The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #77728 Message #1392334
Posted By: Bill D
29-Jan-05 - 12:22 PM
Thread Name: What is wrong with being a purist?
Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
"... either I like it or I don't, so it can be folk, jazz, classical, pop, rock or whatever..."
and that is exactly the right attitude! And even we who get labeled 'purists'...or worse... do about the same. The point is, you recognize the difference between those types of music, even as you are mixing them.
If you go to the DigiTrad database and peruse the 9000 or so songs there, you will see a pattern. THIS general type is what we thought Mudcat was going be be about 8 years ago, but as more & more people found their way here, threads started appearing on "what is your favorite rock song?" and "Is Donovan better than Dylan?"...etc..
The argument that has developed has usually been not over whether rock music...or Donovan and Dylan... were good, but about why we should clutter one of the rare places that exist to discuss & share **folk** music with all those other things?
Well, since this is a pretty open place, and since the owner, Max, is pretty eclectic and hates to stifle discussion, it has come to pass that most everything gets tossed in...which, whether you know it or not, has caused some of the experts in 'folk' music to pop in, look around, and decide that it's just too cluttered with extraneous noise. We miss them at times.
We do ok anyway, and Mudcat is still a fine resource for those who need a folk question answered, but we who get labeled
'purist' are, as you notice..*grin*... often frustrated at the trend toward muddying the definition, as well as the discussion.
There IS a difference between what Jeannie Robertson did and what Kate Wolf did....and it's worth understanding, even if you like both.
I will stop now....I promise. I just like to see this point of view in print when the issue arises.....