Jim Carroll

Thank's Bryan - that's what I was asking you to prove.

======================================================================

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Sailor Ron - PM
Date: 16 Apr 09 - 11:44 AM

Jim "....that SS 'traddie' though he claims to be....neither understands the tradition nor gives a toss for its welfare".

I feel I must take up cudgels over this [not that SS needs anyone else to defend his views]. Firstly this threat was, at least originaly, about the relavance, today, of the 1954 definition.
SS has mentioned several times what he is likley to hear at his local folk club, which is also mine. Yes we do get all that he has mentioned, but, and it is a big but, well over 60% of what is performed is 'traditional'[ that is if you include broadsheets, chapbooks, and 'old songs by unknown authors], plus a fair number of what I would call songs written in the traditional style or idiom.
Of all the people I have met in 'the folk scene' over the past 40 years SS is, without a doubt, one of the most leaned, and passionate,
exponants of the great traditional ballads. Besides ballads he he sings a vast number of 'traditional' songs, and if he also has a love of Kipling/Bellamy songs so what? He also on occasions descends to the deapths os singing some of mine [Shock! Horror!]. Does this make him any less a 'traddie'? And as for 'not giving a toss', well [and forgive me for this Jim, 'cause much of what you have said throughout this thread I totally agree with], is a complete load of bollocks !    Sailor Ron

======================================================================

My highlighting.

Even S O'P's description of his local club was challenged by someone else familiar with it. To extrapolate from this one dodgy bit of evidence to all folk clubs is untenable. Sorr, Jim, no case to answer.