherwise.
As far as Frwd Jordan's opinion is concerned, I covered it in my first posting
"if they have any sense, people will take anything on offer from any of these - they all go beyond simple 'entertainment'"
We've recorded many hours of field singers talking about their songs - what's your point?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: GUEST,Punkfolkrocker
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 12:49 PM

"One thing I do find strange however, is that these threads often hinge on statements that were made or positions taken up decades ago and focus on people who are either dead or no longer active....

...Here we seem to get bogged down in historic situations, particularly the 50 year old Davenport/MacColl differences.
Perhaps we are reflecting the age of contributors here.
Strange, isn't it?"

I thought it might be a bit impertinent if I asked "Bob Davenport ? who the f@ck is Bob Davenport !!!???"

Sooo I just googled some youtubes..

In a previous Music Technology Forum I was one of the older 'sages' when I was in my early to mid 40s.

Now, my next big birthday celebration in only a few years will be my 60th..

Yet here at mudcat I almost feel as if I am a young delinquent tearaway...???

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 12:50 PM

Vic Smith, I dont think MGM, would be seriously offended by my calling him a silly billy or a booby, they are terms he has used himself in the past.
you however have an agenda, if you have a problem with anything i have said to you which is perfectly true[ i have it all in print], take me to court if not get off my back and shut up.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Vic Smith
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 12:55 PM

The pattern of this type of thread is that once the insults start they accelerate quite quickly and then the people who are here to discuss and give and take points drop out. This would be a great pity because already some interesting points have been made.

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 01:01 PM

Everybody on this thread is expressing an opinion. Bob was giving his opinion. We don't have to agree with him. I respect Bob as a performer and a friend. I wouldn't ask him any academic questions though!

IMO the guest of 7.25 am had the right idea. We've all given our opinions. What else is there to do apart from all this mindless name-calling?

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 01:08 PM

"I dont think MGM, would be seriously offended by my calling him a silly billy or a booby"

.,,.,.

Oh, I 'spect he'll survive

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: johncharles
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 01:22 PM

"BOB entertaining
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yde-74PWNvc
can you do this Jim? Fred? lets hear you?"
an old guy singing a modern song of which there are hundreds of covers, some better than his some worse. there are thousands of singers entertaining people every day of the week. People who have something meaningful tosay about traditional music are in much shorter supply and are worth listening to.
john

Subject: RE: traditional music is for entertaining
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Nov 14 - 01:30 PM

Alternative answer ---


☹☹☹boohoohoo☹☹☹

Take yer pick, Dick