" your constant attacks aren't going to do any harm to English folk clubs."
You really do need to look at your own behavior Bryan - but it shouldn't be about us, should it?
Sorry - I don't understand your point
An evening of any type of song cannot be a definition of a fol song
Apart from that, a mix of types of song, as I have always preferred and proposed cannot be a definition of a type of song.
"although I find a little odd,"
Why odd
I believe the tradition has died but I believe that a mix of those songs and new ones made using them as a template is a perfectly acceptable way of presenting both under one roof - they don't have to be the same to be complementary to one another
I reapeat my point being a perfect mix of traditional songs, newly composed ones and vernacular speech
I saw works of playwrights like Alex Glasgow and john McGrath doing exactly the same.
"Life would be very boring if we were all the same."
THis seems to be based on the idea that sll folk songs are the same, which tey most certainly are not - shanties, lyrical songs, narrative songs, big ballads, bawdy songs, rural encounters, humorous songs - throw in a smatter of kids songs and mouth music and, well done, you can let an audience leave walking on air - seen it happen often
The Critics experimented with singing in different tones based on the fact that a human voice alters tonally when it expresses different emotions - try it sometime
British traditional music is basically unaccompanied, but MacColl and Seeger constantly experimented with accompaniment all the time - I have a recording of a two hour lecture Peggy gave on the uses of accompaniment
A standard work evening at the Critics Group was half a dozen varying songs for criticism - oene of the criteria was "did the sameness of yothe songs make your "ears fall asleep"
The more I examine the song tradition, the more surprises I find
Jim Carroll