|
07 May 08 - 04:46 AM (#2334667) Subject: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,The Observer There seems to a conflict between folk and entertainment, in the eyes of some contributors to these Mudcat threads. Can anyone explain? |
|
07 May 08 - 04:55 AM (#2334675) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: greg stephens Well, one could state the bleeding obvious, that a lot of performances labelled as "folk" are not very entertaining. But whether I am up to explaining why this should be so? Possibly not. |
|
07 May 08 - 05:04 AM (#2334680) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Jack Blandiver True folk exists in the murky substratas of societal dysfunction; hidden away from the glare of the spotlights it provides a haven for the terminally unfashionable and unrepentantly content; if it serves any agenda at all it is one of absolute egalitarianism whereby what is served up will always be an acquired taste. It is hard won, cranky, curmudgeonly, and at times downright autistic. True folk does not serve Mammon, put passion sweet & pure; it is served by erudite enthusiasts hell bent on the authentic; there are no egos, no rewards, no kudos. True folk is like true football - a grey game, played on grey days, watched by grey people. True folk is neglected, and dirty; it is a vault, an archive, a cultural oubliette; true folk is superstition and detritus; true folk is everything people say it is - balding heads, grey beards, pewter tankards, shaky-eggs, badly played bodhrans, and all; true folk is rust and grime; true folk is the beggar in ditch by the motorway verge. True folk is all these things and more, but, God Forbid, it will never be entertainment! |
|
07 May 08 - 06:04 AM (#2334709) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: John MacKenzie If folk musicians become too entertaining they turn into Carrots and Connollys. G |
|
07 May 08 - 06:30 AM (#2334717) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,Volgadon If I didn't find folk music entertaining, then I wouldn't listen to it. |
|
07 May 08 - 06:40 AM (#2334723) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,Tom Bliss There is no correct answer to this, because it's different for different people and that's as it should be. Sedayne will be told he is both gloriously right and terrifyingly wrong. And the usual suspects will arrive shortly to say the exact opposite, and will be told likewise. Asking this question is the same as asking of an antique if it's age or the skill of the maker which matters most. Pointless. To some it will be all about age and provenance and patina, to others all about artistry and craft, while to most it'll be a balance of both with different values on different occasions. Only a plonker would suggest than anyone in either of the other two categories is a plonker. But they will. Tom What's that green thing poking out from under the bridge? |
|
07 May 08 - 06:44 AM (#2334724) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Paul Burke It's easy. If your aim is entertainment, you'll do whatever is required to entertain. That may or may not include folk. If you want to do folk, there will be some point (which will be different for each performer) that you don't want to pass. Read the History of the Excluded Myddle, by Richard Gough, or reflect that when you look at a rainbow, there is no point at which one colour changes to another. Therefore all colours are the same. |
|
07 May 08 - 06:54 AM (#2334727) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Doc John 'Entertainment' is a sneering word applied - often tongue in cheek - to something which the speaker considers unworthy, beneath him or her, trivial, not 'serious' ...etc. Not just in music but art, films, books etc. Opera and the theatre are never considered entertainment being for the elite - except G&S, pantomimes etc. Is there an element of the emperor's new clothes here? You have to suffer, be intellectual or annoy people to understand non-entertainment. Jackie Collins is entertainment: James Joyce certainly not. The Beatles were entertainment: chain gang songs as recorded by Allan Lomax not. Doc John |
|
07 May 08 - 06:55 AM (#2334728) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: TheSnail Sedayne True folk is like true football - a grey game, played on grey days, watched by grey people. No! No! No! Folk is populated by bright, sparkly people wearing swirly, panchromatic, floral trousers and fairy wings playing happy tunes on their stylophones. |
|
07 May 08 - 07:03 AM (#2334734) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Richard Bridge Entertainment at no time is required to contain any element of honesty or history. Maybe we should debate, as the rainbow example leads, the meaning of "green", and how the goats Gruff knew what colour Green was (or whether they learned it from a man in Sussex who never existed) |
|
07 May 08 - 07:13 AM (#2334740) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Mo the caller But! But! But! It's both of those. If they wear their fairy wings to a barn dance I'll wear my flowery waistcoat and call some ('if you've done it before this may be a different version') folk dances, while the band plays happy tunes. But woe betide anyone who tells me what I have to wear down the pub playing my wrong notes. |
|
07 May 08 - 07:20 AM (#2334741) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: MikeofNorthumbria Folk is doing it for ourselves - entertainment is paying somebody else to do it for us. Paid professionals provide us with a more polished performance - that's why we think they're worth paying. But actually doing the thing (even when it's not done brilliantly) gives us an entirely different - but equally valuable - experience. A folk scene without professionals would be far less interesting than the one we now have. But an amateur-free folk scene wouldn't be a folk scene at all - just a specialist niche in the world of show business. Some Mudcatters seem to regard the showbiz professionals and the amateur folkies as two rival football teams, whose supporters must inevitably be at war with each other. But I believe both groups have their own distinctive virtues, and both have a part to play in a healthy musical environment. Wassail! |
|
07 May 08 - 07:26 AM (#2334745) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Midchuck Got to the very end of this thread and was going to compose a post and found that M of N had made all the points I was going to make. Sorry to deprive you all of my wit, but it's his fault. Peter. |
|
07 May 08 - 08:08 AM (#2334765) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Grab Where are the Billygoats Gruff when you need them...? |
|
07 May 08 - 08:24 AM (#2334782) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Mr Red There are those who post here who regard the "entertaining themselves" aspect as necessary in order to justify the "Folk" appelation when they are making money out of entertainment. Like most aspects of such a nebulous concept the middle ground is where the bulk of Folkdom resides, happily. It is just that when commerce comes into it, it can be heavily weighted on the side of entertainment. And that pre-supposes fashion changes at a rate that folk finds uncomfortable. And, as we are finding, nervousness at the profit line, especially in an uncertain economic climate. And there is plenty of evidence for nervousness, it makes people ratty. And a few cancelled events, or a downsizing, or like Burntwood FF, a rest year with no promises as to the future. One thing you do get, as discussed at Crediton (I am told), is a tipping point, in folkie minds. The event gets too big and ........... OH! Don't get me started on the other things, we will be here all day. |
|
07 May 08 - 09:22 AM (#2334843) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: George Papavgeris Entertainment is the baggage that folk has to carry in order to make a living. It's the hump on the back of an otherwise comely lad or a beautiful girl. It's the necessary evil, if you want to expose more people to the world of folk - or just evil, if you don't care if a single new person is attracted by folk. It's like a museum being open to the general public, rather than the exhibits being preserved only for serious study. Entertainment is the gift shop by the entrance that generates much-needed income, the animatronic models of dinosaurs that bring the kiddies (and their parents) in. I wonder how many of the folk stars that rose to higher skies would be happy with the label "entertainer"... My guess is, none. |
|
07 May 08 - 09:23 AM (#2334844) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: matt milton I think the word entertainment gets a bad press sometimes. Everyone likes to be entertained, one way or another. Some people, for instance, might find only find dour and po-faced stuff entertaining. Me, I generally like my entertainment to be a bit of a challenge. That said, it's still a pertinent distinction with regard to folk music. Sometimes (note the sometimes) you'll attend a folk night where a performer feels a need to apologize for the lack of singalong choruses, often as not when their performing their own material – you sometimes sense that an audience is really looking forward to an evening of songs to sing along to, songs to accompany drinking and sometimes eating. Nothing wrong with that of course, only there can sometimes be a bit of a mismatch. (Recently been reading Dazzling Stranger, the book about Bert Jansch and the Brit folk scene of the 60s, and it's something that came up a couple of times in anecdote there: that some folk audiences occasionally felt a bit nonplussed, disgruntled or in rare cases even cheated by Jansch not providing what they were after from a night out to the folk club.) I have a sort of "Love/Irked" attitude to this . (Love/Hate would be too strong.) On the one hand, I love the informality and inclusive, everyone-takes-part aspect of traditional folk club music-making. It's genuinely warming and participative and ego-free, and it distinguishes it completely from other forms of live music experiences (eg most classical music concerts). It dispenses with all those ideals of stars and celebrities, such a turn-off in pop music. On the other hand, sometimes I feel it can be a little conservative, a little too cosy, like glorified karaoke. Too much of it and musicians end up forgetting that music is an art form, neglecting to push themselves. But it's on a case-by-case basis – not really something it's possible to generalize about. There's really good art and there are really fun nights out, and sometimes they are one and the same thing. |
|
07 May 08 - 10:54 AM (#2334919) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Leadfingers You arent here to Enjoy Yourselves , this is a FOLK Club is a comment I heard in a club a LONG time ago , and sadly , the speaker was NOT joking ! There HAS to SOME element of 'entertinment' or people wouldnt come back - the thing is getting the balance right twixt 'Pure' Folk and the lighter stuff ! |
|
07 May 08 - 11:00 AM (#2334926) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: treewind Money v. Folk Entertainment v. Folk what next? Ladies and gentlemen, we are being trolled. |
|
07 May 08 - 11:12 AM (#2334934) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego Whatever the genre of music you favor, if the audience is not entertained, it will vote with its feet. The best folk singer/performers I have seen always had a "presence" that kept people focused on them as they performed. This doesn't necessarily equate to "schtick" or "patter," but it does require some self-awareness in terms of how others perceive you while you are singing. I have watched introspective, self-absorbed coffee house "folkies" die agonizing deaths on stage. Singing is all about sharing. Keeping audience attention is a great part of it, like it or not. An audience of one is the ultimate waste. |
|
07 May 08 - 11:18 AM (#2334938) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,The Observer just trying to get serious answers to serious questions treewind. And the answers do matter to me. I think Sedayne has produced the most eloquent reply and one that has given me a lot to think about. If these questions are irrelevent I apologise. They will now cease. I will go back to my little club and allow you to retire to yours. |
|
07 May 08 - 11:23 AM (#2334942) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Peace Bye. |
|
07 May 08 - 11:25 AM (#2334946) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Acorn4 If there is no humour in a singaround I always feel like I've attended a prayer meeting. The humour doesn't have to be in the songs -it can be in the bits between as long as it's there somewhere. |
|
07 May 08 - 11:27 AM (#2334949) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: glueman Good folk, in the sense of true folk is about that most unfolkie of things charisma. It comes in many forms, the guy in a corner singing through - but not necessarily about - a lifetime of pain, the loony girl hunched over her Martin, it might even carry a three pin plug. It may hey nonny no, it may not, but it will always light up a room like an arc lamp. So much folk is off the peg despite its credentials and performed with the kind of cod authenticity we know and love/hate. Perpetuating a tradition is no substitute for keeping it alive and neither have much to do with entertainment. |
|
07 May 08 - 11:31 AM (#2334953) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Andy Jackson Mike of N got it about right for me:- "A folk scene without professionals would be far less interesting than the one we now have. But an amateur-free folk scene wouldn't be a folk scene at all - just a specialist niche in the world of show business." I would rather watch a friend attempt a new song than hear a perfect rendition on a CD. |
|
07 May 08 - 11:36 AM (#2334955) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Grab George, to rephrase your question, how many performing musicians would be unhappy if an exit poll of their audience revealed that they were all completely indifferent to what he/she had been doing? Your guess translates directly to the performer not caring whether his performance touched any of his audience at all. And I say you're wrong - my guess is, all of them would care. "Entertainment" doesn't mean the old-school "vaudeville/music-hall entertainer" of the Les Dawson school. A quick check online shows a good definition of "entertainment" from WordNet: "an activity that is diverting and that holds the attention". So by definition, if the performer has held their attention with the quality of performance, that means the performer has entertained them. They don't have to be doing a tap-dance and juggling... And if anyone is getting up on stage *without* the intention of keeping the audience absorbed in their performance, please let us know who they are so that we won't waste money on tickets to those shows! Matt, re your comment about Bert Jansch, my dad was one of those disgruntled audience members at Bristol Uni back in the early 70s. By his report, Jansch turned up pissed, drank some more, and the "performance" consisted of quarter of an hour of drunken strumming and incoherent bawling before stumbling off stage. Anyone who *didn't* feel cheated after that needs their head examining! ;-) They certainly did - the whole crowd demanded their money back, and got it too! There's a big difference between "not providing what they were expecting" by playing a different style of music but still playing skillfully, and "not providing what they were expecting" by simply being crap and unprofessional. As Jansch's biography makes clear, he stopped touring because alcohol addiction made it impossible for him to perform even semi-competently and no-one would hire him any more. Graham. |
|
07 May 08 - 11:54 AM (#2334964) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,Val I'm entertained by much of this discussion, especially Sedayne's metaphoric post. So guess what? You're all entertainers. Would TheObserver's question be a bit more clear or less controversial if it were phrased something like: "Within the realm of Folk Music there seems to be conflict between those who focus on Entertainment and those who focus on Scholarly Preservation of Tradition. Do these two aspects need to be in conflict?" Most of us who actually perform folk music - rather than restricting ourselves to sitting in the audience & listening or poring over scholarly texts - have at least a little interest in knowing the history of a piece, a little interest in keeping alive something old/"traditional", and also some desire to enterain our audience (even if that audience is merely ourselves). So it's a rare person indeed who is entirely at one end or the other of that spectrum. But we each may find a different balance between. |
|
07 May 08 - 12:15 PM (#2334979) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,Tom Bliss I think I've guessed who The Observer is... But anyway - one point I fear is forgotten more often than it should be. The people who wrote the things we now call folk songs were certainly aiming to entertain, albeit on a domestic scale. There is no other reason to write songs - even angry and sad ones. And though some might deliberately sing a weak song purely for demonstration purposes, most people usually sing to give pleasure. So the Spirit of Entertainment is always present, welcome or not, even in dull songs and performances. Tom |
|
07 May 08 - 12:36 PM (#2334996) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: irishenglish Tom, exactly. And let's combine the Observer's money vs. folk point as well with what you just wrote. There is no way, that anyone who writes, sings, or plays a song is not looking at it as some type of entertainment, and maybe even income as well. The history of this folk tradition is of story telling. Well, you don't tell a story to yourself, you tell it to others, as a moral, a comedy, a lesson, a harrowing tale, etc, whatever the case may be. It's all designed for something to pass on. If it weren't some form of entertainment, or lessons, etc, the songs probably would not have survived. |
|
07 May 08 - 01:01 PM (#2335006) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Mr Red Well I would quibble about always "writing of songs to entertain". You musicians - especially those earn money doing it - how often do you practice? I've known those that spend 6 hours a day - probably while on tour, but a lot. So don't songwriters practice? Self critique? Not sing-out the songs that don't quite fit snugly. Those songs would not normally find their way to the public domain but never say never. Irving Berlin wrote 15,000 - where are most of them now? But I do agree that story-telling, poetry, and yes jokes are all part of the mix that folk did, and therefore grist to the mill. As is being paid to do those things. All entertainment and no roots makes folk a dull plaything. I used to tell a light-bulb joke as a feature between my allocation of 2 songs in an evening at a vibrant singers' FC. It took 6 months for them to realise I was demonstrating "folk" in the modern idiom. And I had to tell them in the end. Throw-away two-liners that are a good joke analogy of the "Seeds of Love". OK it may take 100 years to prove me right - I can wait. |
|
07 May 08 - 01:04 PM (#2335009) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Peace Songs that are not 'entertaining' make the audience snore. |
|
07 May 08 - 01:16 PM (#2335020) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: fat B****rd 'ello, friendly outsider fB here. Evening, Bruce. Isn't it the case that some artists are entertaiming without wearing 'cap and bells' and some artists would be crap if they were fired out of a cannon. Everybody has their own righteous opinins about 'entertainment' but surely in the Traditonal, or any other, musical performance world there are only good and bad, although the ear of the beholder syndrome is, I believe relevant. |
|
07 May 08 - 01:31 PM (#2335037) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Mr Red perhaps we have been using the wrong words. Folk has to be entertaining, and that depends on what each listener/looker/(smeller?) expects (discuss). But entertainment pre-supposes nothing about "Folk" (whatever that is - though I could expound at length and still find disagreement). |
|
07 May 08 - 01:57 PM (#2335050) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,Jonny Sunshine If folk music isn't entertaining, how has it survived all those years? |
|
07 May 08 - 02:01 PM (#2335055) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Peace It has survived because not all people like the same things. |
|
07 May 08 - 02:02 PM (#2335058) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: topical tom All folk is entertaining but to varying degrees.If it isn't, a hell of a lot of audiences are punishing themselves and going back for more.Masochistic? I think not. |
|
07 May 08 - 03:21 PM (#2335103) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,The Mole catcher's unplugged Apprentice "There seems to a conflict between folk and entertainment, in the eyes of some contributors to these Mudcat threads. Can anyone explain? " I could but I won't, because it'd mean buying into yet another chain yanking thread created by GUEST,The Observer Charlotte R |
|
07 May 08 - 04:25 PM (#2335152) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego Some wag hereabouts suggested that we could solve all of the problems associated with segregating "true folk musicians/scholars" from the rest of the musical rabble by having the former wear academic caps and gowns while on stage. Oh, well; it worked for Professor Irwin Corey... |
|
07 May 08 - 05:05 PM (#2335182) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: trevek "Entertainment" is used as an insult by those who prefer to think of their music/art/whatever as being somehow deeper/more meaningful/more important. Often that is used to say that thy like to consider themselves that way too. It kind of reminds me of those theatre people who would shudder at th thought of being considered "commercial" by actually doing anything for payment... they'd rather wait for arts-council funding to stop them being seen as "commercial" or "entertainers" rather than "artists" In many cases it might be fair to say something is indeed somewhat superficial in comparison but that doesn't mean it isn't serving a purpose. Music is there to be entertaining, sometimes instructional, and I wonder how many of the tunes and songs the anti-entertainment people slaver over would have just been considered as boppy little ditties sung for fun way back when. There has been so much cross-pollenation between 'folk'and 'mainstream' that it is sometimes pointless to quibble. There have always been performers who both represented a society or group and were rewarded for their performances. (sorry: the 'e' key on the kyboard is dying) |
|
07 May 08 - 05:48 PM (#2335220) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: greg stephens "I wonder how many of the folk stars that rose to higher skies would be happy with the label "entertainer"... My guess is, none." Wrong, George Papavgeris. When the roll is called up yonder and I posibly get wafted to a higher sky, I shall be bloody delighted if I look down(or indeed up) and see that someone called me an entertainer. |
|
07 May 08 - 06:22 PM (#2335246) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Don Firth Entertainment vs. Folk. A false dichotomy. I recall an incident right around 1960 when I was in The Folklore Center in Seattle. The Folklore Center sold musical instruments, mostly guitars, folk records, song books, etc. Big John, the proprietor, was playing selections from a new shipment of records he had just received and had just put an LP entitled "Americana" on the turntable. The singer was Win Stracke, a classically train bass—very rich, smooth voice. He was being accompanied by classic guitarist Richard Pick. Odd last name for a classic guitarist, I thought. That had occurred to me some six years before, when I first started taking classic guitar lessons and the beginning guitar technique manual my teacher started me with was written by Richard Pick. I was also aware that Win Stracke, whom I had never heard sing before, was co-founder with Frank Hamilton of the Old Town School of Folk Music in Chicago. I was standing there being impressed by the richness of Stracke's voice and thinking that Richard Pick's accompaniments might be just a little too ornate for the songs, when another fellow in the shop, a singer from the Berkeley area who had just hitch-hiked into town with his guitar, back-pack, and sleeping bag, flew into a tantrum. Shaking with anger, he pointed at the turntable and shouted: "That man has absolutely no right to sing those songs! He's an opera singer!" [His voice dripping with contempt] "That's all wrong! People like that shouldn't be allowed to sing those songs!" And then he continued to rant for a few more moments, and when Big John just gave him the fish-eye and didn't take the record off the turntable and smash it across his knee, the guy picked up his gear and stomped out of the shop. Win Stracke? One of the founders of the Old Town School of Folk Music? Shouldn't be allowed to sing those songs? "Oh, dear me!" I thought. "What have I done? I, too, am a bass (though not in Win Stracke's league), and I've taken both voice lessons and classic guitar lessons. What have I done to myself!?? Oh, woe! Oh, woe!" This guy was a really tight-assed ethnic purist. I heard him sing at a songfest a few nights later. I think he may have had a fairly nice natural singing voice, but you couldn't really tell. He tried to imitate field recordings as closely as he could. Not very entertaining. Sort of like listening to a cat, accompanying itself on a guitar, trying to cough up a hair-ball. I'd rather listen to the field recordings. I'd heard folk singers on the radio and on records long before I got actively interested myself. I found the songs entertaining, and often a pleasant break from a lot of the pap that was oozing through the radio speaker. Then, in 1952, I first heard Walt Robertson sing live—a concert at a place called "The Chalet" in Seattle's University District (The Chalet was a sort of pre-coffeehouse coffeehouse, if you can follow that). He sang for about two and a half or three hours to an audience of about seventy-five people and held them completely enthralled with a wide variety of songs and ballads. Sometimes he would go from one song to the next, and other times he would include "program notes" about the songs. It was one of the most thoroughly entertaining evenings I've spent in my entire life. And I decide, "I want to do that!" Incidentally, he didn't try to sing like a field recording. He just sang like Walt Roberson. There is absolutely no reason that someone can't sing folk songs and still be very entertaining—or vice versa. I have a strong academic interest in the songs I sing and when I run across a song that intrigues me enough to want to learn it and sing it, I try to find out as much about it as I can. In addition to finding the backgrounds of the songs interesting in themselves (I've learned a lot of things about a lot of things that way), I consider this to be the same sort of thing a good actor does when learning a new role. Learn as much as possible about the character you're portraying in order to make that portrayal real and convincing. I have heard singers who obviously didn't know what the hell they were singing about, and sometimes they were quite entertaining. But not in the way they wanted to be! If you're going to get up in front of a general audience (not just a klatch of masochistic folkies who never smile) and occupy their time—especially if you're going to charge them money for the privilege of hearing you—you'd bloody-well better be entertaining. But being entertaining does not mean that you have to take a serious song, screw around with it, and turn it into some kind of smart-ass joke just to get a cheap laugh. I heard a lot of that going on in the 1960s. You can, however, be interesting and informative. Learning something can also be a very entertaining experience. Folk music is a very serious study. Also, folk music is great fun. It's not "either / or." It's "and." Don Firth |
|
07 May 08 - 08:47 PM (#2335340) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: George Papavgeris Grab, greg stephens et al, I can see that my epigrammatic style in my last post has given rise to misunderstandings. My fault. Let's take my sentence "I wonder how many of the folk stars that rose to higher skies would be happy with the label "entertainer"... My guess is, none." More precisely, I ought to have written "I wonder how many of the folk stars that rose to higher skies would be happy with the label "entertainer"first and foremost... My guess is, none." I fully agree with Don Firth's closing statement about "and". Of course a performer, be it paid or not, tries to be entertaining. He/she also tries to be a number of other positives: have clear diction, be easily understood, be accurate, be presentable, likeable, perceptive of the mood of the audience, responsive, and so on. He/she has to balance all those needs as best he/she can in order to present him/herself and the song or music to best advantage. Nevertheless, with so many requirements, in practice priorities will prevail. The eyes may close, if this helps to remember lyrics. There may be involuntary (and to some unsightly, if you believe some of the discussions on the 'cat) hand or body movements, if this helps concentration/delivery. In the end however, if you strip away all but the performer's one or two top priorities to get at the core of why they place themselves at risk of ridicule, disapprobation, embarassment etc, you get to the core objective. I argue that a genre-specific performer (like folk, opera, etc) has to believe in serving the genre first and foremost - otherwise they'd be an all-rounder. Sure, I like being told after a gig that I was entertaining. It pleases me, and it also serves my purpose. But it is not my top priority, and I will stop performing the day I perceive that being entertaining is the only reason people listen, because my main purpose is different. Not "higher" or "exhaulted", or "noble" - just different, and it relates to the genre even though my material is not traditional - that is why I operate in the "folk circuit" and not some other. And so, if in a newspaper article I was referred to as an entertainer, I would be both surprised and also mildly offended. Not because "entertainer" is an offensive term (it isn't of course, and many rightly aspire to be one). But because by naming me so to the exclusion of any other term would indicate to me that the writer has missed my main purpose, or I have failed to put it across. So, I will always want to be entertaining. But I would never want to be just an entertainer - if that is all I am, then I had better leave it to the many who can do that better than me. |
|
07 May 08 - 09:15 PM (#2335349) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Joe_F Obviously there is no conflict if "entertainment" is just the noun that goes with the verb "to entertain". You might entertain your guests by talking with them over dinner and singing with them after dessert. But "entertainment" is also the name of a business. There is, of course, a (small) part of that business that consists in singing folk songs, and perhaps aspiring to write them, for money; and that cannot be said to conflict with folk, tho there is bound to be a certain amount of tension because of the mixture of motives. But most people, when they think of the entertainment business, think of *mass* entertainment, that is, an industry in which the chief measure of success is the size of the audience. That is necessarily in conflict with folk, because it leads to large investments that have to be recouped, and throngs of parasites who have to be paid off, by maximizing sales. Since about 1940 it has laid claim, with ever increasing success, to a monopoly. It is incompatible, not only with folk, but with decency. I have some faint hope, however, that with the help of the Internet it can be beaten back. |
|
07 May 08 - 11:13 PM (#2335390) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: frogprince "the chief measure of success is the size of the audience". I could be tempted to take that to a more cynical level, and say that sometimes it seems that the measure of success is the number of people who are aware of the entertainer's notoriety. In other words, the only point is becoming a "celebrity". Cher, for one, at least has the self-awareness to say, "I'm not a singer, I'm an entertainer". |
|
08 May 08 - 03:42 AM (#2335504) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,Black Hawk on works PC In the end however, if you strip away all but the performer's one or two top priorities to get at the core of why they place themselves at risk of ridicule, disapprobation, embarassment etc, you get to the core objective. So what IS your core objective George? As a regular floor-singer I hope that I hold peoples attention long enough to get through the set. Hopefully this means that they were entertained rather than just being courteous. |
|
08 May 08 - 03:58 AM (#2335510) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Gurney Everone right, aren't they. Quite a lot of 'folk' is not very entertaining to the average punter, even the average punter in a folk club of festival. There was a time when I only sang English trad, and I didn't much mind that I was being boring, but I grew out of that. Now I sing (well, ocasionally) lots of things, and do monologues too, and if it's still boring, that's up to the organiser, because I don't volunteer at all. I still love trad, but I'll only sing it to the committed. Sometimes its hard to find them. And in my (now maturer) opinion, not a lot of trad is entertaining, but some is, chosen opportunely. |
|
08 May 08 - 04:16 AM (#2335521) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: George Papavgeris BH, the point is that I have (as I believe do many others prepared to stand up and sing or play in front of people) an objective that is more than simply entertaining. I don't want to divert this thread, but one can easily discern my objective through my material, my introductions or even through my website. One only needs to ask: If one's objective were simply to entertain, then why be involved with folk music? Is it simply coincidence that they would choose this medium in which to become an entertainer? I son't believe this to be the case. |
|
08 May 08 - 08:02 AM (#2335628) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Mr Red Greg You are an entertainer. A folkie one too. You can die happy now - but may that be a long way off. |
|
08 May 08 - 08:12 AM (#2335639) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: George Papavgeris Echo that, especially the last point. |
|
08 May 08 - 11:56 AM (#2335817) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Grab George, you refer to "being entertaining" as if it's a separate attribute, along with diction, presentable appearance and so on. What I was trying to say earlier was that for me, it isn't anything like that. For me, "entertainment" is the end result of a high-quality performance that keeps people enthralled in what you're doing. Can I do it that well? Not often, I'm afraid, which is why I earn a living as a software engineer. :-) But that's what I go to see, and that's what I aspire to when I play. And if I've not achieved that, I feel that not only have I let myself down, but I've also let down everyone whose songs I've sung, and the genre in general. By failing to entertain your audience (keep them interested in what you're playing), I think you automatically do your chosen genre a disservice. And why choose to play folk, opera or whatever? You don't, any more than you choose to love your partner - the fact that you find it interesting (entertaining) is an attribute of your personality. And if you don't find that genre interesting (entertaining) then it's almost certain that you won't be able to perform that genre well enough to deliver a performance that'll keep people involved (entertained). Graham. |
|
08 May 08 - 01:58 PM (#2335911) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: George Papavgeris I get the feeling that we agree more than disagree, Graham, even though we put things differently. I certainly agree with the sentiments of your last post. I hope you also understand where I am coming from, though. And if not - I'd love the chance to talk it over a pint. |
|
08 May 08 - 03:56 PM (#2335983) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: The Sandman can I have a pint too,.Ipromise not to talk,but I might sing. |
|
08 May 08 - 05:52 PM (#2336081) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Richard Bridge George, I agree with much of your post of 0847 (eastern Standard time, I assume) yesterday - except to say that you have always entertained well when I have seen you, but I think your primary purpose is social commentary. There have been others (Dylan may be the best example) who have attracted and sometimes held attention, but were never entertaining and whose primary purpose was propangandising. Billy Bragg may be another of those: his "Sexuality" is embarassingly unlistenable but states much of truth. To be an "entertainer" however is to seek merely to occupy the mass mind: a mind by definition usually vapid. A folk singer by defintion has roots in history. To the folk singer or folksong singer, being entertaining is an objective only insofar as it serves the song. To an "entertainer" being entertaining is either an objective in its own right or a means to a different end: aggrandisement, enrichment, or the service of his/her nether end. |
|
08 May 08 - 10:15 PM (#2336220) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Forsh THIS is FOLKIN ENTERTAINMENT! |
|
09 May 08 - 03:46 AM (#2336323) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: glueman "To be an "entertainer" however is to seek merely to occupy the mass mind: a mind by definition usually vapid. A folk singer by defintion has roots in history." Yep, I disagree with pretty much all of that. It confirms what the general public thinks of folkies (if they think of them at all) - they like the idea of 'the people' but find them disagreeable in the flesh. Condescension isn't restricted to folk but they do lack of irony particularly well. |
|
09 May 08 - 07:20 AM (#2336411) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: matt milton Strikes me that you only have a discussion here if you see the words "entertainment" and "entertaining" in the sense most people are taking it – namely the putting-on-a-show aspects of music performance. Things such as: playing music that people can sing along to, or tap their foot to; a varied mix of tunes; talking to the audience in between songs; perhaps explaining what a song is about; being witty; playing the occasional crowd-pleaser etc etc. You could on the other hand take the words "entertainment" and "entertaining" to just mean anything you find interesting. In which case there's not really much point discussing it, because it goes without saying that that's a good thing. I mean, in that sense I find the paintings of Cy Twombly entertaining and the music of Merzbow and late Coltrane entertaining – but nobody would call that "entertainment" in the early Saturday evening telly sense of the word. A different point: "There have been others (Dylan may be the best example) who have attracted and sometimes held attention, but were never entertaining and whose primary purpose was propangandising" I can't swallow this. I could just about meet you half way if you're referring only to the early "protest" Dylan. But even at his most "protest singer", his songs had a lot of wit, pun, and topicical satirical humour to them. A damn sight more crowd-pleasing"entertainment" than the majority of the acts on the same bills as him. When you watch footage of early Dylan, or the Newport performances, he's engaging with the crowd, he's very wry, very witty, there's a very strong persona that he's broadcasting... Quite apart from anything else, it's pretty difficult to discern what Dylan's "primary purpose" ever was back then. The more I've read about him, the more it's clear that the political and protest content of his songs were something that kind of went with the territory of the thing he loved – doubtless he was sincere about it, but it was a corollary to being hip I think, not programmatic propagandising. |
|
09 May 08 - 07:49 AM (#2336424) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Grab I think so, George. I guess you mean that people can "entertain" in most pubs by strumming away at Wild Rover and Whiskey in the Jar non-stop, and you're right that they're probably doing no service to the music that way. We can probably entertain people more (as in "keep them interested in the music") by playing better quality material with better musicianship. Roll on that pint. :-) As far as the meaning of "entertainment" as "seeking merely to occupy the mass mind" a la Saturday evening TV, it'd be useful to remember that the correct name for this is actually "light entertainment". That name tells you everything you need to know about it. Graham. |
|
09 May 08 - 08:25 AM (#2336441) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Teribus Forsh, what an annoying bloody web site, the place and festival look absolutely great but all you get when you go through the site are people singing over one another. |
|
09 May 08 - 08:25 AM (#2336442) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Mr Red "To be an "entertainer" however is to seek merely to occupy the mass mind: a mind by definition usually vapid. A folk singer by defintion has roots in history." Yep I agree with all of that. Entertainment is not defined in it's genre. It can be Folk. But on the spectrum of Folk from accademia to accolade there is actually an over-run where the Folk element is all but superfluous. And that end point is very easy to define for one person. Impossible for a cohort even in a Folk forum such as this. And, we haven't mentioned C&W yet. Or line dancing! - sorry I will wash my mouth out - immediately. |
|
09 May 08 - 08:40 AM (#2336454) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: the lemonade lady Folk songs delivered properly, can be entertaining. Why some folkies stand there, eyes closed, finger in the ear bother I really don't know. A folk song has a story to tell, and in order to get the message across one has to 'tell' the story. Eyes and teeth!!! And boy does it annoy me when someone stands up and says "I don't know this one very well, but i'm going to sing it anyway" and proceeds to forget the words and we all sit in embarrassing silence waiting for the singer to remember a line, when it really doesn't matter cos we don't know what the song is about anyway cos our eyes have glazed over. The performance standard needs to improve or folk singing will just be ridiculed as usual. How about some performance workshops at festivals, hmmmmm? come onnnnn! Sal |
|
09 May 08 - 08:55 AM (#2336466) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: glueman "Why some folkies stand there, eyes closed, finger in the ear bother I really don't know" Because they think they should, like kids with skateboards feel insecure without a baggy top and a funny walk. |
|
09 May 08 - 09:17 AM (#2336486) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: mattkeen +1 for Treewind's posts Trolling always seems to work on Mudcat |
|
09 May 08 - 09:25 AM (#2336488) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: George Papavgeris Oh no, it doesn't |
|
09 May 08 - 09:41 AM (#2336501) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: glueman "Why some folkies stand there, eyes closed, finger in the ear bother I really don't know" They might see or hear the punters watching. |
|
09 May 08 - 10:02 AM (#2336518) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,Morrisey You like what you like: in the common-or-garden meaning that is "entertainment" - could be any form of music or other media. I have heard some truly dire amateurs and equally bad professionals. Personally, I don't care where the music comes from, how it was learned, what it means to the performer or what they think it should mean to me. |
|
09 May 08 - 01:34 PM (#2336658) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Big Al Whittle what else an you do with our fingers whilst singing a folksong? The ear is the natural repository. as for closing the eyes, some of us are subject to srong sexual urges, and we feel a need to cut ourselves off from worldly distractions. |
|
09 May 08 - 02:30 PM (#2336691) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice "One only needs to ask: If one's objective were simply to entertain, then why be involved with folk music?" One only needs to ask..Why not? Seems to me there's this snobbery about calling folk singers (or whatever you want to call them) entertainers, I don't have that problem. and socially commentary?....no thanks Charlotte R |
|
09 May 08 - 02:52 PM (#2336705) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Don Firth Apart from some functionality, such as helping to keep a steady rhythm while working together and doing so by singing, as in sea chanteys or track lining songs, why does one sing or listen to songs? Folk songs, any kind of songs? To entertain and to be entertained! The idea that folk songs should not be entertaining or that entertainers should not sing folk songs sounds like something out of the Puritan colonies, Salem witch trials, that sort of thing. If you enjoy eating, if you enjoy sex, if you enjoy singing or listening to someone sing, you're going straight to Hell!! Is singing to entertain yourself when you are alone going to make you go blind or grow hair on the palms of your hands? PFUI!! Don Firth |
|
09 May 08 - 05:22 PM (#2336793) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: the lemonade lady er.... yeah... Wot? Sal |
|
09 May 08 - 05:34 PM (#2336800) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Seamus Kennedy Oops, sorry. Came in here by accident. Can't add anything to the discussion. Sorry.. Seamus |
|
10 May 08 - 02:22 PM (#2337245) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST There is no conflict. People have different ways of being entertained. Some make their own music which is as entertaining as listening to others. Entertainment is not limited to professional concerts by musicians, recordings, DVD's etc. The reason folkmusic exists at all is because it has been and is entertaining to many people including those here on Mudcat. |
|
10 May 08 - 02:27 PM (#2337249) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice If a folk (or whatever you want to call it) musician didn't entertain me, I don't think I'd be attending one of her/his gigs again ..makes sense to me... Charlotte R |
|
10 May 08 - 08:42 PM (#2337393) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Stephen L. Rich True folk is like true football - a grey game, played on grey days, watched by grey people. I had no idea that it was that bright. Stephen Lee |
|
11 May 08 - 05:57 AM (#2337555) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: MikeofNorthumbria Sorry to be pedantic folks, but I suspect that some of the arguments in previous posts are rooted in a misunderstanding of one key word – and of how that word is used in certain circles. Let me try to clarify. The problematic word is not "Entertainment", but "Entertainer". For decades it has been used as a put-down by amateur (and professional) critics, in phrases like "Oh he's not a folk singer – he's just an entertainer." (Note the "just an…". It's the key to the whole issue.) As many previous posters have noted, almost everyone who sings, plays or recites in public aims to entertain their audience – and rightly so. But some performers try to do more than "just" entertain. Pete Seeger is a classic example. His concerts are certainly entertaining. But they also make us more aware of the richness and diversity of human culture. They also remind us of the mutual obligations which all human beings have to one another, and to the Earth which sustains us all. Many others in the folk music community have striven to do likewise. However, the folk circuit also supports a number of performers who earn their corn by simply "giving the audience what it wants" – code for a mixture of bawdy jokes and sing-along choruses – and nothing more. This has proved a very successful formula. A few of these "entertainers" have even graduated from the folk circuit into the world of mass entertainment. So, when a folk enthusiast describes a performer as "just an entertainer", it's often more in sorrow than in anger. The phrase conveys a sense of opportunities missed, of responsibilities neglected, and perhaps even of trust betrayed. When William Wordsworth abandoned his youthful radicalism and became (as England's Poet Laureate) a pillar of the Establishment, the young Robert Browning expressed his disappointment in a poem entitled "The Lost Leader" which begins: "Just for a handful of silver he left us…" However, as far as I know, Browning never shouted out "Judas" at one of Wordsworth's public poetry readings. Wassail! |
|
11 May 08 - 03:11 PM (#2337785) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Don Firth Good observation, MikeofNorthumbria. Therein lies much of the problem, I believe. I do think that a singer of folk songs, provided he or she has both knowledge and respect for the songs themselves, can be a better entertainer than someone who is "just and entertainer." That's what I try to do. Don Firth |
|
12 May 08 - 04:14 AM (#2338140) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: trevek I've got tinnitus from working in a pub where they hammered out disco/techno tripe all night at levl 10. Putting my finger in my ear blocks out the noise of the disco-kiddies waffling loudly at the bar when I'm singing. Eyes are closed so I can't see people leaving (finger also helps block out sound of the footsteps). |
|
12 May 08 - 10:14 AM (#2338340) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,Warwick Slade I basically agree with Mike of Northumbria that the word 'entertainer' is not considered folk. People want labels on everything. I play guitar and sing mainly songs with a humorous edge. When people ask what I do I say folk music and this puts an image in their mind eg man with guitar like Bob Dylan (I wish). If I say entertainer the image is man with a mic. like Bruce Forsyth Was Jake Thackray a folk singer? |
|
12 May 08 - 10:24 AM (#2338349) Subject: Lyr Add: FEED JAKE (Pirates of the Mississippi) From: Peace Does anyone know the author of this folk song? Pirates Of The Mississippi - "Feed Jake" I'm standing at the crossroads in life, and I don't know where to go. You know you've got my heart babe, but my music's got my soul. Let me play it one more time, I'll tell the truth and make it rhyme, And hope they understand me. Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep. If I die before I wake, feed Jake, he's been a good dog, My best friend right through it all, if I die before I wake, Feed Jake Now Broadway's like a sewer, bums and hookers everywhere. Whino's passed out on the side walk, doesn't anybody care. Some say he's worthless, just let him be. But I for one would have to disagree. And so would their mama. Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep. If I die before I wake, feed Jake, he's been a good dog, My best friend right through it all, if I die before I wake, Feed Jake If you get an ear pierced, some will call you gay. But if you drive a pick-up, they'll say 'No, he must be straight.' What we are and what we ain't, what we can and what we can't, Does it really matter? Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep. If I die before I wake, feed Jake, he's been a good dog, My best friend right through it all, if I die before I wake, Feed Jake If I die before I wake, feed Jake (x3) |
|
12 May 08 - 10:50 AM (#2338363) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Melissa Peace: (you really didn't want this information, did you?) "Mayo's songwriting roots run deep. Her father, Danny Mayo, who wrote such hits as "Keeper of the Stars" (with Dickey Lee & Karen Staley) and "Feed Jake," was one of Nashville's top writers" http://www.songwriteruniverse.com/mayo.htm |
|
12 May 08 - 11:06 AM (#2338373) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Peace Indeed I did and do, Melissa. Thank you very much. I have loved that song ever since I first heard it waaaay back. |
|
12 May 08 - 11:18 AM (#2338381) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Melissa Well, I'm glad I found it then. |
|
12 May 08 - 11:41 AM (#2338402) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Peace EUREKA I have just discovered the true definition for folk--or at least one that would calm all arguments and bring unity to the folk scene and possibly peace to the entire planet. I am not kidding. |
|
12 May 08 - 04:14 PM (#2338648) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice "Entertainment", but "Entertainer". Personally I don't have a problem with either of these words, I sing, I play various instruments and I hope I entertain my audiences, you can't ask for better than that. If you have a problem with either word, well........ Charlotte R |
|
12 May 08 - 04:19 PM (#2338652) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice An Entertainment By A Young Lady You May Know Entertaining the folks *LOL* Charlotte |
|
13 May 08 - 07:46 AM (#2339127) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST I think I'm beginning to see what this entertainment issue is all about. I had been baffled for months when it appeared that the word was being used as an insult. It has become obvious that the word entertainment (in its truest sense) is not what the "anti-entertainment" subscribers are complaining about. What they are against is being sold or told what entertainment is. Folkies want to rise above the pop ridden cheap tat that is sold to the masses as entertainment. What they enjoy has deeper meaning (many others have described this far better than I can); and the people who provide it carry little or no celebrity status; another thing intelligent people are sick and tired of. So it isn't the word but the perception of the word that upsets the people who don't want their music to be spoken of in the same breath as the X factor. Very understandable. |
|
13 May 08 - 09:50 AM (#2339225) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: Peace Good lord. I thought I was just singin' songs. I feel better now. Chuffed in fact (if chuffed means what I think it does). |
|
19 May 08 - 03:48 AM (#2344166) Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk From: GUEST REFRESH |