Our ghastly folk tradition

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Folkiedave
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 06:39 PM

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Folkiedave
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 06:47 PM

Sorry about the empty post.

I am with Tom on this one - which is why I wrote to the BBC immediately I had chance and have rebutted thneir reply.

Matthew Parris had enough sense to apologise for his remark about decapitating cyclists with piano stretched across roads. (It was just a joke guv').

He should be made to apologise in the same way to traditional music.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:05 PM

There you go again.

What, stupid clothes, unlike any rock/mobo/penguincladclassical musicians?
What, drink and drugs, unlike (ditto)?

"No wonder the DCMS has seemingly limitless millions to spend on the Olympics. Tessa Jowell is unaware that there's anything of value worthy of funding in the tradarts because the mainstream media tells her it's all a joke anyway. And that's what Joe (and Joanna) Public largely believe too."
Yes indeed. And what is worth funding is not slick meaningless professionalism like (say) Charlie Pride.

If you really believe it's all about entertaiment values then you have over dunnamany years learned even less than the stupid and bigoted Parris.

"'Meanwhile, the REAL musicians, the invisible ones that persons lost in Missouri (or even downtown Mitcham) don't believe exist are just getting on with playing, in sessions in people's houses, outside in rain and hail for Morris or in pubs without poncy tea lights on the tables, as they have always done for decades. Maybe even next door to you or across the street."

But that can't be meritorious can it C*ntess? Because then they aren't slick professional (empty, bland, insincere) entertainers.

It isn't about prostitution, about doing it for the money.

If anyone gave any credit to your bitter and twisted rantings you might be quite dangerous to the song and music you claim to value.

Back under the stone!

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 11:25 PM

Richard Bridge has never, to my knowledge, ever clapped eyes on me and certainly knows me not at all yet persists in mistaking me for someone else - some impresario maybe? - that I am not.

(Who's Charlie Pride anyway?)

The musician friend I referred to earlier who now lives in a land where the tradarts are taken seriously and receive adequate state funding has vast experience of ACE applications from both sides as he once had a day job assessing them as well as having successfully obtained funding for his own work. Forms filled in haphazardly by clueless "f*lkies" invariably gave him the biggest headache and made him ashamed of his own association with the genre. He now teaches and gigs wherever proper remuneration is forthcoming (i.e. rarely in Britain).

The very little I know of Richard Bridge is that he has a well-paid day job and thus probably gives never a thought to such considerations. I know not, furthermore, how he conducts himself at festivals but suspect he is one of the "f*lkily"-clad, tankard-waving perpetual amateurs that rampage around seaside towns making a bloody nuisance of themselves and saddling the genre with an even worse name in the eyes of the general public.

My reference to the lifelong musicians who live and play in your very own neighbourhoods was for the edification of those who seemingly imagine the "f*lk star" to be a species let out of a cage to perform on stages nowhere near where you are. On the contrary, everyone has them on their doorsteps, they are part of their communities and some even survive on their earnings, but not many in this country.

Richard Bridge persistently imagines I live out my life in the professional concert world but the truth is I rarely go near it, thus reinforcing my conviction that he's thinking of someone else. I have conversely, in the past, been banned from parts of the circuit for writing less than favourably about the nefariously greedy activities of certain self-styled luminaries, one especially who took 45% of the artists' gross fee for himself.

I have never promoted music myself (in this country anyway). The climate is just too unfavourable, given the hostility and ridicule of the majority who fail to understand it and the overall ignorance of that "minority group" whose interests it is supposed to serve. Since its components are so disparate and warring, anyone pursuing such a pointless aim is on a hiding to nothing.

I believe adult literacy tuition is available cheaply or even free. Perhaps providers could be encouraged to subscribe to those dinky Mudcat ads to encourage clients from among those incapable of reading and assimilating posts and thus spewing out replies consisting of such unremitting tripe.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 01:00 AM

"He should be made to apologise in the same way to traditional music." - Folkiedave

Why on earth should he do that? And if he were of a mind to do so, how would he go about doing that? How do you "apologise to traditional music"? The notion is ridiculous, someone of absolutely no significance voiced his opinion, it affects nothing.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 01:11 AM

What a vivid imagination!

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Gene Burton
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:07 AM

Snail-

My original three points were intended as jumping off points for a discussion on how we can put right what's going wrong in the folk world re. public perception and decline. I DID say at the time I didn't have or know all the answers; merely that IMO the discussion needs to be had & people need to think for themselves in order to take that forward. Who do YOU think is responsible?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Melissa
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:37 AM

I don't think anybody can truthfully deny that we have all stood by and watched awful behavior within this forum. Maybe we don't mind, maybe we like it, maybe we don't know how to make anything change. I'm sure it's an example of Human Nature in action.

Can anyone (nicely, please) tell me why the Parris guy's comment stirs you to action while the same type of obnoxiousness is acceptable to you within mudcat threads?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:58 AM

Hello Melissa

Yes I'm sorry this has been such a rough ride, especially for you. But the truth is there is actually very little one can do when someone here lets the emotions flood down to their fingertips. Long experience tells us that a short soft correction or objection is best, responding in kind only makes things worse. The mood is then more likely to improve and with luck fruitful debate is soon resumed. (I did offer you an admittedly rather British nod of support - and in fact did start to type something rather stronger, but you stuck up well for yourself so I moved back to my own agenda).

The reason I - and many other working musicians and various movers and shakers - are taking Parris to task on this is because he's an influential commentator (he writes for the Times and The Spectator and does a lot of broadcasting in the UK), and he made his comments on one of the most listened-to programmes on the UK's 'senior' station.

Apart from the fact that this means they could have been vastly more influential than any comment here, or on any other forum for that matter, the the way that the BBC does business offers us a chance to put our own case for the cultural and artistic merits of traditional music. Those of us who actively work to promote folk music in all its forms simply can't afford to let an opportunity like that go to waste.

Tom

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Melissa
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 03:12 AM

Tom,
The Parris thing provides something to stand on that's more in public view? That makes sense to me.

Does my idea that the way we behave amongst ourselves being counterproductive to the palatability of the music make sense to you?
Everything that's said here is said in front of strangers. People do sidle in by chancing upon us through running a search.

It just seems to me that a lot of members moan about no newcomers being interested in whichever aspect of the tradition is being discussed---and a lot of times, those are also the same people who are offish when stragglers stop in.
It's so easy to be friendly when a new person posts.

Insulated Exclusiveness has its charms, but it contradicts the idea of being Friendly and Welcoming.
At least I think it does?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: peregrina
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 03:22 AM

Hear Hear. Maybe there should be a separate 'mudcat xenophobia' thread like that thread for insults. I think and hope that most people posting would not, face to face, treat people of other races or national origin the way they treat newbies/relative outsiders here. At this point it goes beyond questions about the image of this community to fundamental questions of basic human decency.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: theleveller
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 03:39 AM

Mea culpa...I find myself guilty of gross musical hypocrisy. After condemning Mr Parris's outburst, I later referred to modern jazz as 'tuneless shit'. As a penance, I'll go and listen to two hours of massed melodeon playing. (That'll be just the one tune, then.)

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 03:45 AM

The fact that M. P. has spoken out against the war in Iraq means a thousand times more to me than his opinion of traditional music!

BTW there are many on this forum who would be quite happy to see the traditional side "dead and buried", that's if they've ever taken the trouble to listen to any real traditional music.
It's amazing the number of folk fans and performers who believe certain contemporary songs to be traditional.

We are not really qualified to sit in judgement on one of the finest political commentators around today....Ake(homophobe)

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 03:53 AM

At the risk of adding nothing constructive to an already muddied thread, I have to agree with both Teribus and Diane - Parris's comments are subjective and unlikely to influence anyone significantly (other than to get some people seething). And for every negative comment there is a positive; I was minded of some recent comments by Stephen Fry on his general loathing for dancing, but with a caveat for Morris Dancing because it was done for display and no-one was forced to participate.
I'm afraid the real enemy is, as Diane says, the 'folkies' who appear to Daily Mail-reading middle-England to have come from another planet and who pander to stereotypes with the 'good enough for folk' attitude and who generate a vague atmosphere of a care in the community event whenever they leave their day jobs behind and go a-folking with their laboured eccentricity. They're not the majority, but they're what a lot of the British public will call to mind when asked to envisage folk.
There are plenty of seriously good young musicians and performers who are making inroads into 'non folk' audiences, but they wouldn't be seen dead in a folk club and probably wouldn't be booked by many.
(and now I'll stand back and prepare to be told that I'm wrong by the folk world's equivalents of Comical Ali).

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:02 AM

Melissa, I hear what you are saying, but I personally feel that this forum is, largely, so well attended, by so many people who have such a rich array of opinions (and are not afraid to express them), that on the whole it is self-policing - even if not always a very nice place to be - and the hosts do keep a watchful eye on things too.

That doesn't mean that we'd not be a lot better off without some of the vitriol we read here, or that it's not intensely painful to be on the receiving end of the same - specially if you're new. But there is such a lot of traffic, that silly or dull threads soon slip off the bottom (matron), and even the ones with the hand-to-hand fighting benefit from input by more level-headed members, which balances those by our angrier customers, and provides a bit of first aid to any wounded cadets. (How many mixed metaphors in that then?)

You're right that people do step in here in all innocence, and that a warning sign on the door might be helpful, but the system functions well on the whole.

Now that's not true of the BBC Folk and Acoustic forum by comparison, which though moderated (not always benignly), and hosted (but often in absentia) has its fair share of trolls and flamers while attracting a massively higher percentage of newcomers - who drop in like autumn leaves via the BBCs only national folk programme, the UKs only mainstream folk festival, or who are looking for THE perfect place to promote their act (and immediately win a place on the BBC Radio Two playlist - ha!), or via other routes such as the BBC's defunct country music forum.

Over there it really IS essential that the local level-heads do their utmost to keep things steady, for the benefit of the image of UK folk music.

Here - well...

Tom

Tom

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: peregrina
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:04 AM

Sorry Tom, I can't agree that 'Here - well...'

Lively debate--great. Some of the personal abuse above, not. (see my post above this)>

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:04 AM

the way they treat newbies/relative outsiders here. At this point it goes beyond questions about the image of this community to fundamental questions of basic human decency
Sadly that is an attitude that is endemic to internet discussions. My own experience is that this place is a beacon of tolerance and understanding compared to some. It is a broad church, however, and it has its share of curmudgeons (of which I am probably one), lunatics and single-issue fanatics. As the thread maybe demonstrates, many here have thin skins but sharp tongues. I get the impression that the British posters tend to have the thinner skins when it comes to anything which is seen to threaten their orthodoxy and can be somewhat barbed in their parochialism.
Not that the thread topic isn't perfectly valid in itself - but it has had the effect of pulling back the chairs in the bar for the usual scrap. Something which must seem rather baffling and petty when viewed from Missouri.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Melissa
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:17 AM

Tom,
I'm really not all that new here..nor overly fragile.

What do you mean by 'self-policing'?
I think maybe you use the term differently than I do.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:18 AM

Peregrina - you are right of course. I was speaking in relative terms.

Captain - Yes, the image of UK folk music does present those of us tasked to promote it to the wider media with a knotty problem. Some people do indeed take against the look of some folk enthusiasts, but these people have every right to dress as they please, and no-one should forget that even dedicated 'fringe' folkies (Diane's GEFF brigade) make a serious, vital contribution across the board - and most of us fall into this category at some times in some circumstances. They may not buy many concert tickets, but they do sing and play and keep it real. They write some great songs, they remember and perform lots of traditional and lesser known material. They buy a LOT more beer than Concert folkies (and so keep the pubs - and therefore town councils - happy to support festivals). They buy instruments. They contribute, often with deep authority, to forums and other discussions. Many do go to concerts as well, or dance, or make other contributions. In short they are - as I said earlier - as vital a cog in the folk machine as the record stalls, the headliners, the buskers, the morris sides etc etc etc etc.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:19 AM

Well I am annoyed at what he said, but not because it was about 'English folk music' After all I am a Scot so wtf difference does it make to me?
I am annoyed because his remark betrayed a prejudiced mind, and an uninformed viewpoint. It was also an abuse of his position as the presenter of a radio programme, to use it to make derogatory remarks about anyone, or their culture, whatever you assume that to be.
Please don't lump me in with the tankard waving masses either,{ they're mostly nice folks if you get to know them!}
I go to a very few festivals to meet up with old friends, and enjoy playing and singing. I have NEVER been to a folk concert in my life, as I don't like concerts per se, and I also don't see them as a 'Folkie' activity.
I assume this will bring opprobrium down on my head from the more intolerant and entrenched posters, but don't confuse me with someone who gives a fuck for those with unbending minds.

G

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Melissa
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:20 AM

Captain Ginger, what does your Missouri comment mean?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Folkiedave
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:25 AM

Teribus.

Since you are the person who wrote that Gordon Ramsey personally cooked for 700+ troops, you are probably not the best person to criticise people's use of the English language old fruit.

Now why not go back down below the line and carry on defending US military policy in Iraq?
href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece
is where Matthew Parris wrote that cyclists should be decapitated.

Here is what he wrote:

"A festive custom we could do worse than foster would be stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists".

And here is where he apologised.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3123486.ece

Here is what he wrote:

"I offended many with my Christmas attack on cyclists. It was meant humorously but so many cyclists have taken it seriously that I plainly misjudged. I am sorry".

Now perhaps his description of a traditional singer was meant humourously and perhaps he could apologise for that if enough pressure was applied to him.

I apologise most sincerely if something that simple confused you.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:29 AM

By 'self policing' - well, see the way my comment reinforces Goik's comment, even though I'd already posted mine, and though he'd not read it yet. That's the sort of thing I mean. Mudcat doesn't need moderators - at least not ones like the BBC, has, who sit in the dark inside No 1984 Animal Farm Road reading posts from every BBC forum, out of context, as they are posted, and then decide whether to zap them or not. That's NOT 'self policing.'

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:33 AM

Please keep the personal comments out of the Forum.
This thread is filled with too many petty remarks by too many petty people. I'm getting complaints from people from both sides of the argument, and I don't want to hear any of it. Grow up, willya?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Dave Roberts
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:34 AM

It's hard not to be irritated by Matthew Parris. I remember once reading an article he wrote criticising Britain's railways (an easy target for lazy writers, of course) and praising Mrs Thatcher's 'great car culture' ideas to the high heavens. I found this intensely annoying due to its one-sided, patronising and arrogant tone.
Now he's tried applying the same tactics to folk music. I heard the Pick Of The Week comments and the same sneering tone came across clearly. Parris has a horrible knack of putting forward his opinions as if they are acknowledged facts.
I hope the BBC were inundated with complaints.

I've just re-read this thread before posting (always wise, of course). The Snail's assertion that Parris is 'well-known for being an opinionated pillock' is spot on.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Melissa
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:36 AM

meaning that the conversations here are allowed to flow like a connected series of posts...conversationally...rather than as a series of unconnected input that's been run through a sifting process?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:38 AM

Not really. I mean that Joe only chips in when it's really necessary (which is not often for the reasons I've outlined) - and when he does he's read the thread in sequence. Unlike the BBC mods. See above.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Melissa
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:39 AM

ok, thanks Tom.
I was right--that's not how I use the term and I appreciate you answering.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:41 AM

At the risk of adding nothing constructive to an already muddied thread, I have to agree with both Teribus and Diane - Parris's comments are subjective and unlikely to influence anyone significantly

I'm not sure but at best it's unhelpful. Personally, I don't have a problem (except a certain degree of disappointments if I like it) with someone finding singing sounds like caterwauling. I could, after all make similar comments regarding highly skilled operatic soprano's...

On the other hand, I don't like the use of a 10 second clip representing only a fraction of the musical traditions of the British Isles to demonstrate (or remind one) of how ghastly they are.

Race issues aside, if I played 10 seconds of say Michael Jackson (some of who'#s music I like btw) and said this reminds me how ghastly black music is, many would point out that my sample is by no means representative of all black music.

My own view is that Parris has picked on an area of traditional folk music a good number of people (unfortunately IMO) can find hard going and used it to reinforce an existing negative attitude towards folk music amongst many of the general public.

Instrumental sessions are my main thing. Is it reasonable that they for example should be lumped in as being ghastly on the basis of 10 seconds singing? I think not.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Melissa
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:44 AM

Joe, aside from the part about spitting on the gimp, I think the conversation is surprisingly civil considering the fact that we're carrying two topics.

One of these topics is kind of touchy, and I think we're to be commended rather than mildly scolded?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:52 AM

Anything that upsets the Daily Mail must be at least half good.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:09 AM

Ah - I think I get it. I mean that Mudcat is largely self policing. That doesn't mean I don't think that we as individuals should not be self-policing too. I most certainly do!

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Melissa
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:21 AM

Tom,
With you saying that mudcat is self-policing, my usage would go a step beyond that...and would have meant that we use peer pressure techniques within ourselves as a group to sort of outnumber the members who don't police themselves.
That's why I asked. Your use of the term seemed opposite of what I've been nattering on about and I didn't think you were trying to argue with me.

If we used peer pressure to keep things a little kinder, there wouldn't be so many posters covering their heads after giving their opinions.

It probably seemed like I was being dense by asking and I really do appreciate your straight answer.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:27 AM

Gene Burton

Who do YOU think is responsible?

Do we have to apportion blame? The modern world is flooded with a huge variety of forms of entertainment, much of it backed by billion dollar industries. Folk has a hard job to compete.

Your three points for discussion all ended on a rather accusatory note. "a little bloated, middle-aged, fussy, lacking in edge?" I'm not sure if I'm fussy but I'll admit to the other three. "a small self-perpetuating elite?" "don't CARE that the music's being ignored but actively encourage it's neglect?"

You come back later with "But I do worry that our musical heritage is being allowed to dwindle and wither by those supposedly dedicated to its propagation." Excuse me if I feel got at.

Your measure of success of the folk scene seems to be whether it provides an opportunity for young performers to make a living. That may be the problem. The younger generation all want to be superstars up on the big stage; the next Seth Lakeman or Kate Rusby. We need more who are prepared to take on the ground work. There are some; Laurel Swift and Anna Tabbush spring to mind. We need more like that.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Liam
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:28 AM

"I often read the online response to my column," says the Times columnist Matthew Parris. "Some of it is interesting; some of it is fatuous, obsessive or insane".

Guardian Letters Page Article

Matthew has got all of the last 3 in this thread, that is for certain.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: melodeonboy
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:45 AM

And possibly the first one too!

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:49 AM

"Your measure of success of the folk scene seems to be whether it provides an opportunity for young performers to make a living."

I think you've got it in one there, Snail.

"We need more who are prepared to take on the ground work. There are some; Laurel Swift and Anna Tabbush spring to mind. We need more like that."

I'd add Sam Lee to that list. Runs a hip young folk club in north London (with ex-Devil's Interval Lauren McCormick) and is doing lots of outreach and development work for EFDSS. Many young folk artists have done development work while getting their careers off the ground - Sam, I think, has a real and lasting commitment to development work and outreach.

And I can't not mention the fact that Damien Barber has, since January, been travelling from Yorkshire to Loughborough every week just to teach kids rapper dancing at an after-school club.

There are a fair few artists out there from the younger generation who are making a positive contribution to the traditional arts. That's worth celebrating.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:55 AM

Dianne, a bit negative aren't you? There are people out there who are working very hard to improve the image of the tradition or 'folk', whichever you will. Don't they deserve some credit?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:04 AM

Yeah, there are many out there who DO understand the importance of our cultural heritage and the necessity of supporting those working in the tradarts.
And many others who don't give a shit.

See this: The GEFF Fest

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:40 AM

"Yeah, there are many out there who DO understand the importance of our cultural heritage"

So why do you do your level best to sabotage it?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:10 AM

Sabotage eh?

Well, I might (indeed do) use my clogs to kick the GEFFs who wouldn't recognise their own heritage if it bit them on the backside.
In their contempt for the tradarts and preference for bland, close-to-mainstream singalong (out of tune natch) crap, they show as little respect as Mr Parris and, indeed, the public at large, do.
English (not Scottish Irish or Welsh) schoolchildren have been bludgeoned for a couple of generations into despising their cultural heritage and embracing the musical equivalent of McRubbish, the soundtrack of global capitalism.
Those who do understand (to be found among the listings provided by the programmer of Ambridge via Loughborough which I have no intention of wasting bandwidth by repeating) regard it as their mission to reverse this.
And they are.
In spite of the sneering wilful amateurism of the GEFFs who continue to alienate the 'normal' population by inflicting their racket (oops, almost called it caterwauling) inappropriately.
Then get offended when they are laughed at.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:39 PM

Diane - am I wrong in thinking that many source singers would sing whatever they knew, and enjoyed singing, including music hall and popular songs of the day?

Kitty

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:46 PM

which is why, presumably, you asked about Fred Jordan earlier, Kitty. And why i gave the response I did!

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 04:55 PM

I just don't think that appreciating folk music consists of, and is no more than, listening reverently to a professional performer. The reason I fell in love with a folk club when I was 15 was because of the interaction between the performers and the audience and the participation of the punters in the event.

Kitty

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:19 PM

Folkiedave,

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.

Odd that isn't it, it is always the socialist left on this forum that immediately spring to attack mode. It is always their followers who demand what people can and cannot say, so much for their belief in the freedom of speach, they believe in it only as long as those speaking are chanting their tune.

By the bye, I can easily see how someone could apologise to the cycling fraternity of this country, I still cannot see how one can apologise to "traditional music" as demanded by Folkiedave, or indeed why anyone should apologise for merely stating their own highly subjective opinion which in itself signifies nothing.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: MikeofNorthumbria
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:36 PM

Merciful heavens, what a commotion!
Having just ploughed through these 200 or so posts I feel like a sober man who's wandered into a party where everyone else is four or five drinks ahead of him. For goodness sake, let's try to calm down and get things in proportion.

Mr Paris is a professional entertainer. He earns his living by telling stories. So long as the stories amuse a sufficient number of people, he can eat, drink, run his car, pay off his mortgage etc, etc. However, these stories do not have to be true, and most hearers do not take them as such.   

"Folk singers" – whether modern and synthetic or ancient and authentic– have been mocked by satirists for decades, if not centuries. Nevertheless, we are still around. The two-pennyworth of mud Mr Paris threw at us the other day will have no effect, except to confirm his reputation as a vendor of smoothly delivered clichés with a predilection for soft targets.

So let's ignore him and spend our time and energy on something more constructive, like learning a new song, a new dance, a new tune, or even a new instrument? If enough of us keep on doing that, and doing it well enough, then the folk tradition will be around long after Mr Parris and his ill-informed gibes have been forgotten.

Wassail!

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:37 PM

"Now perhaps his description of a traditional singer was meant humourously and perhaps he could apologise for that if enough pressure was applied to him."

But Matthew Parris won't apologize, he more than likely doesn't see that he should because I believe that he has no liking for The Tradition/folk music/f**k music or whatever you want to call it. Indded, Teribus is right; how can you apologize to music? You can say your sorry to a singer if that singer is offended and if you feel you need to apologize; but the actually music itself? I believe I said in a previous post, the music will survive one person's highly subjective opinion.

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

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:39 PM

"English (not Scottish Irish or Welsh) schoolchildren have been bludgeoned for a couple of generations into despising their cultural heritage and embracing the musical equivalent of McRubbish, the soundtrack of global capitalism"

That (which is true) is why two things are necessary:

First to avoid embracing the values of McRubbish - the triumph of packaging over content - which you Diane rush headlong into.

Second to pour scorn and contumely on those who denigrate our cultural inheriance as we would for example on those who denigrate African, Caribbean, Scottish, Welsh or Irish or any other cultural tradition on the ground that it is that tradition.

Feel free to criticise what is not well done. But to dismiss an entire tradition simply on the ground of its content is wilfully ignorant - as wilfully ignorant as those who assert that only professionals must be allowed to participate in folk arts.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:48 PM

No, Mike, I think that when the presenter of a flagship BBC radio programme takes the piss out of a strong performance of a traditional song just because it's in a genre that he doesn't appreciate, it's worth recording a contrary opionion. Which is why I did!

Kitty

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:52 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, by making flippant remarks.
It may be only a few people, but these things add up, first cyclists, now folkies, whoever next?

G.