Our ghastly folk tradition

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:03 PM

I like clubs like that, too, Kitty. But there is informal and informal. An informal club can be a joy but when it becomes too informal it can get abused by those people who Dianne is complaining about.

To be honest, I am probably one at times (beard and tankard - guilty as charged!) but at least I do try to learn my words, rehearse before I go out and make sure I pitch the song in the right key. I also play concertina, guitar and various other instruments but unless I know I can play the tune the whole way through without too many cock-ups I won't play it. Well, unless you count my infamous hesitation polka on piano accordion :-) Which is why I only play about 6 accompanied songs and tunes!

There are however those who will not give the audience the same consideration. Be it a lousy performance of a traditional classic or a poorly penned piece of teen angst it is unfair on the audience and the image of 'folk' to do it. Lets have clubs where people can enjoy performing, even if they are crap, but keep them away from people who don't want to hear it and, for heavens sake, don't let it tar all folk clubs with the same brush.

We now ban smoking in public places to protect peoples health. How about banning crap public performances to protect their sanity? :-)

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: MikeofNorthumbria
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:06 PM

Kitty - your "recording a contrary opinion" is fine by me. Minorities are entitled to have their dissent from the majority recorded in the minutes, so they can say "I told you so" if the passage of time proves them right. But it's the the raw anger in so many other postings that troubles me. If only all that energy could be applied to some useful task, we might yet save the world from global warming.

Wassail!

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:09 PM

Kitty is right Mike

I had an emotional response to Parris because he was rubbishing something I value highly - (and I also hate to see someone with that amount of media power dump on an innocent honest, expert and talented artist). But those two reactions would not have been enough to make me write to the BBC, because - as many have so kindly taken the trouble to point out - it doesn't matter one jot on that level in the greater scheme of things.

But I had two professional reactions as well.

The first was the.. err... oh lets call it racist element because it's late and i can't be bothered to find the correct words, but you do know what I mean I think (others have expressed it well above). The ex BBC producer in me baulked at that - and at hearing sloppy, nasty, jingoistic journalism on a programme like POYW.

The fourth reaction was from the performer in me - as someone closely involved in the business and promotional aspects of the folk world, who happens to have spent many years as a corporate communications consultant.

People over on the BBC site have told me I'm just being thin-skinned. Yes, on a personal level I am, but on a professional level - well let me quote myself, again because it's late.

"There are some basic do's and don'ts in the exciting game we call public relations, and one of the don'ts is never to let someone like Parris rubbish your product without challenge, and one of the do's is to take every opportunity to put your point of view across and to promote your product by every means at your disposal, and especially to grab an opportunity like this with both sticky hands."

Folk music may be the people's music and essentially amateur and participatory and all that which we know and love here, and it may also be a cultural wellspring which needs to be cherished and nourished, but it is also very much a business, and so must sometimes behave like one.

I therefore have four reasons for wanting to at least be seen to try to persuade Parris to remove his blinkers (and earplugs) - and wanting not to hear people express a view that its a storm in a tea cup.

We sail ships on storms smaller than this.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:13 PM

'I think that it is an act of crass stupidity for one who relies on the public for a living, to heedlessly antagonise some of that public'



Howard Stern , the American 'shock jock'has been making a living out of doing just that for more than a few years, which is no excuse, of course for the behaviour, but I don't think Matthew Parris is going away anytime soon.

Charlotte (the view from ma and Pa's piano stool)

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Folkiedave
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:13 PM

Where I post on this Forum, and on what subject, I believe is up to me. It most certainly will not be decided by such as yourself and I will not be dictated to by the likes of you.

Quite correct old fruit. And I mean that most sincerely.

He can apologise for making a crass remark on a subject of which he clearly knows nothing. I am sorry your pedantry fails to understand that.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:21 PM

Charlotte, you compare apples and oranges as usual, one is known for being offensive, and that's what gets him his audience, the other; Matthew Parris while being offensive on a part time basis, is a writer and broadcaster of some repute, who expects to be taken seriously.
He does not rely on his ability to offend to make a living, as the unlovely Howard Stern does. Yes we do know of him over her too.

G

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:34 PM

'Charlotte, you compare apples and oranges as usual,'

I think not


'who expects to be taken seriously.'

and Parris is being taken seriously isn't he? At least by some. This will have all blown over in a few days, as these things do, and the tradition will still be there, as strong as ever. Parris is simply getting what he wants, attention.

Charlotte (the view from Ma and Pa's piano stool)

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:39 PM

Thanks Tom - It's the first time I've protested to the BBC about anything, but as you said about your reaction, mine was an emotional response to what I valued.

Kitty

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:43 PM

Oh dear, if you want the last word have it lassie, but for gods sake ditch the stool before the enema nurse arrives.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:44 PM

Of course "you think not", dear. Because despite having no direct experience of Parris in order to be able to voice an informed opinion, you're bound and determined to have one anyway.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:58 PM

Oh dear, I didn't start this thread to promote aggro between British catters, - and I've met many of those who have posted. Are we agreed on anything, eg was Matthew Parris out of order in saying what he did?

Kitty

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:13 PM

Charlotte is not British - she's Canadian. Which is why it's odd she has such strong opinions on this (and so many other) issues she can't possibly have any direct experience of.

Matthew Parris was an idiot for saying what he did. People who think it's unimportant don't perhaps realise how much damage this slow trickle of sneering media denegration does to the tradition.

IMHO.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:33 PM

Well if Parris is our Howard Stern, who is he going to get to ride a Sybian and when will the broadcats be on?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 02:34 AM

Richard Bridge kindly invites me to:
Feel free to criticise what is not well done.

I do. As Dave Polshaw puts it very graphically:
Don't go on unless properly rehearsed and thus unlikely to screw it up.

This is what "being professional" means, whether ot not you're being paid for it.
Not to bother is to disrespect the music. That's what GEFFs do.
They are being wilfully ignorant, whereas pundits like Mr Parris are doing it to raise a laugh which usually works because the general public are conditioned to regard tradarts thus.

The way forward to reverse this is not to get all offended because someone from without the clique is saying what is all too often true. It is to:

(1) ensure that every public performance is of the highest quality and to financially accordingly

(2) lobby for the tradarts, including education projects, to be properly funded

(3) tighten up organisation, as in comparable countries, to a considerably less ramshackle level.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 02:47 AM

Bugger. To "financially reward it accordingly".

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:47 AM

I have no quibble with your (1*) (2) or (3) but I'd add

(4) interact with the media effectively. Brand science applies whether we like it or not, and positioning can make all the difference to 1, 2 and 3.

Tom

* but see my posts above about vital roles played by the 'amateur' (full caveats apply) cogs in the folk machine.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:59 AM

"financially to reward it" may be what you should have said.

It isn't about funding.

"Professionalism" means doing something to get paid. It is the antonym of "amateur" which means doing something without being paid.

As (until venality set it) the olympics recognised, doing something for the love of it without expectation of reward is more meritorious than doing the sane thing in hope of reward.

The path you seek to tread leads to doing what is rewarding, not what is meritorious.

You do not merely feel free to criticise what is not well done. You seek to criticise anything that is not done in a straitjacket of "presentation", the god of the management consultant. We've all seen it in country, and country and western, music: the heartwarming aside, cough, sniff or tear that comes in exactly the same place in thousands of renditions. Whan you can fake sincerity you've got it made. That's what you are making.

Oh, and of course a series of snouts in an Arts council funded gravytrain, getting fed because they can fill the right forms.

It isn't about "Good enough for folk" - which was never a credo but rather a very English piece of self-deprecation. Every amateur I know tries incessantly to improve, to get it "right" (by which I mean of course to present what they intended to present rather than to deliver something in the exact mould of a predetermined form - and indeed I understand that one criticism of Comhaltas is that its predeterministic approach to competitions results in ossification).

I am not sufficiently self important to sit in judgment on them all. Better they should try and fail than be shut out by petty Hitlers.

Why don't you apply your analysis to ethnic social behaviour and see how acceptable it is? You conspire with sneerers like Parris, to the detriment of the English folk traditions, and you even seem to accept that he should not be permitted to speak as he did about Welsh, Irish, or Scottish folk arts, while they too have amateurs.

You reserve your arrogant assumption for the English folk arts. You are not part of the solution. You are part of the problem.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:19 AM

RB said:

"Professionalism" means doing something to get paid
No it doesn't. It means doing it properly. Then getting paid. Maybe.

"amateur" . . . means doing something without being paid
It doesn't. It means doing it for the love of it, regardless of payment.

It isn't about "Good enough for folk" - which was never a credo but rather a very English piece of self-deprecation
Scottish actually, © Alex Campbell.

Didn't you get the bum's rush from fRoots for spewing out these inaccurate platitudes?

Your final three paragraphs are overwhelmingly incomprehensible. I advise a return to bed for the rest of the day.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:20 AM

You thought was offensive. You should have been living in a mining area when that little bugger was a trusted minion of the blessed Margaret.

While I don't agree that English folk music is ghastly in its entirety - it does have some fairly ghastly manifestations. if you've never sat in a folk club, sometimes one that you're actually running and thought, what the hell am I doing with my life - you've not actually had much experience of any kind of folk music - English or otherwise.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:22 AM

Oh dear - it's such a shame that we so often find ourselves here.

Richard: No - "professional" is the antonym of "amateur" which have the definitions you cite. "Professionalism" mean to behave in a professional manner, as if professional even when not being paid.

But you're right about the rest - I'm not going to repeat myself because i think i maid the points very well above.

Diane: You can't reinvent the wheel. We are here because we are here - and the tribe (and I use that word deliberately) that you despise are here for very good cultural and historic reason, and as I've said every cog, of whatever size, has to turn for the machine to function.

Where I think you ARE right - and if only everyone would just go with this we might stop this constant bickering - is that there is a time and a place for everything.

Sometimes the passion matters more than the performance. Sometimes it's the reverse. Sometimes the standards are around participation, sometimes they are about presentation.

There is room for all, and as long as people have a little think about where they are, and who is listening and why, before striking up there should be no problem.

Would and could test cricket exist without village cricket? Of course not.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:40 AM

Bugger it, I'm agreeing with too many people here. Diane is right, up to a point, and Dave Polshaw has neatly cut to the nub of the issue, while Tom has come in with a possible solution and Richard has warned of the dangers of of over-sophistication.
The heart of the issue, though, is how we as 'keepers of the tradition' or whatever pompous term you fancy, appear to the majority for whom that tradition is unfamiliar.
And the bog-standard folk club simply doesn't cut it as a shop window for trad material. I know there are thriving clubs, but compare them to open mic evenings, poetry slams; performance gigs of all sorts and you'll find that they make up a tiny proportion of the performing arts in the UK, and a declining one at that. As a mass phenomenon and as a young person's 'thing' folk clubs have had their day and are going the way of Jazz and Skiffle clubs. A few beacons of brilliance will be left as places of pilgrimage for the true believer, and others will simply fade and and wither into mediocrity and extinction along with their clientele.
Festivals are another matter - a lot of festivalgoers are attracted by the names of those they've seen in concert or whose reputation precedes them. They also attract many more youngsters, and there you do see some crossover in sessions and singarounds between old farts like me and younger performers. It's from there that the younger talent comes - young players who pick up their tunes from sessions and who may never have been to a folk club in their lives and improve then and try to get them right, as Richard says. And presentation does matter to that end.
As Diane says, it's the effing 'f'word that puts people off. Traditional material played well and with imagination is still traditional, whether you call it roots, ethnic, world, celtic (a real hate of mine, but still...) or indie/accoustic. The music that friends of mine like and appreciate isn't 'folk' in their eyes - yet. OK, Tim van Eyken, Bellowhead, Karine Polwart may be folk to us, but I think it's excellent that they can slip under people's prejudices and undermine them from within.
And all of them play supremely well and, yes, they are professional. All of them, however, have done their journeyman work at sessions, and still do when they get the chance. It's not 'us' the poor downtrodden amateur and 'them' the slick superstars - we're all part of the same tradition, and maybe we amateurs should show some of the same respect and dedication to the material that the pros can muster.
So, no personal attacks - just a fervent love of the material and an exasperation at the way that a great mass of the 'folk' world seems incapable of looking at itself critically yet dispassionately. If ity can, then I believe it will be able to engage coherently with the media and attempt to shrug off the stereotypical image as Tom has suggested. Until then, idle hacks will just see the endless beards and tankards.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:44 AM

beards and tankards
And I plead guilty on both charges!

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:46 AM

Very well put said Captain - only I'd not wait until the folk/world relationship changes of it's own accord. I'd want to play the media at their own game, and lead them past the tankards (I own 12 by the way but only use one as part of a stage set) to the music. Then the media becomes part of the solution not the problem. It can be done, trust me.

Tom 'tankard half full' Bliss

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Banjiman
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:04 AM

Tom,

"Then the media becomes part of the solution not the problem. It can be done, trust me."


Would you like to expand on this? It looks interesting and I would like to believe it is possible...


Of course there is room in the folk (trad arts....whatever)world for enthusiastic amateurs and slick professionals alike. A point made by several people....you can't become a slick professional without having been an enthusiastic amateur.....and I doubt you can have a thriving scene without both.

Paul

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:19 AM

Oh well the "caterwauling" of someone at the skilled end of things turning into GEEFF is interesting...

I really do not believe weaker performances have much impact on the general publics attitude to folk music who I doubt would particularly seek out folk clubs, sessions and singarounds and I don't think would really be able to tell or care whether (within limits) a singer is good or bad. A "folk accent" might for example strike first.

(To be honest. it's pretty much like that with me and opera singing. I at least mostly couldn't sort a really good one from a just about OK one. I don't care how skilled it is and I don't like (to my ears) "squeaky squaky" high pitched notes. Perhaps one day, something might open up my ears to it but I doubt very much if it will be the skill level of the performer.)

I'm in favour of room for folk at all levels and believe what (if any) standard/entry level an event sets is entirely their own affair. I do think that people should accept their standard might not be acceptable for a certain venue (I don't hold with anyone should be allowed to play anywhere) but that's as far as it goes.

Besides my "folk police" (which at least to date has been fictitious) fears and dislikes, I do wonder about other areas. Folk seems pretty unique in music but suppose I moved over to lets say cricket. Would one really blame amateur village cricketers if test cricket was poorly supported, or suggest cutting out players below a certain level of ability from playing anywhere as a resolution? Of course not, we would lay the blame fairly and squarely on those involved at the higher levels. It would be entirely up to them to market and make thier version uf the game more appealing.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:24 AM

It's just a matter of chipping away at any media contacts you have (there was supposed to be someone from the Telegraph at my gig at your club the other day, for example - but he wanted to hitch the article to famous people - (err, like Sting, he suggested!) - and I just couldn't give him what he wanted - but I AM trying), and generally grabbing any opportunities to you can, to put your views over - as in this case.

I've been taking to some publicists about trying to get some articles on the importance of the folk club movement into the broadsheets. It's a long job and will need funding - but that's the kind of thing we can at least think about.

I've always got an eye out for TV opportunities, though that would be like trying to drive two busses at once for me!

There are loads of people doing stuff in the radio field, they need all the support we can give.

The important thing is for the folk movement - and that includes all levels and abilities - to embrace outward as well as inward looking. There's a lot to write about, which makes good reading - but the media won't see that unless we show them where to look.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: theleveller
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:29 AM

Richard, I tend to agree with most of what you say and have always been a great defender of the 'amateur' in folk music. Whether people wish to perform in a polished and slick manner or in a 'warts and all way' is up to them and those who listen to them. It did, however, come as a salutory exercise when I acquired a portable digital recorder and discovered that my lovely, sonorous performances were often .....well, ghastly caterwauling. It's a great tool for discovering what's wrong with your own performance (not yours, Tom!)and, if you're that way inclined, doing something about it. Maybe more amateur performers should invest in one and ask 'is that really how I want to sound?'.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:36 AM

The cricket analogy is interesting.
You can argue that test cricket is poorly supported because the current generation seeks action and thrills rather than the subtle tactical game, and there's little the higher levels can do to change that. But general exposure to cricket is declining - fewer schools play it, and many pub sides find it hard to find players to commit to a season (unlike the UK Asian sides, which are flourishing), and one can argue that that's a wider cultural and demographic issue rather than the fault of the game's governing bodies.
Spectators at county level and below are thin on the ground and ageing, but the one growth area is 20:20 cricket, which has seen a phenomenal explosion of interest, both in the UK and India and has some seeing it as the future of the game and others as the nail in its coffin. What would 20:20 folk be like - or do we already have it in the form of the new, young artists on the concert circuit?
With cricket the selection of players is generally based on talent, given that even a village or pub team wants to win. Those with zero talent either self-select or end up, in desperate teams, as perpetual 12th man or scorer. And, as with music, those with real talent rise up through the system to the point where they're decried as being out of touch and in thrall to the sponsors and the cash! Hmm, maybe there's scope for a 12th man or scorer in folk clubs and sessions...

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Banjiman
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:44 AM

OK Tom,

I think you are suggesting carrying on doing what we are doing but better and more!

It gets slightly complicated when individual artists, clubs, festivals etc are leading this as self interest usually (and quite naturally...not a criticism of anyone) comes to the fore....rather than the good of the "movement" (whatever that is?) as a whole.

This should be where our lobbying organisations prove of value.....but these (especially the EFDSS) seem light years away from representing what I see as being important....even the title "English" puts me off and makes me (well us, I'm married to a Scot) feel alienated. Not that I don't value English Traditional Music (I was brought up on it) but those hallowed Halls of CS House seem a long, long way from North Yorks and the activities I am involved in.

I am sure that someone will tell me I am wrong about the EFDSS etc but if that is the case they have their marketing, PR and image all wrong....

Paul

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:58 AM

What would 20:20 folk be like?

I don't know but perhaps the long ballads are the test cricket? (Although, unlike test cricket, not something I personally enjoy - my interest doesn't last that long)

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 06:01 AM

EFDSS and FAE and AFO and MUfrtm, folkWISE and loads of other acronyms are all doing our bit - and when people like Kitty take up their pens (along with many others who don't post here) we all cheer. Would that more people appreciated how important it is.

Tom

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 06:36 AM

A number of internet radio stations play nothing but folk, so not only do we know what 20/20 folk is like - we know what 24/24 folk 365 days a year is like.

Fred McCormick who posted earlier on this thread, has a radio station playing all sorts of traditional music and posts his monthly play list on here.

And since the EFDSS person responsible for marketing occasionally posts on here I may just ask him to reply to Banjiman's comments about the EFDSS.

Ducks..............

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 07:25 AM

One thing that will surely kill folk music is the attitude that you are not allowed to do it unless you pass the tests set by the self-appointed (or indeed those appointed by others to be gatekeepers) - some of whom obviously have their own views as to the meaning of language.

If you can't contribute, and want to stop others contributing, just go away. It is such a shame to see those with a considerable store of knowledge about folk music so far up their own arses that they cannot think to apply it.


The endless, endless negativity and the gratuitous prejudice do far more harm than limited ability.



Leveller - yes, I hate my playing and singing, but some people are polite enough to accept it. I'd like to play better but I have been told that what I do has an individual character. I'd like to have a better voice, but if it's a matter of having to sound like an opera singer (ex opera singers like Jon Loomes excepted) I'll stay the way I am thanks, and some people have said that I use what I've got effectively. I'll never have the tone of John Barden, but hell, he does what he does and I do what I do. He's mostly a lot better tempered than me, too.

Most of the stuff in open mics is dogshit, the incompetent copying the antisocial. Don't take that as a model, it's nearly as bad as karaoke.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Banjiman
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 07:42 AM

Richard,

You say folk music should be participative then describe others' participation as "dogshit, the incompetent copying the antisocial." ....

No hypocrisy there then!

Paul

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 08:16 AM

you trying to say, karaoke isn't folk music....!

the trouble with roots music, it has no roots in reality.

My best karaoke number is SOS by Abba. I used to do Johnny B Goode but its no good if you know all the words.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: theleveller
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 08:47 AM

"...I'd like to have a better voice"

Fortunately, I do, Richard, she's my wife, Jools.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 08:49 AM

Attitudes at EFDSS have changed enormously in recent years, and progress is afoot. The organisation recently appointed a Heritage Education Officer to oversee the Take 6 Project, which brings several important library collections back into the communities where they were first collected, including Hampshire and Lancashire.

There is an awareness within EFDSS that, to many people, CSH in Camden seems a long way from where they are and what they're doing. I think the current development strategy aims to have a much stronger national impact and profile.

However, I would say that EFDSS has not been chiefly representing itself as a lobbying organisation - for that, it's probably best to look to Folk Arts England.

(as always, these remarks represent my personal opinion, and are not spoken on behalf of EFDSS.)

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:02 AM

As someone who can't sing, can't play an instrument and has enough of an awareness of his own limitations to avoid trying to do either in public, I don't really understand why some posters are so insistent about the necessity of the 'folk scene' being a participatory scene. Surely I am not alone in just wanting to listen, enjoy, hold opinions, discuss, etc? Does this somehow make me (and my ilk) 'less worthy'? Not at all. For those who want to participate, great, go for it. But for those of us that just want to enjoy listening to good quality music played and sung well, excuse us if we are a bit choosy how whe spend our hard earned cash.

I've been listening to a lot of recordings of Scandinavian traditional music recently and those musicians aren't scared to do what they do incredibly well. Neither are the artists Ruth listed further up the thread. Neither are people like Tom and the best of the folk club players. Of course there is room also for those with more enthusiasm than talent as well as talented amateurs, but to denigrate the professional and want-to-be professional singers and players of traditional and/or folk music as some on this thread have done serves no positive purpose. In fact its downright embarrassing.

Which kind of links back into the thread topic. I don't know how widely Mudcat is read, but I suspect some of the views espoused on here are far more damaging to folk's 'image' (whatever that is - I wouldn't know because I've never called myself a folkie...) than some off the cuff comment by a right wing commentator who has made a name for himself by being a bit of a smug smartarse. Granted he could have chosen some truly rubbish folk music (and as with any genre of music, there's plenty of it) to illustrate his point, rather than a decent bit of Irish singing, but the sky won't fall. I think Tom's response has some merits though, if he is trying to use any negative mention of folk in the media to push a more positive agenda. Not sure the 'Outraged of Basildon' approach some here seem to be taking is any use, though, especially when topped off with a side order of homophobia.

Finally, I'd urge everyone to re-read Captain Ginger's excellent post of 4.40 am.

Cheers,

Nigel

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Nigel Spencer
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:12 AM

Oops, that was me, cookieless.

Paul - Can I echo what Ruth said about EDFSS, and ask you (if you want to) to give a little more detail about what it is you find off-putting about how the organisation puts itself across? The reason I ask is that I think it's quite important for organisations both to listen to and learn from reasoned criticism and, where appropriate, to challenge misapprehensions.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:12 AM

I don't really understand why some posters are so insistent about the necessity of the 'folk scene' being a participatory scene. Surely I am not alone in just wanting to listen, enjoy, hold opinions, discuss, etc?

The fact that it is a scene in which participation at all levels is possible does not make participation compulsory.

Does this somehow make me (and my ilk) 'less worthy'? Not at all.

My personal feeling is that those who do not participate might be missing out on some enjoyment but are they less "less worthy"? I'd say no.

But for those of us that just want to enjoy listening to good quality music played and sung well, excuse us if we are a bit choosy how whe spend our hard earned cash.

So now you are more worthy?

No one is telling you where you should or should not spend your cash or what you should expect to receive from it. If you feel you are not getting your value for money in one place, find another.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Nigel Spencer
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:33 AM

Sorry, Jon, you've completely missed the point I was trying to make.

'No one is telling you where you should or should not spend your cash or what you should expect to receive from it.'

Erm... I know that. Where did I say they were?

'If you feel you are not getting your value for money in one place, find another.'

Ah, I see. So not so 'participatory' now, eh?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:41 AM

As I said, Nigel, it is your free choice no one is telling you how to spend your money.

Ah, I see. So not so 'participatory' now, eh?

I don't know what you are seeing. That a particular venue may have "entry level" requirements or perhaps only books paid guests in no way alters the fact that folk music is open to participation at all levels.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:48 AM

I think Jon means you can go and consort with the gay ex-MPs.

I have been astonished (well no, not really) that such a disgraceful display of homophobic prejudice has been allowed to stand. Presumably some imagine that Matthew Parris's sexuality precludes him from appreciating "real men" music.There can be no other explanation, not that it is any way justifiable.

There's also the element of inverted snobbery too. Paying out money for artistic performance isn't what we "real f*lkies" do. Well, sod that. It's an artist's livelihood.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 10:09 AM

Don't bring me into the "gay ex-MPs" comment.

I expect artists, their agents and event organisers to negotiate a fair fee for the performance. I view what I may be prepared to pay to hear that performance and how much a venue decided to charge for the performance as separate issues.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 10:37 AM

'Folk music is open to participation at all levels'

What music isn't?

I think sometimes we are so busy trying to embalm 'folk' in a cloud of specialness that we forget that many of its best (and worst) traits it shares with virtually every other genre of music imaginable. Now that's something to celebrate...

Now someone is no doubt going to tell me that 'folk' music is not a genre but a way of life or something...

Anyway, as I don't want to participate in the (folk) process of attempting to make Matthew Parris look reasonable by comparison, I'll get my coat.

By the way, his Andean travel book, 'Inca Cola' is a highly enjoyable read.

That's blown it!

Cheers

Nigel

PS Apologies for suggesting something can be 'embalmed in a cloud'.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Nigel Spencer
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 10:37 AM

Damned cookie thing...

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 11:15 AM

What music isn't?

I know of none with a scene like the folk club/session/singaround one.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 11:31 AM

Gospel
Trad Jazz
Sacred Harp
Amateur operatics
Madrigal groups
Brass & Silver bands
Concertina bands
Ukelele orchestras
Caribbean steel bands
Male voice choirs
Barber shop groups
Football crowds (erm maybe not . . .)

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Nigel Spencer
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 12:12 PM

And (non genre specific) singing groups. My lovely partner goes to one above a pub where they belt out anything from Britney Spears to Brian Eno to the Grateful Dead to god knows what else with gay abandon. And don't forget The Natural Voice Practitioners' Network where a group of people of any ability who love group singing can get together and hire a voice practitioner to work with them. My dad runs a group in the Midlands and they all love it. His group only do one British folk song - 'Ca the Yowes' alongside Euopean and American music, show tunes, pop songs, hymns...

Traditional music singarounds can be brilliant - I'm off to an excellent one tonight (I'll only join in the choruses though, I KNOW my limitations!), but they're far from unique.

Cheers

Nigel

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 12:18 PM

It's good to hear there is more going on than I knew about.

Anyway, Irish session in Norwich for me tonight. I doubt I'll be playing much though - my repertoire isn't good enough for this one. Still I enjoy listening too.