Entertainment v Folk

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 08 May 08 - 01:58 PM

I get the feeling that we agree more than disagree, Graham, even though we put things differently. I certainly agree with the sentiments of your last post. I hope you also understand where I am coming from, though. And if not - I'd love the chance to talk it over a pint.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 May 08 - 03:56 PM

can I have a pint too,.Ipromise not to talk,but I might sing.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 08 - 05:52 PM

George, I agree with much of your post of 0847 (eastern Standard time, I assume) yesterday - except to say that you have always entertained well when I have seen you, but I think your primary purpose is social commentary.

There have been others (Dylan may be the best example) who have attracted and sometimes held attention, but were never entertaining and whose primary purpose was propangandising. Billy Bragg may be another of those: his "Sexuality" is embarassingly unlistenable but states much of truth.

To be an "entertainer" however is to seek merely to occupy the mass mind: a mind by definition usually vapid. A folk singer by defintion has roots in history. To the folk singer or folksong singer, being entertaining is an objective only insofar as it serves the song. To an "entertainer" being entertaining is either an objective in its own right or a means to a different end: aggrandisement, enrichment, or the service of his/her nether end.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Forsh
Date: 08 May 08 - 10:15 PM

THIS is FOLKIN ENTERTAINMENT!

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 09 May 08 - 03:46 AM

"To be an "entertainer" however is to seek merely to occupy the mass mind: a mind by definition usually vapid. A folk singer by defintion has roots in history."

Yep, I disagree with pretty much all of that. It confirms what the general public thinks of folkies (if they think of them at all) - they like the idea of 'the people' but find them disagreeable in the flesh. Condescension isn't restricted to folk but they do lack of irony particularly well.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: matt milton
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:20 AM

Strikes me that you only have a discussion here if you see the words "entertainment" and "entertaining" in the sense most people are taking it – namely the putting-on-a-show aspects of music performance. Things such as: playing music that people can sing along to, or tap their foot to; a varied mix of tunes; talking to the audience in between songs; perhaps explaining what a song is about; being witty; playing the occasional crowd-pleaser etc etc.

You could on the other hand take the words "entertainment" and "entertaining" to just mean anything you find interesting. In which case there's not really much point discussing it, because it goes without saying that that's a good thing. I mean, in that sense I find the paintings of Cy Twombly entertaining and the music of Merzbow and late Coltrane entertaining – but nobody would call that "entertainment" in the early Saturday evening telly sense of the word.

A different point:

"There have been others (Dylan may be the best example) who have attracted and sometimes held attention, but were never entertaining and whose primary purpose was propangandising"

I can't swallow this. I could just about meet you half way if you're referring only to the early "protest" Dylan. But even at his most "protest singer", his songs had a lot of wit, pun, and topicical satirical humour to them. A damn sight more crowd-pleasing"entertainment" than the majority of the acts on the same bills as him. When you watch footage of early Dylan, or the Newport performances, he's engaging with the crowd, he's very wry, very witty, there's a very strong persona that he's broadcasting...

Quite apart from anything else, it's pretty difficult to discern what Dylan's "primary purpose" ever was back then. The more I've read about him, the more it's clear that the political and protest content of his songs were something that kind of went with the territory of the thing he loved – doubtless he was sincere about it, but it was a corollary to being hip I think, not programmatic propagandising.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Grab
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:49 AM

I think so, George. I guess you mean that people can "entertain" in most pubs by strumming away at Wild Rover and Whiskey in the Jar non-stop, and you're right that they're probably doing no service to the music that way. We can probably entertain people more (as in "keep them interested in the music") by playing better quality material with better musicianship.

Roll on that pint. :-)

As far as the meaning of "entertainment" as "seeking merely to occupy the mass mind" a la Saturday evening TV, it'd be useful to remember that the correct name for this is actually "light entertainment". That name tells you everything you need to know about it.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:25 AM

Forsh, what an annoying bloody web site, the place and festival look absolutely great but all you get when you go through the site are people singing over one another.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Mr Red
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:25 AM

"To be an "entertainer" however is to seek merely to occupy the mass mind: a mind by definition usually vapid. A folk singer by defintion has roots in history."

Yep I agree with all of that.

Entertainment is not defined in it's genre. It can be Folk. But on the spectrum of Folk from accademia to accolade there is actually an over-run where the Folk element is all but superfluous. And that end point is very easy to define for one person. Impossible for a cohort even in a Folk forum such as this.

And, we haven't mentioned C&W yet. Or line dancing! - sorry I will wash my mouth out - immediately.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:40 AM

Folk songs delivered properly, can be entertaining. Why some folkies stand there, eyes closed, finger in the ear bother I really don't know. A folk song has a story to tell, and in order to get the message across one has to 'tell' the story. Eyes and teeth!!!

And boy does it annoy me when someone stands up and says "I don't know this one very well, but i'm going to sing it anyway" and proceeds to forget the words and we all sit in embarrassing silence waiting for the singer to remember a line, when it really doesn't matter cos we don't know what the song is about anyway cos our eyes have glazed over.

The performance standard needs to improve or folk singing will just be ridiculed as usual. How about some performance workshops at festivals, hmmmmm?

come onnnnn!

Sal

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:55 AM

"Why some folkies stand there, eyes closed, finger in the ear bother I really don't know"

Because they think they should, like kids with skateboards feel insecure without a baggy top and a funny walk.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: mattkeen
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:17 AM

+1 for Treewind's posts

Trolling always seems to work on Mudcat

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:25 AM

Oh no, it doesn't

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:41 AM

"Why some folkies stand there, eyes closed, finger in the ear bother I really don't know"

They might see or hear the punters watching.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,Morrisey
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:02 AM

You like what you like: in the common-or-garden meaning that is "entertainment" - could be any form of music or other media.

I have heard some truly dire amateurs and equally bad professionals. Personally, I don't care where the music comes from, how it was learned, what it means to the performer or what they think it should mean to me.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 May 08 - 01:34 PM

what else an you do with our fingers whilst singing a folksong? The ear is the natural repository.

as for closing the eyes, some of us are subject to srong sexual urges, and we feel a need to cut ourselves off from worldly distractions.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 09 May 08 - 02:30 PM

"One only needs to ask: If one's objective were simply to entertain, then why be involved with folk music?"

One only needs to ask..Why not? Seems to me there's this snobbery about calling folk singers (or whatever you want to call them) entertainers, I don't have that problem.

and socially commentary?....no thanks

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 08 - 02:52 PM

Apart from some functionality, such as helping to keep a steady rhythm while working together and doing so by singing, as in sea chanteys or track lining songs, why does one sing or listen to songs? Folk songs, any kind of songs?

To entertain and to be entertained!

The idea that folk songs should not be entertaining or that entertainers should not sing folk songs sounds like something out of the Puritan colonies, Salem witch trials, that sort of thing. If you enjoy eating, if you enjoy sex, if you enjoy singing or listening to someone sing, you're going straight to Hell!!

Is singing to entertain yourself when you are alone going to make you go blind or grow hair on the palms of your hands?

PFUI!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 09 May 08 - 05:22 PM

er.... yeah... Wot?

Sal

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 09 May 08 - 05:34 PM

Oops, sorry.

Came in here by accident. Can't add anything to the discussion.

Sorry..

Seamus

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST
Date: 10 May 08 - 02:22 PM

There is no conflict. People have different ways of being entertained. Some make their own music which is as entertaining as listening to others.

Entertainment is not limited to professional concerts by musicians, recordings, DVD's etc.

The reason folkmusic exists at all is because it has been and is entertaining to many people including those here on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 10 May 08 - 02:27 PM

If a folk (or whatever you want to call it) musician didn't entertain me, I don't think I'd be attending one of her/his gigs again ..makes sense to me...

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 10 May 08 - 08:42 PM

True folk is like true football - a grey game, played on grey days, watched by grey people.

I had no idea that it was that bright.

Stephen Lee

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: MikeofNorthumbria
Date: 11 May 08 - 05:57 AM

Sorry to be pedantic folks, but I suspect that some of the arguments in previous posts are rooted in a misunderstanding of one key word – and of how that word is used in certain circles. Let me try to clarify.

The problematic word is not "Entertainment", but "Entertainer". For decades it has been used as a put-down by amateur (and professional) critics, in phrases like "Oh he's not a folk singer – he's just an entertainer."   (Note the "just an…". It's the key to the whole issue.)

As many previous posters have noted, almost everyone who sings, plays or recites in public aims to entertain their audience – and rightly so. But some performers try to do more than "just" entertain. Pete Seeger is a classic example. His concerts are certainly entertaining. But they also make us more aware of the richness and diversity of human culture. They also remind us of the mutual obligations which all human beings have to one another, and to the Earth which sustains us all.   

Many others in the folk music community have striven to do likewise. However, the folk circuit also supports a number of performers who earn their corn by simply "giving the audience what it wants" – code for a mixture of bawdy jokes and sing-along choruses – and nothing more. This has proved a very successful formula. A few of these "entertainers" have even graduated from the folk circuit into the world of mass entertainment.

So, when a folk enthusiast describes a performer as "just an entertainer", it's often more in sorrow than in anger. The phrase conveys a sense of opportunities missed, of responsibilities neglected, and perhaps even of trust betrayed.

When William Wordsworth abandoned his youthful radicalism and became (as England's Poet Laureate) a pillar of the Establishment, the young Robert Browning expressed his disappointment in a poem entitled "The Lost Leader" which begins:

"Just for a handful of silver he left us…"

However, as far as I know, Browning never shouted out "Judas" at one of Wordsworth's public poetry readings.

Wassail!

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 08 - 03:11 PM

Good observation, MikeofNorthumbria. Therein lies much of the problem, I believe.

I do think that a singer of folk songs, provided he or she has both knowledge and respect for the songs themselves, can be a better entertainer than someone who is "just and entertainer."

That's what I try to do.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: trevek
Date: 12 May 08 - 04:14 AM

I've got tinnitus from working in a pub where they hammered out disco/techno tripe all night at levl 10. Putting my finger in my ear blocks out the noise of the disco-kiddies waffling loudly at the bar when I'm singing. Eyes are closed so I can't see people leaving (finger also helps block out sound of the footsteps).

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,Warwick Slade
Date: 12 May 08 - 10:14 AM

I basically agree with Mike of Northumbria that the word 'entertainer' is not considered folk. People want labels on everything. I play guitar and sing mainly songs with a humorous edge. When people ask what I do I say folk music and this puts an image in their mind eg man with guitar like Bob Dylan (I wish). If I say entertainer the image is man with a mic. like Bruce Forsyth
Was Jake Thackray a folk singer?

Subject: Lyr Add: FEED JAKE (Pirates of the Mississippi)
From: Peace
Date: 12 May 08 - 10:24 AM

Does anyone know the author of this folk song?



Pirates Of The Mississippi - "Feed Jake"

I'm standing at the crossroads in life, and I don't know where to go.
You know you've got my heart babe, but my music's got my soul.
Let me play it one more time, I'll tell the truth and make it rhyme,
And hope they understand me.

Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
If I die before I wake, feed Jake, he's been a good dog,
My best friend right through it all, if I die before I wake,
Feed Jake

Now Broadway's like a sewer, bums and hookers everywhere.
Whino's passed out on the side walk, doesn't anybody care.
Some say he's worthless, just let him be.
But I for one would have to disagree.
And so would their mama.

Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
If I die before I wake, feed Jake, he's been a good dog,
My best friend right through it all, if I die before I wake,
Feed Jake

If you get an ear pierced, some will call you gay.
But if you drive a pick-up, they'll say 'No, he must be straight.'
What we are and what we ain't, what we can and what we can't,
Does it really matter?

Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
If I die before I wake, feed Jake, he's been a good dog,
My best friend right through it all, if I die before I wake,
Feed Jake
If I die before I wake, feed Jake (x3)

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Melissa
Date: 12 May 08 - 10:50 AM

Peace:
(you really didn't want this information, did you?)

"Mayo's songwriting roots run deep. Her father, Danny Mayo, who wrote such hits as "Keeper of the Stars" (with Dickey Lee & Karen Staley) and "Feed Jake," was one of Nashville's top writers"

http://www.songwriteruniverse.com/mayo.htm

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Peace
Date: 12 May 08 - 11:06 AM

Indeed I did and do, Melissa. Thank you very much. I have loved that song ever since I first heard it waaaay back.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Melissa
Date: 12 May 08 - 11:18 AM

Well, I'm glad I found it then.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Peace
Date: 12 May 08 - 11:41 AM

EUREKA

I have just discovered the true definition for folk--or at least one that would calm all arguments and bring unity to the folk scene and possibly peace to the entire planet. I am not kidding.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 12 May 08 - 04:14 PM

"Entertainment", but "Entertainer".

Personally I don't have a problem with either of these words, I sing, I play various instruments and I hope I entertain my audiences, you can't ask for better than that. If you have a problem with either word, well........

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 12 May 08 - 04:19 PM

An Entertainment By A Young Lady You May Know
Entertaining the folks

*LOL*

Charlotte

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:46 AM

I think I'm beginning to see what this entertainment issue is all about. I had been baffled for months when it appeared that the word was being used as an insult. It has become obvious that the word entertainment (in its truest sense) is not what the "anti-entertainment" subscribers are complaining about. What they are against is being sold or told what entertainment is. Folkies want to rise above the pop ridden cheap tat that is sold to the masses as entertainment. What they enjoy has deeper meaning (many others have described this far better than I can); and the people who provide it carry little or no celebrity status; another thing intelligent people are sick and tired of.

So it isn't the word but the perception of the word that upsets the people who don't want their music to be spoken of in the same breath as the X factor.

Very understandable.

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: Peace
Date: 13 May 08 - 09:50 AM

Good lord. I thought I was just singin' songs. I feel better now. Chuffed in fact (if chuffed means what I think it does).

Subject: RE: Entertainment v Folk
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 08 - 03:48 AM

REFRESH