 sj |
||
|
||
The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
|
|
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: GUEST,Fred Folkmusic Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:28 AM Tempting, Mr Spleen - so very tempting... |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Howard Jones Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:20 AM Conrad, people have spent the last 600 posts explaining to you why the things you believe are barriers (such as the price of beer) aren't actually barriers, and why things which you think aren't barriers (such as the quality of performance) are. Perhaps you should go back and read them again. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 22 Sep 10 - 08:35 AM Bugger. I'm very disappointed. I misread the thread title title as "The Concept of FRED Folkmusic" was ready to congratulate you all on reaching 600+ posts on the sainted Mr Wedlock. Here's a little consolation for all of us to help us through the next 600... |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:41 AM Thanks Seamus but I am not looking for numbers just trying to encourage people to take steps to make sure that folk events and activities broaden the tradition as much as possible. Expansion of the tradition is now being set back by a lack of understanding of the ways people are kept from it. Lots of barriers could be removed and new practices which transform performance to sharing can be implemented. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 22 Sep 10 - 01:37 AM Hey, you guys helped him get over 600 posts. Shit! Now I'm doing it! |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Sep 10 - 11:09 PM "I really must say, having considered all Conrad's thoughts carefully, that if everything he proposes were put into effect, there should be very little danger that folk music will die a slow death. " Yup - it would implode instantly .... |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 21 Sep 10 - 09:38 PM You don't read very carefully, Conrad. I SAID that I do not organized festivals, nor do I run a pub or coffeehouse, and I don't set up and promote concerts. I leave that to people who are better at it than I am. As I said, I don't make the decisions. But I PERFORM at these events. And I am not "advocating" anything in particular, other than trying not do drive people away from performances of folk music and alienating them. If you were REALLY interested expanding interest in folk music, you wouldn't be taking the position that you are. Performers don't have to be "the best." But they shouldn't be so bad that they make people look around desperately for the quickest way out. Other people here understand what I've written. Why can't you!?? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: frogprince Date: 21 Sep 10 - 08:44 PM I really mist say, having considered all Conrad's thoughts carefully, that if everything he proposes were put into effect, there should be very little danger that folk music will die a slow death. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Tootler Date: 21 Sep 10 - 08:23 PM "And just to head off your next stupid response..." No chance! He'll simply twist your words. He does it every time. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: John P Date: 21 Sep 10 - 08:14 PM how professional musicians are elevated as elites. If you said "competent performers" you might be closer. And yes, competent performers are better than incompetent ones. Skillful people are part of the capability elite. I have spent 40 concentrating on becoming a good musician. I am one of the elite. People who don't put in the time and care aren't. Go figure. It sounds like you get turned down for so many gigs that you're trying to turn it into a plot to keep out poor performers. News flash: it's not a plot. It's just the way the world is. People who are better at their craft get more opportunities to display it. Go figure. And just to head off your next stupid response, I don't think I'm a better person because I'm a good musician. All it means is that I'm a better musician than many. I also spend time encouraging, teaching, and playing with musicians who are less skilled than I, because I think that passing it on is very important. Does that make me part of the altruism elite? I've also spent a lot of time organizing festivals and concerts. I do this because I'm good at it and it needs doing. Does this make me part of the well-organized elite? You, Conrad, are yourself an elite -- you're part of the beer-drinking elite. You're trying to keep non-drinkers and light drinkers from being part of the folk experience. You elitist! Stop it right now!! |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:47 PM I have to continue to maintain that performance should be always a secondary concern and that maintenance of the songs and the tradition is the priority. If we only reward those who sing perfectly then we discourage others who are not so good. The result of this is fewer having the songs and singing them. We just get a large mass of consumers- audience. Those at a festival for entertainment will not maintain or extend the tradition. Having gone to school in Knoxville Tennessee in the 70s I was fortunate to have access to many older singers. They had many ancient songs and people did not mind in the least that their performance might not have been the best. The important part is that we support as many people who take the time to care for the songs in an active way as an integral part of their existence. As for singer songwriters yes. This is a problem if one considers the central concern of folk music the preservation and maintenence of the old material as best as we can manage and in as much an active way as we can manage. I see those who do exclusively all their own material as a threat to the central purpose. There is nothing wrong with new material or gentle adaptation of the old. The key here is to make sure that it does not dominate the performance of someone who takes the title "folk". These people suck down grant funding and take publicly funded venue spots simply because they do "folk like" things. When we do not remember that folk music has a heritage that must be cared for we fail. We can only manage the most extensive active maintenance of the folk tradition if it is open to the largest number of people. Makes perfect sense. In this thread so far we have seen often how quality has been used to keep out people, how economic segregation has been justified and how professional musicians are elevated as elites. The point is that we can all live together but that the pie has to be cut a bit differently. While singers and writers are happy with the way things are they are not necessarily correct or supporting the best philosophy for the extension of folk music and the guardianship of its treasures. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:31 PM Just additional proof, as if any were needed, that Cornhole doesn't know shit from Shinola. Tootler did a superb job of pointing out the problem of the first part and so we move on to his next! We all need to take advantage of these moments as it is rare that one gets to spend so much time seeing the inner non-workings of the truly moronic mind and even rarer to find a "mind" so completely moronic. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Howard Jones Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:16 PM Oh God, Conrad's now veered off onto singer-songwriters versus traditional folk. God help us. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Howard Jones Date: 21 Sep 10 - 06:19 PM Conrad, again you are confusing two different types of performance. If a group of friends get together to sing or play tunes, whether that's at home, around a campfire, or in a pub, then quality may be secondary. It is primarily a social gathering. That's the sort of situation where someone like Don's friend might perform without embarrassment. Anyone overhearing such a 'performance' will recognise it for what it is, and won't draw any conclusions about folk music as a genre from it. It is very different when you begin to organise public events to which you expect to attract members of the public. Then you have a responsibility, firstly to the audience who have taken the trouble to come along, and secondly to the music itself. In this situation then it is not unreasonable to expect a certain level of competence in performance, and an understanding of both the genre and of the individual songs. This is particularly true if the audience is paying to hear the music, but also applies even if the event is free. If you present them with performers who are rubbish, not only will they not return to future events but they will come away with a very negative impression of folk music as a genre. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 21 Sep 10 - 05:04 PM Don what you are advocating is what occured in Irish pub singing around 1945. Somewhere I will find the source- essentially a history of irish pubs here somewhere. Prior to that time people of all kinds of skill levels would play or sing in pubs casually. With the advent of tourism and mobility from the cities the musicians started to attract attention and audience. Where at first singers and players were just amongst their piers they became known to a wider audience. Soon competition for the "best" grew. Publicans added stage managers and amplification to the venues. Before long the favorite, but not "excelent" musicians were locked out of performance venues and the locals complained. This is what has happened today. You may have lots of songs and tunes but you wont be playing at Don's folk festivals- but if people think you are good and you only have singer songwriter's words and music the product of your own mind entirely you will be given a venue and given the title of folk musician. I do not wish to ban new material but I think anything with the word folk attached should contain a fair percentage of old material. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Tootler Date: 21 Sep 10 - 04:46 PM I am beginning to see where you are coming from, Conrad, and at the heart of your argument is a fundamental misconception. Don Firth expressed it above when he said "... collectors like Cecil J. Sharp, the Lomaxes, the Warners, et al, are not particularly concerned with the quality of the voices and the general singing ability of those from whom they collected songs..." The point is that their primary interest was collecting the songs so they would not get lost. Although the early song collectors could only write down the songs, the technology for making audio recordings was becoming available and later song collectors were able to make recordings of the songs they collected. Many of the early recordings of traditional song do not come over as particularly good quality partly because of the limitations of the technology available to the collectors and partly because their respondents were often elderly and past their best. However, that does not matter in this case because the quality was of secondary importance to the record and the main objective of the collector was to make a record of the songs. As a result of their work, we have a body of music which would otherwise have been lost and which would not have been available to us today. However, that time is now past as the people from whom the body of traditional song was collected are now all dead. For those of singing the songs today (and playing the tunes - we must not forget the tune collectors) then quality is important, particularly if you are singing to entertain others. That does not mean you are being elitist or exclusive. You are confusing purposes. If you are collecting a song, then content is more important than quality of delivery - providing the words are clear and the tune can be discerned. If you are singing to entertain, even if it is among your family, then quality of delivery is of prime importance. Your misconception is in not recognising; a) The different purposes for which a singer may be asked to sing a song. b) That the days of collecting are effectively over, so folk songs are now sung largely to entertain. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 21 Sep 10 - 03:32 PM Dammit, Conrad, NO ONE (with the possible exception of YOU!) is arguing against open and fee music! #### Conrad, collectors like Cecil J. Sharp, the Lomaxes, the Warners, et al, are not particularly concerned with the quality of the voices and the general singing ability of those from whom they collected songs. But IF they are going to collect any songs from them, their informant MUST be able to sing at least an approximation of the correct pitches so they can notate the tune of the song, and the informant must have sufficiently clear diction so they can at least get an idea of what the words are so that they can write them down. The informant does not have to be a potential Metropolitan Opera star. In fact, they could have a voice like fingernails on a blackboard, but they, AT THE VERY LEAST, have to sing a song well enough so the collector can write down the words and tune, otherwise it's an waste of time and an exercise in futility. This should be obvious, even to you! Having a golden throat is not a prerequisite for singing folk songs and ballads. One of the major professional singers during the Sixties and beyond, was Dave Van Ronk. He had a voice like a rusty hinge and a throat full of phlegm, and when he sang, he made you feel like you needed to clear your throat. Yet, he was one of the major figures in the folk revival. His singing voice was barely listenable, but he made the most of it. He knew the subtleties of the songs he sang and he could express the emotions of the songs like very few singers could. All in all, he was an excellent singer of folk songs, in spite of his voice. A very good friend of mine, whom I have known for years, loves folk music, he knows a great deal about it, and has even written academic papers on ballads and ballad histories. And he knows hundreds of songs. But he was practically born with asthma, and it has adversely affected his voice. His speaking voice is husky, and his singing voice equally husky, if not moreso. And although he has a fairly good ear, he hasn't enough control over his vocal mechanism to be able to sing on pitch. Close, but no more than an approximate. When he sings, you can get an idea of the "melodic curve" of the song, but you can't get an accurate fix on the actual pitches. Now, here's a guy who loves to sing, and wants to very much. But he knows the deficiencies of his voice. In his heart of hearts, I'm quite sure he would love to, but he would never attempt to sing in any kind of setting with a conventional audience, such as at a coffeehouse, pub, folk festival, or God forbid, try to give a concert. I feel for the guy, as do all his folk music aficionado friends. When we have "hoots" (informal song fests in someone's home), he brings his guitar, because, in the course of the evening as various people sing, someone will ASK him to sing something. He would love to be able to sing well if he could, and since he's a good friend, we all make sure that he has a chance. But, Conrad, no one would be cruel enough to suggest that he try to sing at folk festivals or open mikes. In fact, he knows better than to try. But—there ARE people out there whose voices are no better than our friend's, who DON'T have the self-awareness and good sense to know that their voices are not particularly pleasant to listen to. Here's something for you to contemplate, Conrad: When I was two years old, I contracted polio. My legs don't work very well, and I've walked with a leg brace and crutches all my life, until recently, when I've had to take to a wheelchair. I always knew that there were certain things that, due to my physical condition, I would never be able to do. I can swim like a fish. But become a tap dancer? No. General run of sports like football, baseball, basketball? I don't think so. Climb Mount Everest? No. Scale the sheer rock face of El Capitan in Yosemite National Park? Not bloody likely! But there were a lot of things I could (can) do. I'm fairly good at art: drawing, painting, cartooning. I worked for several years doing engineering drawings for Boeing airplanes. I can write, and have written quite a bit, both fiction and non-fiction, some of which has been published. I have a fairly deep, mellow speaking voice and worked for several years in radio, as a newscaster, a disk jockey, and as an announcer at a classical music radio station. And I can sing. I love music, and I love folk music in particular. But I'm fully aware that my singing voice has limitations. My voice category is "bass," the lowest male voice. I can sing down to a low E (same pitch as the 6th string of a guitar), and on a good day, maybe down to a D. And I'm kind of pushing it a bit if I try to sing up to middle C (1st fret, 2nd string). That's a fairly limited singing range. An operatic bass is expected to be able to sing from a low F (1st fret, 6th string) up two octaves to the F on the 1st fret of the 1st string. So singing opera is out. But fortunately, folk songs and ballads are what I want to sing, and I can sing those. So I do! Learn to work within your limitations, Conrad. You'll be a lot happier, and you'll be less of a pain in the ass to other people. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 21 Sep 10 - 02:35 PM But you have supported those concepts. You have been arguing against open and free music Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: John P Date: 21 Sep 10 - 02:34 PM It is sad that so many so called folk musicians only bring forward the echos of their own thoughts and not the legacy of the past as well. Conrad, if you feel it is important to somehow represent the past when making music, have at it. You might, however, want to actually learn about the past before you start representing yourself as a representative of the past. For me, I feel no compunction to represent anything other playing music as well as I can. You seem to feel that being a folk musician means one also has to be a historian or musicologist or some such thing. I enjoy history and musicology, and am apparently a lot better educated in those topics than you are, but I see no reason to turn every stage into a classroom and every song into an academic study. I'm a musician. I play folk music. How about if you do whatever you think is right and stop telling other people they are doing it wrong? You seem to be confusing the concept of traditional music with historical recreation. They're not the same. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 21 Sep 10 - 01:44 PM Don't talk crap, Conrad. I'm not advocating excluding anyone! If anyone wants to sing, fine with me. Nor am I excluding anyone who doesn't have the money to buy overpriced or any other kind of beer. I don't run a pub, I don't sponsor concerts, and I don't organize folk festivals (unless no one else is doing it). I don't make those decisions! I am a singer. Apparently good enough so that people are willing to pay me to sing. But I also sing a lot of places for free. The problem, Conrad, is YOU! Get a job. Get a life! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 21 Sep 10 - 12:59 PM Again Don you would exclude the only person left singing a collection of songs just because you did not think they were a good singer. Shame on you. I would not exclude better singers I would just have them share the venues. But you would EXCLUDE these people. Sort of like excluding those who cant buy an over priced beer or making them go out and get better jobs so they could. We call that elitism, economic segregation, and professional snobbery. These things hurt the broadening and growth of the tradition Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 21 Sep 10 - 01:45 AM You know, Conrad is kind of like a slinky. It isn't good for anything, but when you push it down the stairs, it tends to make you smile. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 21 Sep 10 - 01:41 AM The whole purpose behind a quality singer of folk songs—one with a voice that is at least fairly pleasant to listen to, and who studies the backgrounds of the songs and puts a great deal of thought into how to do them—is to invoke echoes of the legacy of the past. But, Conrad, I don't think you have the ear, the aesthetic sensibility, or the sensitivity to even recognize that when you hear it. In addition to your lack of aesthetic sense, you're probably too beered up to recognize it when it's there, loud and clear. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Sep 10 - 01:13 AM Don, that lady on the horse is interesting .... did you know I can actually play the Piano Accordion holding it upside down? I can even play the whistle holding it back to front? Sadly, I haven't yet figured out how to make lots of money doing this yet .... cause any fool can also do it if they practice enough ... "It is sad that so many so called folk musicians only bring forward the echos of their own thoughts and not the legacy of the past as well. " Bzzztttt.... the 'old folk musos' were only doing just the same as that which you say you despise .... just like the Copper Family ... |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 20 Sep 10 - 11:44 PM Folk music is much more than quality. It is bringing songs through time. It is sad that so many so called folk musicians only bring forward the echos of their own thoughts and not the legacy of the past as well. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 20 Sep 10 - 04:56 PM Good idea, Betty! Let's HEAR Conrad and see what he's got. If anything. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 20 Sep 10 - 04:53 PM Conrad: "worshiping the false god of quality will only narrow the field of people who get access to stages and venues and we need it to expand.." Howard: "Need it to expand? It seems to me that far too many people get access to stages and venues as it is. We should be trying to improve the quality of music, not excuse any old rubbish on the grounds that it's 'folk.'" Exactly so, Howard! Conrad, I think you share something with this young lady. Neither of you have quite figured out the way it works. I know people who, initially curious about folk music, went to hear some local folk singer and were totally repelled by the lack of quality of that particular singer and simply wrote folk music off as something that may have great anthropological value, but not something they ever cared to listen to again. One fellow I know, whose main musical interest was early opera (Monteverdi and such) and early music in general (consorts such as The Baltimore Consort), lute music, etc.), Elizabethan music (Dowland, et al.) told me that one evening he had dropped into a coffeehouse that featured a folk singer with the idea of seeing if he would like folk music. He got thoroughly turned off, and wasn't interested in hearing any more. I knew the singer he was referring to—mediocre singing voice with a tendency to go off-pitch, didn't know squat about folk music, and got all his songs from Kingston Trio records. So I sat my friend down and played a record for him. Richard Dyer-Bennet. The classically trained tenor voice and the classic guitar was more the kind of sound he was familiar with. This was—yeah, that's okay! I played another record for him. Ed McCurdy. Yeah, he was okay, too. Joan Baez? Hey, she can really sing! Then I invited him to come to a performance I was giving in a couple of weeks in the Seattle Public Library's Lee Auditorium. Okay, I'm not Dyer-Bennet (nor do I want to be, other than thinking that he had the right idea about treating folk songs seriously, not just as light novelty pieces, but giving the performance of them as much care and attention as you would a song by Schubert). My voice is okay (bass-baritone), but although I have had training, I don't try to sound operatic. Nor do I try to sound like I just fell of the turnip truck like a lot of city-born and bred singers of folk songs. I just open my mouth and sing. My friend decided, not just that I was okay, but that folk music was okay, too. He became a regular at concerts, coffeehouses, and festivals. And Conrad, he was just one of many. Singing folk songs and ballads with a listenable singing voice (not necessarily highly polished) and putting some thought into how one does the songs (not just memorizing the words and singing them by rote) makes a big difference in whether people will enjoy the songs well enough to come back for more. Quality? It does not "narrow the field" of people who want to hear folk music. Or, for that matter, take it up and do it themselves. It broadens it. This should be obvious! But of course none of this is going to sink in. Your head's made up and you don't want to be confused with FACTS. You're already confused enough. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Howard Jones Date: 20 Sep 10 - 12:23 PM worshiping the false god of quality will only narrow the field of people who get access to stages and venues and we need it to expand. Need it to expand? It seems to me that far too many people get access to stages and venues as it is. We should be trying to improve the quality of music, not excuse any old rubbish on the grounds that it's "folk". However I can understand why Conrad wants to do away with quality, it's obviously the only way he'll be allowed to perform. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Bettynh Date: 20 Sep 10 - 11:49 AM Does the internet qualify as a "stage or venue"? If so, there's no need to expand it. Anyone of any quality can broadcast from a computer free or at minimal cost (many computers have webcams now). Lacking a computer, you might have to give up a beer to rent time at a net cafe. Tell us a story, Conrad! You have a website. Use it! |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 20 Sep 10 - 11:14 AM My point exactly- worshiping the false god of quality will only narrow the field of people who get access to stages and venues and we need it to expand. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 20 Sep 10 - 06:43 AM No you MUST NOT Listen! All you will hear is a horrible scratchy noise drowning out a bad performance of someone who cannot sing! I trust Foolestroupe is in jest here, although this seems to be one the prevelent misconceptions aong many Folkies today (and of the past 50 years) who prefer slick repro revivalism to the real thing. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Howard Jones Date: 20 Sep 10 - 03:51 AM I just other people would follow our example and ditch the profit for one day. I can do it. Cant be that hard. Conrad, you really haven't been listening, have you? As you've been told repeatedly, folk musicians (including professionals) are playing for free at thousands of events, big and small. You're right, it isn't that hard, and people are doing it. So what's your beef? Do you imagine the H Street Festival is run entirely for altruistic and artistic reasons? The event is "sponsored by major corporations such as Verizon, Coca Cola, PNC Bank and local establishments such as Philadelphia Ice, Phish Tea and R&B Coffee". Major corporations sponsor events like these because it is cheap advertising for them, and ticks boxes for community involvement as part of their sustainability policies. The reason local businesses support it is that it brings them commercial benefits: "viewed as a financial success by local business owners; as evidenced by a 30% increase in business at Phish Tea, a posh and trendy restaurant, bar and lounge located on festival grounds." H Street Festival And all they did was pay for your gas? Looks like they took advantage of you. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 20 Sep 10 - 02:55 AM "You must not listen to some of the most important singers from the tradition preserved on wax cylinders or tape" No you MUST NOT Listen! All you will hear is a horrible scratchy noise drowning out a bad performance of someone who cannot sing! "Women doing things with their hands" ... I am speechless ... yep, speechless ... |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Ralphie Date: 20 Sep 10 - 01:33 AM I would suggest that as Conrad and WAV are now in communication with each other, the rest of us should quietly tip-toe away, and leave them to it! Argueing with either of them is like "Knitting Fog" |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 19 Sep 10 - 11:46 PM Where have you been its an entire genre of art. Check out the Houston artcar museum and the orange show parade. My hand car won first place one year- about 400 entries. catspaw you are a novelty |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: catspaw49 Date: 19 Sep 10 - 08:25 PM A novelty it may be but art it ain't! LMAO.......Did you kiss the babies as well? Do you give out antibiotics? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 19 Sep 10 - 08:07 PM You must not listen to some of the most important singers from the tradition preserved on wax cylinders or tape. Believe me content and knowing the songs is far more important than quality. You are just interested in show biz not folklore. But you need to know it was my artcar and a few others that brought those thousands to the festival. Fifty pictures a minute. People posing with the car, babys held up to the car for pictures, women doing things with the hands. The inspiration of great fun. We have a good time glad to assist. We are sponsored by a gallery that does not sell art just displays it. Our aspect of the event is fueled only by donations we get a small mileage check that barely covers gas from the gallery owners and we are fed with donations from local businesses. I just other people would follow our example and ditch the profit for one day. I can do it. Cant be that hard. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: catspaw49 Date: 19 Sep 10 - 07:40 PM Yesterday I was brought with artcar to the H. street festival in DC. I was only given a donation to cover the gas. Across the street the local german beer garden was selling cups mind you not pints for $5.00- lots of people could not afford that. But I bet lots of people did pay that! In each case above.....the beer vs. the fartcar.....I think people got exactly what they paid for! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 19 Sep 10 - 07:19 PM I could jump any one of the points in your last post, Conrad, but I have limited time right now, so I'll just take on this one: " Discrimination against people who are not brilliant performers is still discrimination." I see no point in going to see and hear a performer who is not particularly good, or is possibly so poor he or she sets my teeth on edge. In the same way that, when at the grocery store, I will buy a pound of fresh butter rather than a pound of rancid butter—even though the rancid butter may be discounted. Discrimination? Yes, indeed it is! The ability to make choices between something which is of good quality and something which is not is, among other things, one of the qualities that has kept our species alive throughout the ages. If a person who wishes to perform for others finds that he or she can't get people to listen to them, that's a clear message that they either need to work harder and improve their performances or chose some other line of endeavor. If you make a crappy product and put it on the market, no one is morally bound to buy it. Well, let's see. I'll take on this one, too: "Removing all bariers will create much more demand through direct unobstructed participation." Not unless it's something desirable in the first place. And it's not just the genre of music, it's the quality of performance as well. If you feel it is worthwhile, you should want to present it to people in the most advantageous way, not turn them off by confronting them with a hairy, obese apparition who sings like a malfunctioning fog horn. Even if it is folk music. ESPECIALLY because it is folk music. Crappy performers can actually drive audiences away and discourage them from coming back. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 19 Sep 10 - 06:43 PM Financial discrimination is still discrimination. Discrimination against people who are not brilliant performers is still discrimination. If folklorist collectors waited till they found excellent performers they would have collected nothing. Had they waited for amplification to perform there would have been no performances. Limiting folk music is not good. Removing all bariers will create much more demand through direct unobstructed participation. You dont need grant funding you need demand creation. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Tootler Date: 19 Sep 10 - 06:38 PM What a load of garbage!
I fail to see how any of this is elitist or exclusive. If I don't go to a concert it is because I choose not to, not because someone says I can't come in. I have plenty of opportunity to go to events that are comfortably within my budget and to which I can go simply by paying the admission fee, so I am not being excluded. The price of food and drink will not play any part in my decision to go to a particular event, though I decent pint may well be a bonus. I notice WAV has weighed in with an irrelevance. I can't say I understand what he is getting at and how it fits in with the thread topic. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: George Papavgeris Date: 19 Sep 10 - 06:26 PM Conrad says :"Performer audience relationships should be minimized in favor of teacher student relationships." and also: "Quality of performance is not necessary and discourages many. Get rid of performer elitism and exclusivity." Words fail me. Conrad, your perception of the world, what makes people tick, what constitutes real life and its relationship to real folk and by extension to folk music, what is education and what is entertainment, are all alien to my world. There is no overlap. I had my suspicions, as I followed this thread over the weeks, but your two sentences above prove this conclusively in my book. I would have no chance persuading you of my viewpoint, as you would have no chance persuading me of yours, for the simple reason that we are looking at different worlds. Have a good life, by your standards. But I hope we never meet. I do not think of myself as elitist, indeed quite the opposite but I would not like to live in your world, because in my view fanatical antisnobbery is simply another kind of snobbery. And neither equate with tolerance. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 19 Sep 10 - 05:44 PM You are not correct. My position is stick to private exclusive small events and keep the public ones free and unrestricted. I never said that professional folk musicians should not work. They should simply not dominate. The music should be as free as possible. Find a barrier then remove it. High costs of venue food and drink or admission are bariers fostering elitism and exclusion. Large too large audiences make the music impersonal and distant, literally. Break the large audiences into several small ones. Performer audience relationships should be minimized in favor of teacher student relationships. Quality of performance is not necessary and discourages many. Get rid of performer elitism and exclusivity. Its easy! Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 19 Sep 10 - 05:01 PM "But what would CofE middle-aged retired bankers DO if there were no charities?" (C.S.)...use up their stocks of Cuban cigars..?! |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 19 Sep 10 - 04:14 PM In fact, it's not an answer at all. It's gibberish! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 19 Sep 10 - 04:13 PM That's not an answer to my question. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 19 Sep 10 - 04:01 PM there is a role for paid professionals just not all the roles or all the best ones |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 19 Sep 10 - 03:40 PM Here's a simple, direct question for you Conrad. Which, of course, you will not answer, preferring to duck the issue entirely. Singing folk songs and ballads is my means of livelihood. My way of making a living. If you get your way and I don't get paid for performing, then, how am I supposed to feed my wife and kids? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 19 Sep 10 - 02:03 PM "there would be no need for private charities." But what would CofE middle-aged retired bankers DO if there were no charities? |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Howard Jones Date: 19 Sep 10 - 01:59 PM If you are concerned to spread folk music to the homeless and the hungry, then encouraging them to visit even the cheapest bars seems to be the wrong way to go about it, for all sorts of reasons. Especially if they then have to sit there and watch Conrad swigging pitchers of beer and guzzling plateloads of food which they can't afford - rather rubs there noses in it, doesn't it? |
| Share Thread: |
