The Concept of FREED Folkmusic

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 04:12 PM

I always think the effect of bad singing is so much more enhanced with poor accompaniment. For a genuine 'trad' effect though, it obviously helps if they are in slightly different keys and due consideration is paid to the avoidance of rhythmic synchronicity.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 03:45 PM

("Continuing to make the same unsupported statements over and over again just makes you sound like a Republican or something."   Howling with laughter, John!!)

###

Conrad, there are a lot of people with "ordinary" voices around who are excellent singers.

I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, the folk music should be sung only by singers with voices the caliber of Dmitri Hvorostovsky or Natalie Dessay.

Or for that matter, Richard Dyer-Bennet, who was a cultivated tenor who had a quite successful concert and recording career singing folk songs and ballads. But he certainly didn't have the best voice in the world. It was thin-sounding compared to most tenors, and he could actually get a bit shrill at times. But he did have good vocal technique and excellent breath control. He said, himself, that he didn't particularly like the sound of his own voice, and if he was a successful performer, it was in spite of his voice rather than because of it.

Both Pete Seeger and Peggy Seeger don't have extraordinary singing voices. Quite ordinary, in fact. But they know the material very well, and know how to present it in both an entertaining and an informative manner. This makes them very good singers indeed!

You don't have to have a great voice to be a great singer. It's what one does with one's natural endowment that determines whether one is a great singer or not. Many singers you hear on field recordings—MOST singers you hear on field recordings—have quite ordinary voices, but their singing is often good to excellent.

Conrad, you may have a very ordinary voice. But there is no reason you couldn't perform if you would learn to sing the songs well.

And otherwise learn to behave yourself!

Don Firth

P. S.   Richard Dyer-Bennet said the following, which is well worth noting, whether one has a good voice or a very ordinary voice. As most people do, even the vast majority of singers in almost all genres except for opera and lieder, which are very demanding and require special abilities that not everyone is born with:

"The value lies inherent in the song, not in the regional mannerisms or colloquialisms. No song is ever harmed by being articulated clearly, on pitch, with sufficient control of phrase and dynamics to make the most of the poetry and melody, and with an instrumental accompaniment designed to enrich the whole effect."

Read it. And think about it.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: John P
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 03:17 PM

Interesting. I do play music from medieval through the 21st century. I don't do it, however, as a history lesson. I do it because there are songs I like from throughout history. As a musician, I don't feel any need to be an educator at the same time that I'm entertaining people. You still haven't told me why I should. I am an important part of keeping the old songs alive, in that I play them in front of people. I have a lot of evidence that lots of people have been turned on to traditional music because of the way I conduct myself. I don't have any evidence that any of the things you are proposing would do the same; in fact, I have a lot of evidence that it would have the opposite effect. You haven't made your case. Continuing to make the same unsupported statements over and over again just makes you sound like a Republican or something.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too: you want a folk community that is acting like communities did in the past with regard to music making (although your assumptions are wrong) while at the same time wanting traditional music making to be an academic exercise. Academic study is pretty much the antithesis of traditional music making. I prefer to actually be a traditional musician in that I play the music that comes to hand on whatever instruments are available and in a way that can be understood and enjoyed by my community. Historical musicology doesn't enter into it.

Would you care to respond to my post of 23 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM about the difference between competent performers and the incompetent? Especially as regards why "the folk" would want to listen to someone in a performance situation who isn't any good at performing?

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 03:00 PM

"Don-you have said that you dont want ordinary voices on stages."

Once again, Conrad, you LIE!

I never said anything like that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM

There should be no performer wishing to share a song judged incompetent.

You are not running a business here or should not be.

You might not like or prefer the sound of an ordinary voice but it still can convey a song that may otherwise never be sung. That is priceless.

Don-you have said that you dont want ordinary voices on stages.

Lots of singer songwriters doing purely new material going under the heading of folk. The category folk has limited resources. I dont mind if someone sings some adapted or original compositions that fit in a songlist-sound good together but to be under headding of folk they should also convey some of the older materials- the treasures, the legacy. We have a responsibility for that.

Performers should also perform to audience sizes that are more suitable to teaching and not just ensure entertainment. I see no reason for pure entertainment when we wish to expand the tradition.
As a certified teacher I know many ways that an audience can leave a musical event either knowing a song or closer to knowing a song.

Pure performance should not take up so much of our resources or stages or venues. Its not about sounding good but about taking care of the heritage-

Just think-

We have folk music that perhaps goes back to

middle ages

16th century

17th century

18th century

19rh century

20th century

If a performer did a set with one from each period he could have sufficient space for two from 21st century.

Seems easy to encourage more diversity in the exercise of the older materials.

It is only a small departure from playing what you want. And one might find after exploring the legacy of music available that there is something one likes in every period.

Then if you make the thing more teachable people will leave the event with more than just a smile but with a song in their hand to learn.

Eventually once the people find the music there will be more demand for professionas at lifestage events. Weddings etc....

Easy!

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: John P
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:27 PM

. . . those here have argued strongly that ordinary people do not good performers make and should be excluded in favor of the best performers. So you get performers without any but their own songs in their head- the rest are censored.

Conrad, I think you're the only one on this thread that has mentioned singer/songwriters. I'm pretty sure everyone else is talking about traditional music.

I'm a professional performer. I play almost exclusively traditional folk music. I don't like listening to performers who aren't very good, unless it's an appropriate learning situation and not a performance. I have been deeply involved in the folk community for more than 30 years. Where do I fit into your assumptions?

Would you care to respond to my post of 23 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM about the difference between competent performers and the incompetent?

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:16 PM

"those here have argued strongly that ordinary people do not good performers make and should be excluded in favor of the best performers. So you get performers without any but their own songs in their head- the rest are censored."

Simply untrue, Conrad.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:06 PM

read this thread- those here have argued strongly that ordinary people do not good performers make and should be excluded in favor of the best performers. So you get performers without any but their own songs in their head- the rest are censored.


No insult intended. I am fully tolerant of professional musicians. I think the wider folk community just needs to ajust its arrangement and priorities to allow for greater expansion than is currently going on.

Dont confuse critique with insult. Yes the status quo will want to defend itself- but it is not always right to defend exclusion, artificially inflated prices and elitism.

Yes the ideas put forth are radical.

So where is the harm in implementation?

the only answer is what we are doing now is fun, we like it and you cant change it.

Most of my suggestions are concrete almost mathmatical.

-lower costs and more people can attend

-make venues more personal smaller and friendlier stages and people will be closer to the music

-Encourage people to keep songs in their heads from the older tradition while allowing new ones and adaptation

-Carve a little space from entertainment and allocate it for teaching.

-Move professionals from center stage to a side stage. Let ordinary folk and more accessible venues drive up demand for the professionals.

Why wont these work? Dont know.

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 01:57 PM

Just as an aside, the last couple of messages I have posted have disappeared. Right after posting them, I checked and the posts were there. When I came back a bit later, they were gone.

One person came on and asked what had happened to my latest post. A little bit later, that post was also gone.

I am not being abusive toward anyone. There are a few others here who are far more personally insulting to Conrad than I have been. So if there is censorship going on, I would like to know why. And why I seem to have been singled out by whoever is doing it.

So--what's going on, here?

I'm a bit curious to see how long THIS post lasts.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 01:54 PM

Jeri yes you have a point.

A large peanut galelry out there and has been and the same people for years and decades have nothing but crap to add and they keep doing it.
I know who they are and that they are simply hate mongers but that is evident.

The other group that are disruptive are those that spend most of their postage killing the messenger rather than attacking the issue. I dont care about them either as they show by attacking my personal choices in life that they have lost the debate!

It is all just fun.

But in the end ideas are refined and tested.

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 01:44 PM

I agree with Jeri, Posts telling someone to Fuck Off are not permissible, neither should be bullying be allowed.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 01:35 PM

So why do you keep coming back? I think you like ridiculing people.

Or maybe some of us have seen Conrad trying to pervert electronic forums to promote his own repulsive political agenda for nearly 20 years and aren't about to let him pontificate unchallenged on this one.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:56 PM

Well, Jeri, this is a discussion forum, and people like to discuss things. I don't actually think there has been a great deal of personal abuse among those 700 posts, although I agree there has been some, mostly from the usual suspects. That's regrettable, but I don't think it reflects the majority of the posts.

There are also occasions when threads can turn into bullying, but I don't think this is one of them - robust debate, certainly, but mostly well-argued rather than abusive. I certainly don't believe this thread has turned into bullying, the reason everyone is on the opposite side to Conrad is not us ganging up on him, it is simply that he has failed to persuade a single person that his views are correct.

Conrad began this thread by making some strong criticisms of the way folk festivals and folk events are run and making some radical suggestions to improve them. Since then it has wandered around a variety of related topics. Most of the replies have been attempts to get him to put forward arguments to support his unsubstantiated assertions. We have also been rebutting them by pointing out that they are mostly based on invalid assumptions and explaining why his solutions would not have the effects he claims (and in some cases would make matters worse). In the course of this discussion we have had some interesting, passionate and well-argued explanations (from Don Firth in particular) of why Conrad is so mistaken. That's why this thread has continued for so long.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:51 PM

And yet you choose to come and ridicule the fuckwits ridiculing the fuckwits..

Face it, if someone makes ridiculous and insulting statements about musicians and music on a forum full of musicians and admirers of their chosen music, it's going to cause a reaction.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:17 PM

700 for goodness sake - and Conrad still hasn't got it.

I would like you to consider something.

Conrad is not responsible for all of these posts. There is a core of fuckwits who enjoy spending an enormous amount of time and energy ridiculing someone.

You, fuckwits, are not invisible.

There is a mob here who joins in on most threads where ridicule and humiliation can be heaped on someone because, frankly, nobody much likes the person they're ganging up on.

The mob frequently includes such members as... well, anyone can read the threads and see whose name shows up again and again, mostly telling the target to see the light, find a clue, and stop posting, when they are obviously incapable of doing so.

So why do you keep coming back? I think you like ridiculing people. I think maybe bullies picked on you when you were a kid, and you somehow thought abusing people was admirable.

I see you, and I see what you are.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: John P
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM

My name is James Blunt. I was born in 1793 and live in Yorkshire. I play the fiddle. Mistress Nancy seems to be the person who always organizes the dances in the village, and she usually asks me to fiddle. The last two dances, however, she decided that, since we're the folk, everyone should have a chance to participate in the folk experience. So she asked Billy Jenkins to play at one of the dances and Will Shate to play the other. Well, wasn't that a good idea! Billy can't play in tune to save his life and Will has the timing of a broken clock. I tried to dance for a while but couldn't stand it, so I went home -- as did almost everyone else.

The same thing happened to Clara Willis -- you know, the woman who knows all the songs and sang at all those weddings we had two years ago. When little Maggie Horn got married, she asked Mistress Nancy to help her organize the festivities, so what did Nancy do? She asked Mary Cobb to sing! Sure, Mary knows all the songs, but her voice sounds like a banshee. What can't these folks save their music-making for the fireside and let those of us who know what we're doing play for the public events?

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Tootler
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:43 AM

Except that after two posts, the count on the forum home page went from 698 to 699, so maybe this is actually 700!

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Tootler
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:29 AM

700 for goodness sake - and Conrad still hasn't got it.

More likely he doesn't want to get it. It is quite amazing how some people will hang on to a notion in spite of all the evidence presented to them to the contrary - and, of course, a lack of evidence in support.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Tootler
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:25 AM

Perhaps learning a song should be required for every festival audience member. Give them a song sheet and get to it with a few run through s then let them in the gate.

Explain to me how that isn't exclusive or elitist? The very that you are complaining about, you are now advocating.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Bettynh
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:12 AM

"Perhaps learning a song should be required for every festival audience member. Give them a song sheet and get to it with a few run through s then let them in the gate."

Perhaps your attitude is the reason your events look like this

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:57 AM

Welcome to Fahrenheit 451............

Cornhole you asshole.......None, and I do mean NONE, of your bullshit makes any sense at all! Everyone explains and you still can't see the forest for all of them damn woody things. I often use the phrase in jest but you really are the epitome of a broke-dick jadrool..........Go take a fuckin' bath.

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Chris Green
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:52 AM

Er, bollocks. The best means of preservation is not in the minds of the people. The best way to preserve something is to write it down or record it.

If you're advocating preserving songs in the minds of people, the songs will change over time. Different singers will add to them, subtract from them, seek to improve them or possibly just not remember the words or music accurately. Thus you end up with several slightly different versions of the same song. It called human nature and the process I've just described is called the folk tradition, about which you clearly know jack shit. Folk music isn't about preservation, it's by its very nature somthing that is continually changing and reinventing itself. That's how it's survived.

As for the idea that the folk circuit exercises censorship over non-entertaining performers - what planet are you on? Over the years I've seen utterly execrable performers who can't remember the words, who sing out of tune and who have all the charisma and stage presence of a road accident. These people have got up as floor spots, massacred a couple of traditional songs and been rewarded with polite applause. This wouldn't happent ON ANY OTHER CIRCUIT!

I don't care if you're a piss artist. I'm fond of a tipple myself. I also don't care if you think that I (as a professional musician) am a parasite leeching the life blood from the tradition. That's your opinion and as Voltaire said 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. But I do care about factual accuracy and I've struggled to find any in anything that you've said.

I await your response with interest.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:21 AM

Yes recorded but not in active use. The best preservation is in the minds of the people. Libraries are destroyed, computers crash, books deteriorate.

Would having more songs, ballads and others in the minds of the people hurt or help? I believe it would help.

People do things that they consider to be important. Entertainment is important and people are taught to value it. They can also be taught to value things for other reasons- heritage, antiquity, meaning. Being entertained is only one way of reflecting on the music.

Some national anthems are unsingable yet people continue to struggle with the singing for heritage reasons......

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:12 AM

Too much emphasis upon entertainment is wrong.

Why? Do you have a logical argument to support this, or is it some puritanical objection to getting enjoyment from folk music?

Nothing wrong with entertaining but when no one but the performer "has" the song then something is wrong.

leaving aside that the first part of this sentence contradicts your previous statement - wtf does this mean?

Ballads have two functions- they preserve a story, a history and they entertain. Both need to be served by our work.

The ballads are safe. They have been collected, recorded and analysed. You can be assured that should a new one be discovered it will be added to the collections. You need not fear the ballads will be lost.

Getting people to listen to them is another matter. For that to happen they must be entertaining, and to be that they should be performed by someone who understands the story and how to get it across. That is "our work" - what's yours?

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:06 AM

All musical traditions are sort of like icebergs.

One sees the tip only that is popular or new in the present.

Songs that are not being sung, not now popular are the vast portion below the water line and out of sight.

These songs may be stored on recordings some more fragile than others or in books some deteriorating at a fast pace some in librarys that will be destroyted.

The most important unseen portion of the iceberg is the portion stored in the heads of the keepers of songs. This is the best form of storage. It is not dependent upon popularity or quality and it is living generally passed across generations.

What is the health of that portion?

How is it influenced by what is now the domination of an entertainment entertainer tradition-which dominates venues and does not teach and to a larger degree these days only presents new pieces?

If we are to grow this tradition we must re structure venues. More people rather than fewer need to get in and take part. More teaching has to occur and there has to be a greater tolerance for less than professional quality.

Nothing wrong with entertainers but our festivals need to be less focused on entertainment dimension and more focused on smaller stages intimate gatherings and transmission.

Perhaps learning a song should be required for every festival audience member. Give them a song sheet and get to it with a few run through s then let them in the gate.

Providing lyrics and tunes to songs sung to take home is also a good step.

Smaller stages will bring listener/learner and performer closer.

Lots of things to be done. The best start is lowering the costs of participation at all points not just sometime.

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Will Fly
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 06:54 AM

When did folk music start being "heritage? Let's have your idea of what you mean by "folk music" - examples please?

Any answers yet?

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 06:48 AM

Too much emphasis upon entertainment is wrong.

Nothing wrong with entertaining but when no one but the performer "has" the song then something is wrong.

Ballads have two functions- they preserve a story, a history and they entertain. Both need to be served by our work.

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 06:26 AM

I'm sorry, I'll post that again..

Most coffeehouse performances that I've seen and been involved in are not "recitals." They're pretty informal, with a lot of interaction with the audience.

Sounds idyllic, Don - although I must admit I get jumpy if I drink too much coffee. Seriously, the Ecology of Folk is important to me; it's as much about the Context as it is about the Content, though both have got to be right for it to work. I've polemiscised elsewhere about Feral Folk Music (my Mudcat posts on this matter I've collected onto a Myspace Blog HERE) in which the nature of the music is determined by its immediate context / ecology, but when it comes your Actual Traditional Folk Song, then we must deploy a very careful nurturing to ensure we get the right balance, be it in formal or less formal contexts. I do Formal Stuff too of course, and an appreciative sober audience is something to treasure.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Will Fly
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 04:35 AM

The kids in the photographs mainly look scared shitless, don't they, Smokey? Can't think why?

Conrad, at the risk of more waffle on your part, I repeat the questions:

When did folk music start being "heritage? Let's have your idea of what you mean by "folk music" - examples please?

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 10:42 PM

And if you pay him enough, he'll dress up as Santa and traumatise your kids.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 09:18 PM

And yes, foolestroupe promptly caught what I really meant by my post last night. I was wondering if Conrad would laud me for being on his side, but he didn't bite.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 09:15 PM

"having fun as a priority is a waste"

Conrad, what in bloody blue blazes do you think is the primary reason anyone,anywhere, has ever sung, or listened to, folk or any other genre of music?

I actually do think I have known of people who have attended, and listened to, opera because they felt that doing so made them elite, and would impress others with their elitism. But I'm quite certain that they are a small aberrant minority among opera fans.

You have come out in favor of drinking alcohol by the gallon during music performances. Do you feel that people should do this for the sake of tradition, even though they don't enjoy it?

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 08:23 PM

having fun as a priority is a waste

Aye, there's far too much happiness in the world. Dammit, they'll be making food taste nice next. Coddled to buggery, are them folkies - make 'em suffer; raw sewage and discord, that's what they need. Good solid traditional misery like we 'ad in the gudde olde days. Folk music without lice and rickets is for wimps and theatrical types. And they should make performers sit on iron spikes.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:52 PM

Simple Howard.......Conrad is a lousy performer so he passes it off as being true to the original........complete horseshit of course but then that's all the fuckin' Pissant has as he has no talent.

Conrad....try reading for comprehension.


Spaw

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:46 PM

Conrad wants to turn folk music into something akin to a dose of castor oil.

You're not supposed to enjoy it!

PTUI!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Howard Jones
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:14 PM

Performance and entertainment barely useful

Conrad, what do you think folk music is actually for?

This is a genuine question - I really cannot understand your approach to this topic. You appear to view it as some kind of medicine - it doesn't matter that it may taste nasty, as long as it's doing people good in some undefined way. Just as long as they don't start to enjoy it.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Tootler
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:43 PM

A couple more to add to Conrad's last post;

Pretty Polly, Pretty Polly

Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight!

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:38 PM

No it wont don you are putting many things in its way.

Teach always a priority

Performance and entertainment barely useful

having fun as a priority is a waste

you only want the best performers that is wrong.

You permit the use of folk music to bring people in to expensive venues so they can be ripped off leaving entertained but without a song....

I do fine thanks!

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Howard Jones
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:37 PM

We must keep access to the music free and reject any theory that says that quality is more important than the songs.

Unless the quality is there people will not listen to the songs. Once people are hooked and start to become interested in studying the songs themselves, they may be prepared to overlook limitations in performance in order to seek out songs, but unless their first contact with folk is positive they will never get to that stage. People have to be attracted first by quality, then they may develop a more academic interest. Even then, when they want to listen to music for entertainment and relaxation, rather than academic study, quality is paramount.

You seem to regard folk music solely as something to be studied and conserved, like a rare species in a zoo, rather than recognising that it can and should be enjoyed as entertainment.

We must keep the doors open to those of all incomes especially the poor.

The doors are open to the poor. Read the posts. There are many free events, and where there is an entry charge this is usually far lower than for most other genres. The only reason you feel there is an economic barrier is your insistence on accompanying the music with gallons of beer and platefuls of food. It is the music which is important.

We can not give in to the temptation to raise up professionals as heros for worship and adoration.

The folk world manages to resist this temptation pretty well. Folk professionals have their feet on the ground and are approachable in the way few are in other genres. It is quite possible, quite normal in fact, for ordinary enthusiasts to be on first-name terms with internationally-recognised professional performers. How accessible are the professionals in other genres?

Respect, yes. Inspiration, yes. Unashamedly stealing their material, yes. Worship and adoration? No. Sorry guys.

We must all, no matter what the quality meet at the festivals as one family with access to all.

I don't know what festivals you go to, but you seem to have a very different experience from the rest of us. "One family with access to all" pretty much describes the atmosphere of most folk festivals I know. If you feel excluded, perhaps you should try some different festivals. Or perhaps you should consider whether this is due to your own behaviour and attitudes.

We should shun the entertainer performer relationship in favor of the teacher and learner.

Again, the distinction between entertainer/performer and audience is more blurred in folk than in possibly any other genre. Most performers do teach, not only by giving formal workshops but in explaining the songs and their provenance during performances.

All of these 'problems' exist only in your imagination. Yes, there are problems facing folk and preventing it from being more widely popular, but these are not them. In fact your solutions, especially your insistence that quality is not important, would add to the problems rather than solve them. You are so wide of the mark, it is laughable.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:53 PM

Conrad, you are trying to peer at the vast Cosmos through the tiny keyhole of your own inadequacy.

In the meantime, the world of folk music will not only survive, but thrive very nicely, thank you, without the straitjacket of you limiting ideas.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Will Fly
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:51 PM

We don't have to do any of these things at all.

When did folk music start being "heritage? Let's have your idea of what you mean by "folk music" - examples please, just so we know what music you're applying your stupid principles to.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:34 PM

Folk music like no other genre has an amazing heritage to care for and protect and keep alive. We have to guard against using the limited resources at our disposal to promote entirely new music at the expense of the treasures we are obligated to care for and the tradition that we need to keep alive- no just on recordings and in libraries.

We must keep access to the music free and reject any theory that says that quality is more important than the songs.

We must keep the doors open to those of all incomes especially the poor.

We can not give in to the temptation to raise up professionals as heros for worship and adoration.

We must all, no matter what the quality meet at the festivals as one family with access to all.

We should shun the entertainer performer relationship in favor of the teacher and learner.

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:29 PM

"Clearly Don would exclude those with the most songs who are just not Professional enough."

You, sir, are a LIAR.

You are DELIBERATELY misrepresenting what I've been saying all along.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:37 PM

Nothing inherently good about what anyone is used to.

Get over it changes might be helpful.

Quality raised again and again....hey it doesnt matter. If you have the songs they are important not quality.

Clearly Don would exclude those with the most songs who are just not Professional enough.

That is counter productive to expansion and wrong simple.

Quality discrimination, economic discrimination.....

No wonder that folk music has grown slowly....

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 02:40 PM

And why do I stick fairly close to a recital format for formal organizations like those I mentioned? Because that's what they are used to.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 02:33 PM

I tend to agree pretty much with what you said, Suib, with one small exception:

". . . overly precious recital of Folk Song in a coffee house. . . ."

Most coffeehouse performances that I've seen and been involved in are not "recitals." They're pretty informal, with a lot of interaction with the audience.

One coffeehouse I sang in a lot during the 1960s generally had three or four singers up front at any given time. No set program and not always the same singers. We played off each other, did impromptu duets, trios, and such. A lot of banter and interplay (unrehearsed!) between the singers and with the audience. An evening at this coffeehouse was sort of like going to a party, and the audiences (generally wall-to-wall on Friday and Saturday nights) loved it!

I save the "recitals" for when I'm singing for some fairly formal organization like the Early Music Guild or the Seattle Classic Guitar Society. But I still keep it pretty relaxed.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 01:58 PM

At the risk of repeating myself, for the vast majority people Folk Music is a minority irrelevance of interest to a bunch of like-minded misfits & weirdos collectively known as Folkies. Folkies are a very special sort of human being - you seldom meet one in the real world, but when they're flocking in their collective feathery midsts it's as if the whole world is Folk.

Actually, I can see where Conrad is coming from here, and might sympathise to a certain extent - I'm a lot happier roaring The Old Songs with a bunch of drunken Hearty Traddies in a rancid back room someplace than sitting paying careful attention to an overly precious recital of Folk Song in a coffee house, but hey - horses for courses after all. It amounts to the same thing at the end of the day - the real folk still stay away in droves because they've got more pressing things to get on with.

People aren't being kept away from folk by anything other than folk's wholesale irrelevance to their lives - nothing to do with beer prices or performance quality. Those who are there are what's important - cherish it; I know I do.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 01:41 PM

"Expansion of the tradition is now being set back by a lack of understanding of the ways people are kept from it."

People are kept from folk events by mediocre or downright inept performers who do not engage the interest of the audience and in some cases, completely turn people off. "So that's folk music! Well, that's enough of that!" Whereas, if they hear a performer who is at least listenable, who sings the songs in an engaging manner, and who can give relevant information about the backgrounds of the songs—without talking too much—they are entertained and informed, and most people find that sort of thing an enjoyable experience.

People are also kept from folk events by having to encounter other audience members who are so beered up that they get loud, obnoxious, and barf on other people's shoes.

"Lots of barriers could be removed and new practices which transform performance to sharing can be implemented."

Like lowering the cost of beer, and thus increasing the number of drunk, loud, obnoxious audience members who barf of other people's shoes? Not a good move.

One of the big reasons I prefer singing in coffeehouses to singing in bars (despite the fact that bars usually pay much better than coffeehouses do) is that people drinking coffee tend to be alert and pay attention to the singers rather than focusing on obliterating their ability to think and boring holes in their livers. And barfing on other people's shoes!

And most of the singers I know feel the same way.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 12:06 PM

Yup. That was me actually WAV - your friendly nieghbourhood Beast (known to some as the Rudest Man in Folk but we won't go into that here; you and I both know differently, do we not?) trying to imagine what sort of cove Fred Folkmusic might be. Perhaps he's a troglodytic throw-back like Fred Flintsone - or maybe wor Canny Conrad fits the bill just right? But I prefer to reserve it for certain company, say in our local singaround the next time someone accuses me of singing The Collier's Rant too slow, then my repost will be:

And just who the hell do you think you are? Fred Folkmusic?

Though being the Rudest Man in Folk I'll be duty bound to crank up the alliterative tension with a suitably vernacular expletive...

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:38 AM

Just passed The Number of the Beast.