Money v Folk

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:49 AM

as it is today, they were the example of quality that less skilled musicians aspired to.

Rubbish - name one pre-1850 traditional singer that Joe public 'aspired to' - and was paid money. Folk singing back then was a communal/participatory activity. Only in comparatively recent times has it become a performance/receptive one and THAT'S when serious money entered the equation.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Mr Red
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:16 AM

As
<hushed tones> Martin Carthy </hushed tones>
says

You can do anything to Folk and it will survive, except ignore it.

OK, I would not dare to disagree with the MBE, though I have to add there are a lot of things you can do to Folk and it won't stick in my mind - which is a way of defining "surviving" for one individual (me).

And there are people who will do it to Folk and I can happily ignore them, and their endeavours.

Money is an agenda and too much of it distorts the product. Which is probably why Martin asked for smaller fees than his comtemporaries, and was criticised for it. But then Paul Simon charged too much for his appearances (according to those at the time) and where is he now? In "Folk" or "Entertainment"? And Folk survived.

So is the "Observer" hiding their agenda?

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:51 AM

Without television, iPods, and video games, they didn't have much to do but participate if they wanted amusement. It doesn't mean that "the people" created, though,-- music has always been created by songwriters and composers, made popular by performers/entertainers, and then learned from them by "the people".

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:56 AM

Sminky

If we're talking folk music, then the answer is 650BC - 1850AD (approx).

So between 650BC and 1850AD no-one was paid to sing folk music. I'm intrigued. Maybe you can

a) prove it and

b) define folk music.

Have fun.

:D

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:08 AM

a) Sorry, Dave, the onus is on you (just one scrap of evidence from anywhere that singers were paid will do).

b) No.

It's Friday, I will certainly have fun.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:16 AM

Most of us like folk music in some form or another (or why would we be here?) but some are less enthusiastic about an unthinking, generic delivery that has long since passed into parody. A few claim that performance is the only one worth listening to and certainly the only stuff that can be called folk. It's patent nonsense alongside the dogma that rock and roll died on the plane with Buddy Holly and the Big Bopper, or atonal, serial music killed romanticism but it acts as a compass for those who need such things.
Fortunately most of us just keep our ears open and don't require a backstory to prove what's good.

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

So between 650BC and 1850AD no-one was paid to sing folk music?
John Dowland
Turlough O'Caralan
Banjo Paterson

They may not have been considered Folk in their day - but after a hundred years or more - the distinction is fading.

& - Sir Paul McCartney (you just wait - trust me)

And there are whole threads on "Molly Malone" and who wrote it.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: trevek
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:51 AM

Funny, I'm sure in the Bible it mentions singers being paid (mustn't have been folk musicians, just wedding-bar mitzvah bands).

Romans had paid performers and rates of pay for particular ones, I'm sure.

Ancient Greece... that Orpheus guy mustn't have ben a folkie.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Mark Ross
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:02 AM

When Woody Guthrie was asked to play for a good cause, he replied, "Lady we don't play for bad causes!"

Mark Ross

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:13 AM

Dear me!

John Dowland - composer and lutenist
Turlough O'Carolan - composer and harper
Banjo Paterson - pre 1850?
Ancient Rome?
Ancient Greece?

I'm not asking much here, guys. Just one example in, what?, 1500 years

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Morris-ey
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:13 AM

Mr Observer:

I'm interested.

You have had many replies from which you should be able to make up your mind - since you clearly have no ideas of your own - what do you think?

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:18 AM

Sorry, that was me.

And sorry, that should be 2500 years.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:35 AM

John Dowland: singer-songwriter
Turlough O'Carolan: singer-songwriter
and
Pete Seeger: singer-songwriter

The difference is what, exactly? Oh yeah...Pete doesn't get paid.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Grab
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:40 AM

Singer - don't know. But musician-wise - do the names Paganini and Turlough o'Carolan ring any bells? Both made a decent living from their music.

At the very least, musicians would receive board, lodging and clothing from the rich family putting them up (or at least board and lodging for an itinerant musician staying the night). If you choose this to mean that they weren't paid *money*, then you can try that interpretation, but it's not really a valid reading of the situation in a barter economy (which was generally the case back then) - and even then, itinerant musicians (the folk variety) would be busking for money.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST, Sminky`
Date: 09 May 08 - 11:30 AM

People are starting to give answers to questions that haven't been asked.

This thread is about Money and Folk. I repeat:- name one pre-1850 traditional singer that was paid money.

I can't get much more specific than that.

My original contention was that earning money from 'folk' music in the period 650BC - 1850BC was, at best, a peripheral activity. I have yet to be convinced otherwise.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 May 08 - 11:51 AM

Smirky, what information do you have that indicates that neither O'Carolan nor Dowland were paid money? And what is it that you consider to be "folk music", anyway?

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 09 May 08 - 12:58 PM

Art:

Dowland was a court musician in Paris, Denmark and London. He was a professional composer and musician. He was paid a salary by his various patrons. So was Mozart. So was Handel. No difference.

O'Carolan was a composer and musician who sang for his supper. He may or may not have been paid in cash. You can argue the toss over whether he was a 'folk' musician or a classical composer.

Now tell me how this alters my contention that earning money from 'folk' music (use the 1954 definition, if you wish) in the period 650BC - 1850BC was, at best, a peripheral activity.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 09 May 08 - 01:27 PM

Seems to me that the asker of this question never specified a time frame in the first place; why, all of a sudden, has this changed?

Frankly this is beginning to sound like yet another 'what is folk music' thread, something the world really doesn't need IMO

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 08 - 02:27 PM

I'm afraid that GUEST,Sminky is suffering from the pastoral notion that afflicts many aficionados of folk music, a sort of "shepherds and milkmaids" ownership of songs and ballads that spontaneous composed themselves. Be not downcast, Sminky, because many of the early collectors of this material suffered from the same romantic misconception. For a somewhat more accurate picture, I recommend obtaining a copy of The Wandering Scholars by Helen Waddell.

The line between what we now call "folk music" and composed song has always been pretty fuzzy. As we know (and has been argued incessantly in thread after thread here on Mudcat), once the initial composer's identity has faded into the mists of antiquity but the song or songs he or she has produced are remembered and sung by a fairly wide and diverse number of people, they begin to fall into the category of what we refer to as "folk songs."

And sometimes it goes the other way. Many composers make use of "folk themes." In fact, this is the recommended method ("quotations" of folk songs in a composed work) for composers who wish their music to have a "national character." Examples: the song "Goin' Home" in Dvorak's "New World Symphony, "Simple Gifts" in Copland's "Appalachian Spring," many others.

Composed music and folk music are inextricably linked. As is the matter of payment for the performance of either.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 08 - 02:30 PM

And, I should add, always has been.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 May 08 - 05:49 PM

a) Sorry, Dave, the onus is on you (just one scrap of evidence from anywhere that singers were paid will do).

The onus is not on me at all, sminky. You want me to prove that people before 1850 were paid to sing? Just look up the records of any theatre for heavens sake. Shakespears own Globe theatre had paid singers. What do you want me to do, come round to your house with written records?

I am just back from an excelent night btw - Snake Davies was brilliant. Does it all for love of course. No money involved...:-)

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 May 08 - 05:59 PM

Oh yea, and

My original contention was that earning money from 'folk' music in the period 650BC - 1850BC was, at best, a peripheral activity. I have yet to be convinced otherwise.

You are making the distinction of 'folk' music, yet, when challenged, you refused point blank to define it. I have never made the distinction. As far as I am concerned all music is folk music. And people who are good enough have always been paid to perform it.

Are you suggesting that people like Mozart and Haydn were never paid? Or are you saying that Mozart and Haydn did not perform folk music?

Hope you enjoyed your night as much as me. Did you actualy PAY to see anyone?

:D

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 08 - 06:27 PM

The wandering minstrel or troubadour ~ singing songs he had not written himself, but gleaned from the singing of others ~ in the village square as people drop a few coppers in his hat.

"Busking" (although it was not called that in the middle ages) is an ancient tradition.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 09 May 08 - 06:46 PM

I would bet any begger who sang a song and held out his hat and accepted a penny was paid for the song. The history of begging is full of such instances where people who otherwise would be asking for spare change were exchanginging a service instead. I recall, perhaps wrongly, that Henry VIII outlawed begging unless a service was provided.

And if the Henry reference is wrong Gypsy musicians, wandering Klezmorim, The Wren Boys, all from different cultures, all got paid for a song or a piece of music. Usually when gathered at Trade fairs, horse auctions, religious holiday feasts.

Don

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:10 PM

And many of the songs that they sang are what we now call "folk songs."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:35 PM

Is there not also a tradition of a fair few of our traditional English songs being associated with licensed begging? (in other words, performing for money, food and beer - especially beer). See Ronald Hutton, "Stations of the Sun" for more details. In fact see it anyway - it's a very good read and he's a great proponent of evidence-base history. Of course people have always sung for pleasure - unmitigated by commerce and money - and especially in pre-radio and record player days. But to claim that that was the be-all and end all sounds like taking a present day argument within folk music and trying to force an historic precedent on it.

Meanwhile, I'm rather enjoying Alison Krauss and Percy on Later.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Grab
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:36 PM

Sminky, the thread is about *remuneration* and folk. In the current world, money is the only way of getting remuneration for work, but it's not the only way. "Paid for" does not automatically mean coins and banknotes. Since you're trying to make an artificial distinction between receiving money in a cash-based society and receiving board/lodging/clothing/instruments in a barter-based society, would you be happier if admission to the next Martin Carthy concert was priced at three chickens and a cow?

But still, the best ones *were* paid, both in kind and in money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel "Initially, minstrels were simply servants at Court". Servant=paid. "Another type of performers...were the gleemen, who had no settled abode, but roamed about from place to place, earning what they could from their performances." It's only Wikipedia, but I don't see the need to look any further.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:07 PM

This is basically one of the same points that Helen Waddell makes in The Wandering Scholars.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 May 08 - 07:13 AM

Something else has been puzzling me a lot. How come singers were paid before 650BC and then all of sudden it stopped? What happened in 650BC? The banning of payment for singing by the ancient Egyptians? The abolition of theatres in Theselonia? An attempt to stem the cacophony of the Celts?

Tell us please. It's driving me mad!

Cheers

:D

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 08 - 03:13 PM

Lousy union?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Mark Ross
Date: 11 May 08 - 03:45 PM

As Utah Phillips says, "You want to make a million dollars playing Folk Music? Start with 2 million!"

I've been doing this for 40 years or so and I've learned that there are tens of dollars to be made.

Mark Ross

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Anne Lister
Date: 11 May 08 - 05:32 PM

Seems to me a somewhat confused question from Sminky, so no wonder the answers are confused. When was the term "folk" first applied to specific types of songs anyway? Why would we have records of payment (or, more bizarre still, NON payment) to "traditional singers" when the concept of a "traditional singer" wasn't present in the first place? Even among contemporary source ("traditional") singers there's not always much of a distinction between the various songs in their repertoire. My fairly educated guess is that it was always much the same.

Now for singer songwriters it's an easy one - troubadours were certainly paid, and paid well,and there was a big difference between troubadours and strolling minstrels. But even the strolling minstrels needed food and beds.

Generally speaking, we reward skills and talents now as we have always done. A good musician is worth paying, just as a good artist is worth paying and a good sportsman or woman is worth paying. We may disagree about the levels of remuneration, and we may disagree about the quality of their work, but if someone is making their art or skill into their main bread and butter work the only decision any of us have to make is whether we dip into our own pockets to help them along or not. And how far we dip into those pockets. Why should the music we choose to call "folk" be any different?

Anne
folk singer marries actor ...anyone care to point out the problem with this scenario? *g*

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Kent Davis
Date: 11 May 08 - 11:15 PM

Two singers of traditional songs who, before 1850, were being paid:
Thomas D. Rice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_D._Rice

George Washington Dixon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Dixon

Kent Davis

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 12 May 08 - 07:16 AM

I am trying to wade through a shoal of red herrings here.

Dave:
Since you assert that "I have never made the distinction. As far as I am concerned all music is folk music." then plainly it's no use arguing with you. I concede that Freddie and the Dreamers were indeed paid to perform. BTW you should have finished your sentence with "I never heard no........."

Don:
You are suffering from that malady known as 'inverse ploughboys syndrome' whereby any suggestion that rural folk "clustered together in their cottages, but oftener at the road side, or in some favourite alehouse" - (Edwin Waugh, writing before Cecil Sharp had been born) and sang, for the sheer hell of it, is regarded as some kind of mythical romantic fantasy. If you read the eye-witnesses eg the Coppers, Thomas Hardy, Waugh here and here, you will find that country people did actually do that. And, in pre-Industrial Revolution UK, the vast majority of people were country people.

You look at folk music through 21st century eyes. If you were a villager living in 1723 where would you go to listen to/sing folk songs each night - a 'concert' in town (no railways, remember) or your local alehouse? And how much would it cost you? And on how many days of the year would you likely see a minstrel?

Grab:
"Servant=paid." Yes, and servant=employee. Not my idea of a folkie.

YES there were minstrels (the buskers of today), but I repeat - they were peripheral at best (as, indeed, are buskers).

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 12 May 08 - 12:37 PM

why doesn't busking count?

where did the songs everyone sang in so many variations come from?

did a landlord never pay a farthing to entice the better singer to his pub?

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 May 08 - 01:43 PM

I concede that Freddie and the Dreamers were indeed paid to perform.

Freddie and the Dreamers were performing between 650BC and 1850AD? Wow! I didn't know that. What I did know is that "lead singer, Freddie Garrity worked as a milkman and had played in a series of local Manchester skiffle groups - The Red Sox, the John Norman Four and finally The Kingfishers" (Courtesy of classicbands.com) So, yes, even the redoubtable Mr G was indeed a folky!

BTW you should have finished your sentence with "I never heard no........." Which sentence and why would I want to finish it with more than the standard three dot elipse?

And you still haven't explained what happened in 650BC - Can you let me know in the next 90 minutes (It's now 1840BST) - I'm off to the folk club then and would like to tell the audience something else exciting as well as the fact about Freddie:-)

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 08 - 01:50 PM

Sminky, I'm not going to take the time to list my credentials (which are substantial, not just as a lifelong performer but as an academician as well), but I don't believe you're qualified to say what I do and do not know. And it was apparent to me from your earlier posts that you are the one who is suffering from the "romantic mythic fantasy."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 May 08 - 03:18 PM

I noticed in answer to a point of Don's you say If you were a villager living in 1723 where would you go to listen to/sing folk songs each night - a 'concert' in town (no railways, remember) or your local alehouse? And how much would it cost you? And on how many days of the year would you likely see a minstrel?

Of course you would go to an alehouse and of course you wouldn't pay. That is because the landlord pays the minstrel to 'drum up custom'. Of course there were many days where they locals would sing for free as well. Pretty much like I paid to see Snake Davis on Friday and I am going to a singaround free tonight. Things in 1723 were not that dissimilar to now I guess.

Just what is your point, Sminky? Are you really trying to say that no performers were paid to sing for over 2.5K yesrs?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 12 May 08 - 03:22 PM

"they were peripheral at best (as, indeed, are buskers). "

Tell ya what Sminky, I've heard far better music being played by the so-called "peripherals" than I've heard in many a folk club or at many a concert.Indeed I have busked during the summer months, and I don't consider it to be beneath me, infact I have alot of fun...love that word fun :-D

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 08 - 04:45 PM

Here in Seattle, at the Pike Place Market, where you can buy many things such straight off the farm produce or straight off the boat fish, there are usually quite a number of buskers and street entertainers plying their trade, following, as I said above, an ancient tradition.

But this is the 21st century. I guess if I were a villager or a farmer back in 1723, I would never go to the village square or the local market or fair where I might run the danger of hearing a traveling (or local) singer perform in the hope of gleaning a few coins.

Gosh, I wonder where I went to sell my produce or to buy things - ???

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 May 08 - 07:09 PM

I've heard far better music being played by the so-called "peripherals" than I've heard in many a folk club or at many a concert

Maybe a review of the folk clubs and concerts you attend would be in order? Personaly I have heard many good fringe sessions but I don't think I have ever heard Christy Moore on a street corner or Steeleye Span at a singaround. Maybe I should review my fringe sessions?

and I don't consider it to be beneath me, infact I have alot of fun...

Why on earth would you? Is anyone suggesting that it is beneath anyone? And why are you suggesting that professional performance is in some way less fun and inferior to unpaid performance? This just seems to be reverse snobbery gone mad!

Cheers

:D

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 13 May 08 - 06:09 AM

Tom:
why doesn't busking count?
It does - but it's peripheral and always has been.

where did the songs everyone sang in so many variations come from?
From people gathering together as part of their daily routine and singing.

did a landlord never pay a farthing to entice the better singer to his pub?
I don't know, but nobody has produced any evidence that he did.

Dave:
even the redoubtable Mr G was indeed a folky!
According to you everyone is a folky.

Are you really trying to say that no performers were paid to sing for over 2.5K yesrs?
I'm asking for evidence that the payment of money/goods (pre-1850) in a folk setting was anything other than peripheral.

I'm off to the folk club then and would like to tell the audience something else exciting
Tell them "Things in 1723 were not that dissimilar to now". You'll have them rolling in the aisles.

Don:
I don't believe you're qualified to say what I do and do not know
That works both ways. No academician would interpret my comments to mean that "ballads that spontaneous composed themselves". Or perhaps you could point out where I said that? (BTW it's 'spontaneously'). No academician would dismiss so cursorily eyewitness evidence that rural folk would gather at work and play and just SING. And no academician would resort to petty points-scoring and name-calling just because someone's opinions don't happen to gel with their own.

Charlotte:
I've heard far better music being played by the so-called "peripherals" than I've heard in many a folk club
Me too.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:02 AM

You're missing the connections between my questions.

Human nature has not changed much throughout recorded history. Just because we have no evidence for something in the past does not suggest it didn't happen exactly the way it does now. I don't think you can seriously call busking peripheral (I'd ask what evidence you have but see my earlier sentence). Most singing was of course casual, spontaneous and unpaid - as it still is today. But if you want to study the tradition seriously you can't separate the activity from the repertoire. Some songs (particularly chant based) may have evolved naturally, and I'm sure people wrote for fun in every village. But looking at the quality of the songs that have survived we can surmise that bulk of the material we have today (and which they had then) was circulated, (sometimes in written form), and even possibly composed by the people you dismiss as buskers (I assume you're including wandering players, troubadours, and ballad singers in that 'peripheral' category). I'd say that was disrespectful to honest tradespeople who gave us something special. But you attitude is, sadly, not rare. The same thing happens today. People assure me that folk music is entirely about amateurs getting together for fun. But the vast majority of the songs I hear were learned by one medium or another from people who - through one trade or another - have some financial interest in music. That's life - and it was ever thus. There is certainly evidence of players being paid for dances, as well as to entertain - and again it is likely that the more committed and active musicians will have had the biggest influence on the tradition. And as for the behaviour of landlords through the ages, it's such a no-brainer that I feel entitled to say that if you believe they never paid singers, and you feel evidence is necessary, perhaps you can supply proof that they did not.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:44 AM

I'd agree. I'd seems to me impossible that there was a time when people have not received money for folk.

People assure me that folk music is entirely about amateurs getting together for fun.

I think there is a lot of confusion about this. Sure there are plenty, like myself who's biggest enjoyment tends to come from the informal (which in my experience btw can include pros and semi pros) events and I'd guess there others, like myself who have liked to try to put on paid acts without compulsory charges but to suggest there never has/should be money in it is nonsense... (and let's be honest, I've made money busking, have taken the odd £10, free bar tabs, etc. at certain times in the past...).

As I think we agreed (eventually, I hadn't understood where you were coming from at first) in another recent thread, we will eventually come back to the same points. The most important of which IMO is that the healthiest situation for folk music is a combination of all these interests (and for that matter abilities) and the understanding of different positions.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 13 May 08 - 07:55 AM

Indeed Jon. You need both horse and wheels to keep the cart rolling.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:05 AM

Tell ya what Sminky, I've heard far better music being played by the so-called "peripherals" than I've heard in many a folk club or at many a concert.

There are remarkable abilities with in the ranks of buskers, amatuer floor singers ans session players for sure and personally, in terms of musical ability, I think the best from these areas are more capable than some pros.

I'm not sure that provides a full or fair picture though as sheer musical ability is not (at least as far as I can tell) the only factor in giving a good performance. What I'd expect more than anything if say I was (not that I do) booking an act for a folk club from a pro is the ability to relate to the audience, perhaps assess the mood of the room, etc.

I've never been there (and never will) but I think there's a whole range of "stage craft" needed say to hold an hour together that many amateurs who might be able to turn out a blinding song, tune or two probably don't have.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:33 AM

What troubles me is the idea that professionals (meaning, in this context, people paid for performing) and amateurs are two entirely separate groups of people. I doubt if any folk (in whatever definition you choose) performer has ever turned down the offer of a few quid, free beer, a square meal... for doing a turn. Some will have made it a regular supplement to their income and some of those will have done well enough to give up their day job.

The idea that there has ever been some sort of Guild of Master Folk Singers strikes me as absurd. Where did they learn their trade? To suggest that the high quality of our traditional music could only arise from professionals seems disrespectful to our heritage and to brush aside the oral tradition as a myth.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Grab
Date: 13 May 08 - 11:02 AM

Sminky, frankly I don't care if you think that a paid servant doesn't qualify as a "folkie" by your personal definition. They were people singing traditional music, who were paid for doing so, and who were role models or aspirational figures for lesser (or younger) musicians. That answers your question.

You might also want to define what you consider to be "peripheral". You might be talking sheer numbers. In which case I'll certainly concede that a stadium full of football fans (or a valley full of football fans, further back in history) will certainly be singing without need of a minstrel. I'll further concede that if you're talking about worksongs or lullabies and nursery rhymes sung to children, then the majority would be sung without payment. But I *will* assert that without the existence of paid singers, the overwhelming majority of songs sung by those people, and the overwhelming majority of songs considered "traditional" today, simply wouldn't exist. Nor would most of the singing techniques exist, nor instrumental techniques, nor song/tune structures, nor dances. They were not created or evolved amongst people shouting out drinking songs, but amongst the few skileld musicians with real talent.

In plain terms, I submit that anyone's contribution to any field is based on their natural talent, training and practise. Those who had (and have, today) natural talent in something and are prepared to do the training and practise will make it - maybe not big, but they'll make it to some degree and contribute to their field. And by being better at it than anyone else, they'll naturally become professionals in that area because they'll enjoy it and be able to charge people for their services. This will further spread their contribution around that area.

Conversely, consider the impact of someone singing at home, or casually in a pub with friends after a few drinks (nothing as formal as the singaround we know today). They're not singing anything new, they're not working on new techniques, they're mostly not doing new arrangements. In the era you're talking about, they wouldn't even be singing anything that everyone else hadn't already heard - remember that a new person in town would be an event back then, both for news and for new ideas from other parts of the country. I'm not saying that people didn't have fun doing this, but they certainly weren't contributing to the genre, any more than some 16-year-old strumming away on a Bob Dylan cover is contributing today.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Leadfingers
Date: 13 May 08 - 11:43 AM

Sadly , in a contest , Money v Folk , Folk woulkdnt stand a chance .

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Leadfingers
Date: 13 May 08 - 11:43 AM

100 !!!