what does mudcat think of froots

Subject: RE: what does mudcat think of froots
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 06:25 PM

Living in the Past   ( getting me coat)

Subject: RE: what does mudcat think of froots
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 10 - 06:53 PM

I favour mangos, peaches, and papayas...

Subject: RE: what does mudcat think of froots
From: Vic Smith
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 05:05 AM

Mike (AKA Will Fly) has answered for me. Ian and fRoots are trying their best to keep an independent magazine going in an in the worst global downturn in decades. Look around the international folk music magazine market - what happened to Dirty Linen? Where is Penguin Eggs? How long is it since Living Traditions were putting on issues on a regular basis (is it two issues in 18 months?) Why is the daddy of all the folk magazines, Sing Out seeking wildly for big donations from its subscribers to keep itself going.

And - please don't take this the wrong way because I think you know that I am not trying to get at you or put you down - why is it so important to you what Ian and fRoots have achieved? They are only one aspect of the the whole scene, yet you seem very focussed on them in your postings here.

Subject: RE: what does mudcat think of froots
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 06:55 AM

my point is that it is the very nature of the majority of magazines newspapers etc,IS to sell magazines newspapers etc, that means they have to be interesting and on occasions sensational they have to create hype, they have to hype bands up etc etc.they cannot rely entirely upon promoting people purely on merit , because that does not sell so many copies, they have to be constantly finding a new flavour of the month.
in this respect Folk Roots is not alone, But Folk Roots does do this, it has to , to sell copies,IMO Folk Roots does have a policy of featuring young bands regardless of merit, most of them are good, but the deciding factor, why they are featured, is their youth., someone young and sexy sells copies .
that to me is no more acceptable, than someone being featured or not featured because of their race
this has nothing to do with egos or any personal crap,as I have stated before I get on perfectly well with Ian Anderson.

Subject: RE: what does mudcat think of froots
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 07:05 AM

having said all that, I believe Ian Anderson has a genuine love of roots and world music, and is not in the business purely for commercial gain, however he does have to sell copies, so he has to feature that which whill sell copies, and the sad fact is that being young and sexy will do this. however it means, as with tin pan aley and pop music that Music is not being promoted solely on its merit.
The only form of music [imo] which this does not happen very much is Clssical Music.

Subject: RE: what does mudcat think of froots
From: Continuity Jones
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 07:12 AM

Dick,

Would you prefer that fRoots had the Beatles on every 2nd cover, in the same way UNCUT / MOJO etc do to ensure their survival? Surely fRoots exploring and championing young musicians is a good thing? What's the alternative? 10 issues with The Watersons / Coppers on the cover?

CJ

Subject: RE: what does mudcat think of froots
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 07:30 AM

I think some of you may be comparing apples with oranges here.
No other folk site allows people to self publicise, or rant, or ride their hobby horses to the same extent as Mudcat.
Others have a narrower remit, like it or lump it.
Several people on here have been known to say, "It's Max's site, he can run it as he likes", to a chorus of sycophantic agreement from almost everybody.
So why is it wrong for other people to do the same with their sites?

Subject: RE: what does mudcat think of froots
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 07:51 AM

"so, why is he cash strapped."

Because everyone is... several posters above mentioned that a subscription to a magazine is a luxury they could no longer afford when everything is going up except wages and hemlines.

LTS

Subject: RE: what does mudcat think of froots
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 07:58 AM

"They are only one aspect of the the whole scene, yet you seem very focussed on them in your postings here."
Theres a clue in the title of the thread?

Subject: RE: what does mudcat think of froots
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 08:46 AM

Just to make it clear, when GSS says...

"the deciding factor, why they are featured, is their youth.,.that to me is no more acceptable, than someone being featured or not featured because of their race"

...this is opinion, speculation and conjecture. It is misleading to state this so baldly and unequivocally ("the deciding factor IS their youth", my emphasis), as if this was an actual established editorial policy that Ian Anderson had admitted to.

If you were widely-read journalist making a statement like that in a newspaper about a different newspaper, you'd be at risk of being sued for libel. It's one thing to say that, in your opinion fRoots features an inordinate number of young people on their cover; it's entirely different to baldly state that this what DECIDES the cover!

I haven't gone and examined all the previous fRoots covers, but the current fRoots cover pictures Konono No.1, none of whom are remotely young. Ergo, youth literally cannot be THE deciding factor (please note which word I have highlighted here and think about why I have chosen to highlight that particular word).

Subject: RE: what does mudcat think of froots
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 10:09 AM

come to think of it, paying too much attention to what/who is on the cover is pointless anyway, as what's in the magazine is much more important. The cover is just a picture. It's what's inside that counts.

Subject: RE: what does mudcat think of froots
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 10:53 AM

I dont think i mentioned the cover did I?, and yes that is just my opinion, however IAN does have to sell magazines.
newspapers do not sell if they are full of all the people that live happy contented lives, what sells newspapers is sensationalism.
magazines like folk roots[imo] sell if they are full of new young or different bands, each edition has to some extent find a new flavour of the month, to some extent hypeing bands up, helps to sell a magazine.   it is in my opinion one of the unfortunate cross overs from the pop world scene.
the other predicament that Folk Roots is in, is what is its purpose[other than to sell copy], if its purpose is to popularise roots music, it runs the risk of contributing to the alteration of the roots music by helping to commercialise it.

Subject: RE: what does mudcat think of froots
From: olddude
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 11:18 AM

Perhaps it is not a bad thing huh. Criticism can be justified or unjustified. I got that recently in another thread but it got me thinking how it gives one the time to reflect on why someone took it that way or said that. It gives us time to look back so maybe not a bad thing. I don't know the people nor do I know the magazine. But all in all, maybe a good time to reflect as to why they wrote that. Even if they were not justified, they thought they were. So what did we do or are we doing wrong to make them think that way. I agree sometimes people will say something only to cause a fight. Even then it is a good time to reflect.

My humble thoughts

Subject: RE: what does mudcat think of froots
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 07:06 AM

I have gathered from learned catters   that the only true folk music is of unknown origin and changed by the generations of artists who take it up when they find it.
Maybe what froots allegedly does is proper folk too?