Sorry, I didn't think that there was anything I needed to answer.

"would you apply the same criterion to painting, acting, sculpting, opera, jazz (or even being an electrician)....... if not, why not?"

The case of an electrician is an obviosity (or so would a driving licence be). Some activities require things to be done in particular ways for safety reasons.


Painting - (I assume you mean picture painting not house-painting) - I'd let anybody do it any time for anyone - I am wholly uninterested in it. Indeed every so often one does see exhibitions and I think "Why is this here?", but if someone wants to put thier piece up, whynot? Indeed if one applied "standards" there would be large swathes of artists whose visions were it seems wholly unaccompanied by any standards of draftsmanship or depictive ability, and whose work was rejected and condemned by the established of their days, but are now hailed as genius.

Acting - again I don't give a damn, but what I have seen of amateur dramatics again shows that if someone wants to participate they are permitted and encouraged. My late wife used to run the youth section of an Amdram thing and I recall two young wannabee actors (actually they were there becase the girl/boy ratio was such that it was like shooting fish in a barrel) who were dyslexic. Ordinary standards of "read this and recite it" would wholly have excluded them. One turned out to be a gifted comic who stopped one musical he appeared in so that the audience could laugh themseles nearly sick, adn the other won a best actor award at a Duncan Rand festival for a sinister and subtle portrayal of a yong hoodlum (adjudicator's words, pretty closely).

Sculpting - again I don't give a damn, but the whole modern sculpture movement depends on rejecting the "greek statue" approach and does not I think depend on technical ability but upon some vision (that I wholly fail to see).

Opera - its function is the bel canto. In that it differs from folk music. But if one applied standards of appearance or acting ability to opera singers many would fail.

Jazz - in general today technique seems to be much admired, but do you remember the experimental jazz of teh 60s? It was impossible to discern melody or rhythm, and I certainly would - if asked "is this music" have answered "No" - but in retrospect it is (in parts) hailed as of excellence. Was it not said of Charlie Bird Parker that if one deconstructs his work much of it is out of time and out of key?

The fact of the matter is that folk song is different. It is not just history (although I am keen to know if the historical element - whereas many others are not). It is not just performance. It is the outlet of the community, and in fact you geld it if you do not take it (like Cromwell's portrait) "warts and all". Or, to put it another way, "Let the people sing".


"Is the singing of folk songs an inferior pursuit to all of these?"
No. But it is different and it does not depend on "standards". If it did, and one had to smile like a beauty queen, dress from Brooks Brothers, intone like Pavarotti (who, incidentally, I think was often sharp), enunciate like John Gielgud, emote like Nirvana, it would not be folk song.


"I believe that it lies within the abilities of most people to sing - as long as they are prepared to put in the time and effort."

Some can sing better than others. I would kill for John Barden's golden tonsils or Ian Bruce's driving ring to the voice. But I do what I can with what I ahve got and mostly I think I have found ways. But I know one snooty bitch whowhen running a song session will call at least two morons before me because they have been members for longer - and she alleges I sing through my nose. Not her call My singing. I'll do it how I want (and I am shedloads bette than she is anyway, much as I disapprove of self aggrandisement). But it's not my call or yours or hers to say that someone may not sing. It intrinsically involves placing the decider in a position of power over the singer, which power may be wrongly used.




"'Superior', 'judgement' and 'exclude' are all loaded words that only serve to avoid the main issue."

THe are words of disapproval in this context - but they are the right ones. You, like that bitch, are putting yourself forward as the arbiter - and that can only be on the basis that you know better (which you may, but that's for someone else to say, not you). What you exercise is undoubtedly judgment. And the consequence is that you plan to and do exclude those who do not do it your way. You in particular have paid your dues, and I value what I know of your work, but it is so long since you have walked in the shoes of someone with less history that I think you have forgotten the trepidation involved when one starts. Your judgment, and it is the only word I can think of for it, does shut others out, and thereby wounds their feelings.

"Nobody, as far as I can see, is attempting to "sit in judgment on" or be "superior to" or "exclude" anybody - we are simply asking that a performer reaches a certain (not particularly high) standard before they sing in public - what is wrong with that?"

It is internally self-contradictory. You will bar those of whom you do not approve.


"For me this whole question revolves around a piece of contempt that has plagued the revival from the word go - "it takes no effort, thought or talent to sing folk songs". Do you believe this?"

What an aunt Sally! The better you are, the better you are - although the polish should not replace the content.

"If the answer is 'no', why is it unreasonable to expect that a new singer first puts in the effort, thought and time in order to develop their talents to the level where we can all sit back and enjoy their singing?"   

I would accept "wish". The word "expect" is wrong. In the light of what you say about the standards of young singers these days (yes, that is me putting up an aunt Sally too, but you see how it looks) plainly you do not in fact expect any such thing. You expect that many will NOT do the things you wish they would. Me too, but I don't say that I have any right to stop them doing as they do. You in fact go further than expecting. You seek to impose your view.

"Again I ask, don't we owe at least that much to to the people who made and passed down the songs."- asked and answered.


"Folk song has yet to find its place in the sun in Britain, it will never get that place without the work being put in."

Actually I think it did, probably in about the early or mid 60s (when I was not interested, far too keen on rock then) one it had sloughed off the fascination with Americana and we ahd got the Young Tradition and Martin Carthy etc getting into English folk song. Now Martin Carthy's work was always technically excellent, but if you listen critically to the first Young Tradition album, it would not be cmmercially released today without a lot of technical cleaning up - ragged beats, wobbly pitch, Peter Bellamy missing falling closing notes time and again, verses omitted from well known songs.

It wasn't the work that made it great then, and it isn't "standards" that make it marginal today. As I said, listen to karaoke nights, plenty of dross there and words on a TV screen, but thronged.

It would be so nice if we were all bettter than we are. But it does no good to dump on people because it was better in your day.

Sorry, Jim. I admire you and what you have done. But there are other judges or wannabee judges who do not merit the same respect, and if you take the power to judge so will they.






And as for you Al - as a good socialist I utterly condemn your view that the working class cannot achieve academic excellence, or that it ought not to interest them. Folk song is set in and springs from the foundation of what made teh working class. Remove it and they are one step closer to rootlessness, altough we all need our roots and to knwo them. I wish I could sing and play like you, but I wish you thought like me!


Sorry to go on so long.
Jim Carroll