'Purist - a pejorative?

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 11:52 AM

Ah well. You see.

But at least people could understand what I wrote.

The idea that there is only one kind of folk music is such an absurdity that its difficult to know where to start to discuss it.

And the idea that there was any sort of connection between what those in courts and chantries sang and what the less advantaged - it's nearly as daft.

It's not a matter of the bible. It's a matter of observation and understanding that there is something different about folk music - and that thing is not how you play it.

And the abuse of the meaning of the word "purist" is nearly as bad. If you don't know what a word means, use a decent dictionary.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 10:46 AM

I had a recording studio in L.A., a while back, and occasionally some snooty prima dona would come in, and when it came time to tune up, they would ALWAYS refuse to use a digital tuner, saying, "Oh no, I ALWAYS tune by ear, I never use those things..I don't need to, or I don't need one". ..and guess what?...As a result of these idiots, I coined a phrase, which is true to this day..."You can ALWAYS tell a 'purist'..they're ALWAYS out of tune!"

GfS

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 10:42 AM

I've known a fair few pre & post-op gender-reorientated people in my time - all of them males into females - and guess what? All of them Folkies too!

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: theleveller
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 10:22 AM

At a club I used to go to one of the regulars was a gender reorientated melodeon player. She was the butt of many unkind jokes - but only about being a melodeon player.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 10:07 AM

As oppose to the usual pejorative slang for male homosexuality which is openly laughed at in certain Northern Folk Clubs, BTW. Now that's what I call weird, and not in any sort of good way either...

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: theleveller
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 09:59 AM

"and even thoo's a bit queer"

I do, of course, use the 1954 (and earlier) definition of "queer".

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 09:33 AM

There are different folk idioms in different places,

I might add that The Folk Revival, via the conceited absurdity of the 1954 Definition, has perceived Folk Music to exist elsewhere on the planet, though, of course, not everywhere - heaven forfend. I think Richard is typical in being misled in this respect where Topic Records (for example) have marketed everything from Gary and Vera's Hotpot to the Choirs of Albanian Farming Co-ops as being, somehow, Folk Music. Inclusivity or rank absurdity? You decide. In this sense Folk Music is not about the idioms, traditions, derivations and enthnomusical context of the actual music, rather it is about a highly selective and romantically inclined philosophical perspective which is wholly irrelavant & extraneous to the music itself. The word Folk becomes tainted by associaion with such woeful imperialistic paternalism; the botton line being is that all these so-called Folk Idioms would get along quite happily without being called Folk, even those closer to home.

Richard, will all due respect to your superior wisdom, the rest of your post is pure paste which reiterates the myths, false opossitions and highly selective clauses which are utterly redundant in this day and age, but which are, nevertheless, essential if you're going to accept the orthodoxy of the Bourgeois Folk Myth. Argument with you is a futile as an Atheist arguing with a Christian; the Atheist says the Bible is not the revealed word of God - the Christian says it is, and uses The Bible to prove it. However, the Atheist still loves the Bible for what it is, rather than what it isn't, which is pretty much where I stand in relation to the culture of The Revival in general, and the 1954 Definition in particular, which I know requires certain philosphical pre-requisites before it makes sense. I'm sorry, but I'm too much of a pragmatist in this respect - Human Music is Human Music is Human Music, whatever the genre, whatever the culture, whatever the idiom. Like other aspects of Human Culture, it exists, and has existed and will continue to exist, in a myriad of diverse types, all of which are highly evolved and all of which are highly evolving, and all of which are covered by the various clauses of The 1954 Definition. If you really want to challenge me on this, please, Richard, show me one that isn't - but for God's sake do it with dignity & leave the snide asides in your toybox.

With respect of the Old Songs and Ballads (which one may call Folk Songs without troubling the various fantasies of the 1954 Definition) we are dealing with a very evident idiom, variously recorded (broadsides, collectors notebooks, ear wax, wax cylinders, reel-to-reel, compact cassette etc.) but only surviving as shadows on the wall of Plato's Cave. We can look, study, infer and spectulate, but in the end it comes down to the taxonomy and of imperfect taxidermy, which in no way shape or form is any substitute for being able to study the natural environment in which these songs thrived, which - saving the invention of a Time Machine anytime soon - we never will. The best we can say is The Tradition of these songs, in line with all other musical traditions, was fluid. Whoop-de-fecking-doo! Whether The Tradition is written or oral is wholly irrelevant in the wider context of human communication which, then as now, depends entirely on the creativity of vernacular masters to make and remake such things in great and feral abundance - only in their day they did so entirely unfettered by copyright laws. It is always down to the talents of the individual - the singers, musicians, and song makers - many of whom we can enjoy today, on record, or in print. Some of the songmakers we know by name - Tommy Armstrong, James Hogg, James Armstrong - but most we sadly don't; but seeing that music is a universal impulse it shouldn't surprise us that people have carried the germ of such material with them on their migrations and shaped it as they went along, much as Willie Scott shaped the songs of both Hogg and James Armstrong. I had a tape of A.L.Lloyd once - one of his Radio Three programmes - in which he spoke of much the same thing, but Collective Culture is carried by the individuals masters of that culture, who are only ever faceless from afar; like the Gypsy who made my clothes-peg - long dead now, but once a true master of their living craft whose work one may now perceive as Folk, a word which, in all probability, like many so-called Folk Singers and Folk Musicians the world over, they themselves had never even heard of.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: theleveller
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 08:52 AM

Oh, and I speak as one who would only buy a Kindle if he could have it bound in half morocco by Bayntuns of Bath.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: theleveller
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 08:47 AM

Weird? Not me! As they say round these parts, "All the world's weird except thee and me...and even thoo's a bit queer."

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 08:31 AM

That would seem to do the trick

It does for me anyway. After that, all you have to do is to define the folk idiom, which is pretty straightforward as it emcompasses so much of what The Revival has been about since it was first hatched. The true definition of Folk Music is basically the definition of The Revival which claims what went before in terms of idiomatic selection, and it also claims what follows. I suppose that's why I found Georgina Boye's excellent The Imagined Village such a depressing read really, and why I still haven't got round to reading my (borrowed) copy of Harker's Fakesong. That said, I've always seen myself as a Post-Revivalist - i.e. too young to have been truly touched by The Revival, even though I was brought up in an cultural aura in which Idiomatic Folk (Scottish / Northumbrian especially) was integral to a much bigger cultural picture than which Folk as a religion would allow for.

Once you set foot in a Folk Club, things change, however so casual the acquaintance might be. I think all Folkies have the Folk Gene to a greater or lesser extent - to some it is full-blown Autism, to others it is mild Aspergers - but either way it's not normal, which is ironic really as many folkies aspire to an all inclusive normalcy and openly pour scorn at any attempt to see things a little differently. Any music which actually attempts to value this thing we call The Tradition is regarded with instant suspicion (and resentment if it garners any critical attention which they themselves feel especially entitled) and dismissed out of hand as being a) Wierd* or b) An Acquired Taste** and (therefore) c) Marmite***! In the all-consuming lowest possible common denominator mindset of the Holy Folk MOR Easy Listening Average this not only means unmutual and but also undeserving, whatever its actual merits.

Tragically, this is what happened to Peter Bellamy & accounts for many of the more negative attitudes you see blowing around on this forum and in folk clubs the length & breadth of the English Speaking World where a queer sort of mediocrity prevails & woe betide anyone whose face doesn't fit. Not not so much from the punters themselves though, rather the organisers, many of whom set themselves as paternalistic arbiters of the common good. I've seen this a lot over the last 36 years; that I still see it now is hardly a surprise. But, as I say, I'm really too old to care, & far too content in my little cot to be bothered because (in the words of the old broadside) it is my own and it just suits me. Perfectly!

S O'P (At ease following Phase 1 of his Bridge Work; in two weeks time I'll have a new tooth, so he may face his adoring public with added confidence...)

* Wierd: In a Folk context Wierd is pretty much essential given the overall cultural zeitgeist which Folk has inspired. Away from the Hot Pot and self-serving over-weening comedy and sentiment, Wierd is actually a very good thing and something to be highly cherished. Without the weird, I find, life just isn't worth living. That said, too much weird invariably leads to Nu-Folk & Martial fascism which is most certainly not a good thing.

** An Acquired Taste : The best things in life invariably are, from oral sex and fine malt whisky to the music of Harry Partch, Sun Ra, Albert Ayler and even the more surreal comedic antics of Vic Reeves. In fact one could say if life is about anything it is about Acquiring the Taste for the finer things, which must, therefore, include...

*** Marmite : Which instantly reduces the whole thing to an aura of consumerism and product placement which is anathema to the appreciation of the finer things in life to which many of us aspire, even as our raison d'etre. I once talked this through with a fellow folky who confessed they'd just bought the entire VOTP series so they might learn new songs. 'What?' says I, 'Not for your listening pleasure?' And they laughed, thinking I was joking, which I assured them I certainly was not. 'I like Marmite,' they said, 'But only spread very thinly on toast with lots of butter - or else on Twiglets.'

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: theleveller
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 08:15 AM

What I'm suggesting, Richard, is not an addition to the 1954 definition but an additional definition. Then you can take your choice.

"I can see something for the idea that if it says "beans" on the tin there ought to be beans inside"

I would want to know exactly what sort of beans I'm buying - I like baked beans with my sausages and cannellini in my minestrone.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 08:03 AM

I think that's getting closer to the issue.

The expression "the folk idiom" cannot aid our understanding because there is no single folk idiom. There are different folk idioms in different places, but that concept is still primarily about "sounds like". If it were a means of distinguishing folk music from other music it would mean that the things that Steeleye Span (or Jim Moray, whose work I admire but do not like) were playing were not folk songs, simply because they were being played differently. It would mean that say a Punjabi folk song was not a folk song because it did not sound like Harry Cox. That is not merely in need of a bit of trimming - it is fundamentally wrong.

As an expression, I suppose it derives from the US experience where to a large extent the songs that were current in the community were supplanted by the excellent original songs of Woodie Guthrie and Pete Seeger (and the, in my view, not-so-excellent ones of Dylan and Johnny Cash and Hank Williams etc etc) and the idea of descent from a tradition was lost. Like so many US cultural referents this seems to have travelled the globe.

The essence of the Karpeles definition (which I have provided many times on here) involves three steps. First - oral transmission, second modification by "the folk process", and third relation to a community. Others added a requirement of anonymity but I am not an adherent of that view.

With Western literacy at about 100% words are less likely to pass only by oral transmission but the prevalence of mondegreens and other word twists indicates that they do in fact, unlikely as it may seem, do so. Recordings of course are often mis-heard and listening to recordings does not eliminate part of the element of oral (or maybe I should say "aural") transmission. The ability to read music is I think declining in frequency, but tunes and timings are often learned from recordings - and almost as often altered accidentally in the learning.

It is therefore fair, I suggest, to say that oral transmission remains.

Similarly words vary by mis-hearing or modification. Tunes are varied accidentally in learning or intentionally in interpretation.


That leaves community. While no doubt Karpeles did not consider online communities, or even interest group communities, I see no inherent reason why they should be thought outside the concept of community in the definition. A community does not have to be a monolith - or the variations of the Child Ballads or recorded in the Roud Index would not exist.


What I have not previously seen is any suggestion from Sweeney or Sticky other than entirely discarding the Karpeles definition, to leave no definition.

I do need to add, as I have said many times before, that the definition of "folk" is not qualitative. It tells us nothing about what is good or bad - as the persistence of "the Wild Rover" ought to remind us!



I turn now to "purist":

1. "One who aims at, affects, or insists on scrupulous or excessive purity, especially in language or style; a stickler for purity or correctness"

2. "One who maintained that the New Testament was written in pure Greek".

These do not apply even to my musical (or unmusical) conduct - even though I am perhaps the most insistent here on on the meaning of the word "folk". I don't give a stuff what people play or sing, or whether they do it "right". I don't even believe that there is a "correct" way to sing a folk song.

I don't believe in the existence of the alleged folk police who say that there are only certain ways to perform.

I can see something for the idea that if it says "beans" on the tin there ought to be beans inside.

I do believe that the word "folk" means something but that does not make even me a purist.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: theleveller
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 07:08 AM

"Does "updating" man "rejection"?"

Not necessarily - those were Richard's words. Some online dictionary definitions now add words to the effect: "Music written or performed in the folk idiom." That would seem to do the trick.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 06:44 AM

To be fair, chaps, the 1954 Definition tells us a lot, but only about the Folk Mindset that made it up in the first place, and those who adhere to it today. It is a very bourgeois misunderstanding of a working class art form on a quite monumental scale really, one that has, in effect, claimed the music by isolating entirely from the natural habitat of its causal cultural context and then subjected it to the further indignities of a cultural revival... Meanwhile, the actual tradition of Popular Music Making that gave the Old Folk Songs birth in the first place (and would have given them dignified death & burial were it not for romantically inclined antiquarians & latter day ressurectionists intent of breathing new life into them) has carried on quite happily and continues to do so today, albeit in ways which are of little interest to Folkies of either stripe - who are either too bigoted, culturally autistic, or (let's face it) just too damn old for anything but the comforts of nostalgia. I include myself in this latter category BTW; since turning 50 last year I find myself increasingly ill at ease in the modern world, thus do gaze into old woodcuts & the broadsides they illustrate through rose coloured cataracts. The other day in an antique shop I actually bought an old Gypsy-made clothes peg (as fine a piece of treen as you'll ever see; true - er - folk art) to use as a mute on my fiddle...   

As an Antiquarian (by default & passion) the past fascinates me, and I'm easily seduced by The Archaeology, however so mislabelled and misprepresented - as is the case with so-called folklore as a whole - but that doesn't take away the joy of the thing, much less the joy of museums. One would hope (for example) whilst Richard and I might en joy debating the finer points of theory on Mudcat, should we actually meet face to face we'd be too busy singing to put anybody down - which is the important thing here, and why that earlier Holy Ghostly sigh of Pope Joe is the most disagreeable thing (so far) on this entire thread, though Tootler's twittish tweet runs it a close second.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 06:39 AM

"Like many definitions it needs updating"
Does "updating" man "rejection"?
Hmmmm
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: theleveller
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 05:57 AM

"There are now two prime protagonists on the mudcat who reject the Karpeles (1954) definition "

Make that three. The 1954 definition is relevant only from an historical perspective. Like many definitions it needs updating to be relevant in a modern context. That's why dictionaries are constantly being revised.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 05:18 AM

Suggest, therefore, you try coming down off your high horse

Think we'd best make that high chair actually, eh Richard?

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: glueman
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 05:18 AM

As I said, tribal and knee jerk. BTW, I'm totally with you on the 'feels right' response Richard, the visceral is all that matters. It's the fluff it's wrapped in, the extraneous 'macrame' of knotted conceits that is so tedious and irrelevant.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 05:09 AM

[sigh]

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 05:06 AM

Oh, and there's the other one.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: glueman
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 04:44 AM

"When I see one of your lengthy posts my eyes tend to glaze over"

Sweeney is one of very few posters who actually explains why he agrees or disagrees with something and is prepared to put that opinion in context. The majority of Mudcat posts are tribal, knee jerk responses that produce spontaneous anger if shibboleths are questioned. I'm surprised he has the patience to negotiate attacks he's heard numerous times on a daily basis and still have faith in logic to repel them, but all power to him for taking on the forces of inertia and reaction.

As he's pointed out on more than one occasion, there are no legally binding definitions. Each was a historical expedient that grew from the attitudes of its time and will stand or crumble in the light of succeeding approaches. The idea of music and adherents being 'pure' does not stand the test of time or logic.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 04:40 AM

It's the dishonest twists of meaning that get my goat. There are now two prime protagonists on the mudcat who reject the Karpeles (1954) definition out of hand, partly on the view that "the village" was imagined, partly on the view that "folk" is a matter of style or content rather than derivation, partly on the view that "folk music" is a sui generis term (see what I did there?), and partly on the view that all music is handed down merely because it uses scales harmonic conventions and timings that have gone before.

The 1954 definition "feels" right (with apologies to a former editor of the Sun) and any infelicities can fairly readily be ironed out by considering (for example) the meaning of the word "community".

For those who care about the term "purist" I did post the definition of it out of the Oxford English dictionary (no, not the concise or the shorter, the full one) on one of the previous occasions that there was a debate about the term.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Jan 12 - 04:19 AM

Tootler - If you've failed understand what I've written here (which you obviously have) please don't presume that the fault is somehow mine. Like I say, all you have you is ask...

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Tootler
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 06:58 PM

actually spending some time trying to understand what I've written here

Perhaps if you tried to express yourself clearly and above all, concisely, we wouldn't have to wade all through the verbiage to get at the core of what you are trying to say.

I have a lot of sympathy with Richard's point of view. When I see one of your lengthy posts my eyes tend to glaze over as I know that most of it will be repetitious and pretty much irrelevant to the main point.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 08:34 AM

Richard - you get me all wrong; all I'm doing is talking about music.   There are no misreprentations and twisting of meanings much less any attempts to show off. I do you the very good courtesy of answering your inquiries to the best of my ability, however so hostile & loaded your various reactions. Suggest, therefore, you try coming down off your high horse and actually spending some time trying to understand what I've written here. If you don't agree, show me where you think I've gone wrong; try explaining your position rather than just sitting there sniping with your petty put-downs. Discussion is fun; it's what we're here for, surely?

Is it worth pointing out my anxiety today as I sit here waiting for my the oppointed hour when I must go to the dentist for phase 1 of my BRIDGE work?

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 08:10 AM

Sweeney, I can plough through your outpourings and identify the various misreprentations and twisting of meanings - and you know that, but all you need to do to understand my post is look and see how many words and attempts to show off with words you include in almost every post of yours.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 07:14 AM

Appreciated as such, Jim ~~ & not so feeble in context either; but I thought it an opportunity for the Official Legendary Pedant to set the record straight...

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 06:33 AM

"Will himself used Gloucester."
Twas but a feeble attempt at humour
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 09 Jan 12 - 06:09 AM

Richard - I know this is a bit awkward for you, but if you don't understand, then all you have to do is ask.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 03:42 PM

Purist - a purgative...?

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Tootler
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 02:59 PM

nothing more mawkish than a bigoted purist like ewan mccoll pretending he's a highland scotts gael. ya gotta love the the sassenachen--(or they will get you)

No worse than a Canadian doing likewise.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 02:46 PM

Sweeney - there you go again.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: gnomad
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 02:12 PM

Knot as far as I know.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 02:04 PM

Okay we've don that one! No then.....

Purist a restorative!

Macrame......isn't that knitting?

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: glueman
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 12:48 PM

Gloster Gladiator. This pedantry thing is catching.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 12:20 PM

I have many contacts among the lumberjacks,
to give me facts
When someone attacks my imagination

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 11:57 AM

There are are two tunes with the title "Gloucester Hornpipe". I play the other one.

Ah yes, The Other One,one 0f the most widespread tune titles as in - "Lets play Hot Punch and The Other One." or "Lets play The Sloe and The Other One." Never known it used for any version of the
"Gloucester Hornpipe" though.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 11:15 AM

couldn't remember and was too lazy to look it up!. Thanks Mike!

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 10:52 AM

Maybe, Ollaimh, but we don't got to love you!

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 10:51 AM

Will ~~ on another thread I have recently written "Will - Shax not Fly ...". You may, should the query ever arise, refer enquirers to that with my blessing & approval!

~M~

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: ollaimh
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 10:49 AM

nothing more mawkish than a bigoted purist like ewan mccoll pretending he's a highland scotts gael. ya gotta love the the sassenachen--(or they will get you)

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Will Fly
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 10:29 AM

Will himself used Gloucester.

No I didn't. I've eaten Double Gloucester and had a model of a Gloucester Gladiator aircraft as a child. I've been to Gloucester and I even play the "Gloucester Hornpipe"* on mandolin and tenor guitar.

But I've never used it.

*There are are two tunes with the title "Gloucester Hornpipe". I play the other one.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 10:26 AM

Will himself used Gloucester. Nahum Tate, the C18 reworkering editor, used Gloster. You are probably right that Gloucester appears more frequently, but Gloster is not unprecedented.

~M~

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 10:07 AM

Shouldn't that be Gloucester?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 09:25 AM

Al ~~ with my Official Legendary Pedant hat on ~~ it was Gloster, not Kent, on who thought he was on top of a cliff. Sorry: I was just leaving...

~M~

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 07:05 AM

Omnia Tempus Habent....?

It was written by a Latin, a gondolier who sat in
His home out in Brooklyn and gazed at the stars.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 06:15 AM

loved her version of while gamekeepers lie sleeping.

JT's version of Gamekeepers is a classic of the 70s Macrame Beat (acoustic folk rock) zeitgeist - she even sings it like that unaccomapanied, as do many floorsingers if it comes to that, entirely unaware of the more stately nature of the Bob Roberts original, which is here beautifully sung by own our own Good Soldier Schweik:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnHxwZb_Hig

Omnia Tempus Habent.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 07:24 AM

yes I saw her as well at Keele FF and suppporting the Albion Band one time. In fact a couple of ther times and she always did the song.

she's a good singer - loved her version of while gamekeepers lie sleeping.

but I just think this song is one for a grizzled old aussie bloke. Its a bit like Dame Helen Mirren doing the Kent's speech from Lear from the Dover cliff top. She'd do it well - but it wouldn't be, how it should be.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 07:02 AM

June Tabor did a version of The Band, that was absolutely riveting, in fact she would not always perform it if she felt the club Audience was not attentive, I asssume she had to be in the right frame of mind to perform it as well, however I saw her do a magnificent job with it on a couple of occassions.

Subject: RE: 'Purist - a pejorative?
From: glueman
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 07:01 AM

While it might be reasonable to accuse someone of being purist, we should be deeply suspicious of anyone who believes themselves purist, and by extension 'pure'. Their's is the royal road to madness.