Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: TheSnail Date: 04 Apr 08 - 07:27 PM Diane Easby Snail: the quotation is from the GEFFs' Mantra as indicated That's nobody outside your over fertile imagination then? |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: Big Al Whittle Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:54 PM 'You could update the incidentals and the honesty and keep the instrumentation acoustic but it would split the 'community' down the middle as to whether it was 'folk'. The idea of a musical Eden of indigenous ballardeers just doesn't hold water so where do you draw the line and who's going to volunteer with the chalk?' abso-sodding-lutely ! the guitar techniques series of dvds is now down to £9.99. It is literally unmissable. I have bought almost the whole series. I got the first one off off Wizz Jones in Weymouth for £20 last year. It is so great though to hear how these people put together their view of folk music. And to listen intently to what they needed to make that synthesis. The Marin Carthy dvd is easily the best of the lot. Not just because Martin is such a divergent thinker when it comes to guitar playing. But to listen to his thought processes, because he doesn't chat a lot onstage:- 1) he says that he had to forge like a blacksmith a style of English guitar playing. prior to him guitar was not an instrument in English music. 2) he says he can't understand why people think these songs that he sings aren't relevant . relevant to what, Norma says to him...because they're aren't motorbikes in them - they are great documents of the human condition, like Shakespeare and Dickens. Sadly I think the thing he misses is that while he has had his head down creating all this music - the rest of us have been been busy having a life and creating history. and we had stuff we wanted to express about our lives, and sometimes you had to know that it happened in a world where there were motorbikes and much else that simply wasn't there in a land when morris dancers ruled the earth. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: melodeonboy Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:16 PM What's ridiculous? Singing in your own voice rather tham imitating someone else's? I don't understand! |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,glueman Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:00 PM Libby Purvis (or one of those BBC matriarchs) made an interesting point a coupla weeks ago. Comparing folk to country she reckoned C&W had moved on because once the cowboys got rid of their horses the songs moved onto cars and shopping malls in a way that folk hadn't been able to. The facts aren't watertight but it's a useful idea. Folk purity is about normal lives in a big and often uncaring universe, not just authenticity to ploughing and shipbuilding. You could update the incidentals and the honesty and keep the instrumentation acoustic but it would split the 'community' down the middle as to whether it was 'folk'. The idea of a musical Eden of indigenous ballardeers just doesn't hold water so where do you draw the line and who's going to volunteer with the chalk? |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: Big Al Whittle Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:42 PM 'The listener with a scorrick of intelligence co-operates in the creation of a work of art or artifice or whatever.' Its what Hemingway calls the suspension of imagination. You stop your brain saying, this bullet could kill me in battle. You stop your brain saying this bloke is an actor I saw him last week on The Bill when you go to Stratford and see him as Macbeth..... Its the fundamental spiritual jump of faith that makes us more spiritually significant than sheep and cows who never see further than the next blade of grass they want to chomp on. hope this makes sense. big al whittle |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: Big Al Whittle Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:31 PM The point your missing is Richard - we don't live the sort of lives people used to live. Why the bloody hell should we pretend we lived in a little community and only ever heard one sort of voice. personally I like people when they make a bit of an effort to use artifice and perform. And if you work at it, you get good at it. It's all about suspension of belief anyway. Did you ever really think when pete Coe or someone sang the Plains of waterloo that he'd just popped in from the battlefield. Intelectually of course - you knew it was bollocks. The listener with a scorrick of intelligence co-operates in the creation of a work of art or artifice or whatever. And that's what i get off on - someone making a creative effort - hopefully with a bit of talent thrown in. Sometimes the magic works -sometimes it doesn't. No need to get snotty about it. However I resent someone taking me for granted, abusing my presence as a willing audience by singing The Molecather from an exercise book and expecting me to be polite and laugh at it. Even if it is, bloody traditional. Crap is crap. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Apr 08 - 04:56 PM Ridiculous - what, like girls who went to all the best female public schools struggling to sound estuarine, generations of English rock singers struggling to sound American or black, and posses of white and asian singers struggling to sound Jamaican? |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: melodeonboy Date: 04 Apr 08 - 03:25 PM "And I like to think that I eventually create my own interpretation of a song, anyway, which is really the most important thing. I've heard singers whose vocal style has been "influenced" by that of traditional singers and they sound ridiculous, false, and in one case absolutely painful to listen to. Surely the thing to aim for is to find your own voice." Yes indeed, Ruth. A thousand times yes. (But applicable across the board; not only to traditional singers.) |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,The Mole catcher's unplugged Apprentice) Date: 04 Apr 08 - 03:05 PM "We all need each other." perhaps we do, perhaps we do., but there are the few, the usual suspects as it were, who believe that they should be the ones leading the great un-washed, so to speak, to the great traditional promised land. I'm wondering if Egypt is not, on the whole, a better bet. Charlotte (remaining sedentary for the time being) |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Apr 08 - 02:53 PM "We all need each other." But, you see, there is one prime mover and some clones who think that most people are not good enough for them. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: Dave the Gnome Date: 04 Apr 08 - 01:59 PM Have you never heard a professional fluff their lines or repeat a verse? Of course I have, Brian. Many times. But not consistantly. Plus the 'stagecraft' mentioned earlier often kicks in at that point and makes the mistake less important. What I have NEVER seen a professional do is go on stage, mutter that he or she doesn't know what they are going to do next, get out a dog eared book of lyrics and then stop part way through the song while they try and find the missing verse. And to clarify a point I don't believe I have ever said people are put off by duff performers. Apologies if I implied it somewhere but what I said is that it annoys ME. I cannot answer for anyone else. As to That is sad. Yes it is. Unfortunately it is true. Why do you think bad news makes the papers and good doesn't? Why do you think that if you have a good experience you tell one person - if you have a bad one you tell six. Just human nature I'm afraid, Sad as it is. Cheers Dave |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice Date: 04 Apr 08 - 01:50 PM "defining what folk may, or may not" a never ending quest and the subject of many, many threads here on Mudcat, and one, I believe, that will never be satisfactorally defined. :-) Maybe Matthew Parris needs to be confronted face to face...no wait..ummm...I think that's possibly what he wants...or perhaps we could all "catterwhaul outside his house at 2'o clock in the morning*LOL* Charlotte (away away with the fife and drum) |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,glueman Date: 04 Apr 08 - 01:42 PM Indeed Charlotte, indeed. The fact remains much of this thread has been taken up defining what folk may, or may not, be. Not so much giving a gun to the likes of Matthew Parris as using it on both feet with a strychnine chaser. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice Date: 04 Apr 08 - 01:38 PM Because folk doesn't have a definition it exists mainly as something to kick against, a notion, an idea of abstract purity for the general public. Perhaps that was what Parris was going on about, who knows?" You credit Mr. Parris with far too much, I think. Yes, Yes, I know the aforementioned Mr Parris is supposed to be some sort of serious journalist, but his remarks vis a vie English Traditional Music belie that fact. Charlotte ( I am where I am) |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,glueman Date: 04 Apr 08 - 01:20 PM Nice answer Diane but the point is waulking songs weren't made for public exhibition. My prejudice says any form that doesn't allow fresh air in is dead, a museum piece only fit for a glass case. Because folk doesn't have a definition it exists mainly as something to kick against, a notion, an idea of abstract purity for the general public. Perhaps that was what Parris was going on about, who knows? It's a funny business, attracting Guardianistas with a social (history) conscience and white supremicists looking for ersatz roots. I'd like to belong to a folk club but I'm with Groucho Marx on that one. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: The Borchester Echo Date: 04 Apr 08 - 01:00 PM If the women doing the waulking didn't do it "professionally", the tweed wouldn't come out right. Snail: the quotation is from the GEFFs' Mantra as indicated. Perhaps they chant it as a waulk and that's how they end up with bizarre tie-dyed fabric. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST Date: 04 Apr 08 - 12:50 PM I'll bite on the What Is Folk red herring. It's either say, Waulking Songs from Barra where an expection of professionalism is to entirely miss the point or Kate Rusby where one expects eye candy and exquisitely played traditional instruments, and probably both. If only it was unplugged Northern Soul would fit the brief to a T, re-discovered popular tunes of love and loss assimilated by a grassroots movement and kept alive long after their makers expected. Somewhere in the middle is what most of us think of as traditional but the devil is entirely in the detail. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: TheSnail Date: 04 Apr 08 - 12:38 PM Diane Easby "no need to practice, or be in tune, or remember the words, or have any notion of stagecraft, or to put over the story in a professional manner" You've put that in quotes, Diane. Who are you quoting? |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: The Borchester Echo Date: 04 Apr 08 - 12:15 PM Some on this list seem to have a poor regard for folk music Dead right they do. Their mantra of "no need to practice, or be in tune, or remember the words, or have any notion of stagecraft, or to put over the story in a professional manner" marks them out as Good Enough For For F*lk aka GEFFs. How is it surprising that the odd commentator (not to mention the bulk of the general public) takes the piss just a bit? They're the ones who are damaging our cultural heritage because they don't and won't respect it themselves. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: TheSnail Date: 04 Apr 08 - 11:57 AM Brian Peters Both Tom and I understand that the material came from somewhere else before the pros got hold of it Well, perhaps I'm being oversensitive but that's not the feeling I was getting. I felt Tom was claiming some sort of ownership by the professionals of what is, after all, our national heritage. Now back to the thread topic (which was....?). I think that what we think of ourselves is more important than the flippant remarks of a Tory ex-MP. We can't sell ourselves to a wider audience if we don't believe in the value of what we've got. Some on this list seem to have a poor regard for folk music. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: Brian Peters Date: 04 Apr 08 - 11:14 AM As I read it, Tom was talking about the role of professional performers in making repertoire available in accessible form for other singers in less formal settings to make use of. Both Tom and I understand that the material came from somewhere else before the pros got hold of it; it's just a matter of getting it out there where people will hear it now. And both of us respect and value the work of volunteers in keeping many of the venues in which we play running all these years. No quarrel. Now back to the thread topic (which was....?). |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: TheSnail Date: 04 Apr 08 - 10:39 AM Good on yer, Brian. Can you explain to me what Tom is on about? |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: Brian Peters Date: 04 Apr 08 - 10:21 AM "I think the professionals need to understand that and why we do it." I've run folk clubs and attended them as punter and floorsinger in the past, so rest assured I do understand that. More power to your elbow, I say (in fact I did say exactly that in an article on folk clubs in fRoots a few years ago)! |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: Brian Peters Date: 04 Apr 08 - 10:15 AM "I'm not sure i entirely agree. I love VOTP, but I think it's important to keep the recordings in perspective. They consist of one person's interpretation of a song, which had a life long before that particular singer took it on. It's a snapshot, and not necessarily a definitive one." Yes, of course you're right. My remark was a bit of a throwaway that I hadn't really thought through. What I was trying to do was suggest that people might at least listen to one or more versions from tradition, rather than just copying the Carthy version or the Nic Jones version or the Kate Rusby version, as quite a few tend to do. Yes - find your own voice. But you can draw on some of the skills of the old singers without necessarily performing a ludicrous copy of, say, Fred Jordan. Sam Lee seems to manage the former pretty well! |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: TheSnail Date: 04 Apr 08 - 10:07 AM Brian Peters I can't understand why the unexceptionable point that Tom's been trying to make has attracted such strong disagreement. The last thing I want to do is fall out with you, Brian but the point I'm trying to make is that the overwhelming majority of people who run folk clubs and do most of the work at festivals are volunteers. Most of the performers in folk clubs, even those who get paid for the occasional guest, spot are amateurs. I think the professionals need to understand that and why we do it. Know your market. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: TheSnail Date: 04 Apr 08 - 09:55 AM Dave Polshaw The point is people do not remember the regular occurence of good performance, only the occasional bad ones. It is those that they talk about most and it is those that give the whole of folk music a bad name. That is sad. Oh, and by the way, you say I have been involved in running a folk club for 10+. years. Well, I have been runnning Swinton for nearer 30. 25 of which we have run an annual festival as well. And we are still going strong. Maybe the PR is pitched right after all.:-) Only trying to persuade Tom that I had some grounds for knowing what I was talking about. Sounds as if people aren't as put off by the duff performers as you claim either or perhaps they aren't quite as duff as you think. Have you never heard a professional fluff their lines or repeat a verse? |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: Ruth Archer Date: 04 Apr 08 - 09:39 AM " Wouldn't it be great if everyone learned their songs from VOTP, but thus far not many do." I'm not sure i entirely agree. I love VOTP, but I think it's important to keep the recordings in perspective. They consist of one person's interpretation of a song, which had a life long before that particular singer took it on. It's a snapshot, and not necessarily a definitive one. I've learned lots of songs from revival singers, but i also like to know the source version if it's available because it gives me a different perspective on the song, and perhaps a connectiuon to its history. But for quality of interpretation, I'm not sure, for example, I could choose between Norma Waterson and Packie Manus Byrne's versions of The Holland Handkerchief. And I like to think that I eventually create my own interpretation of a song, anyway, which is really the most important thing. I've heard singers whose vocal style has been "influenced" by that of traditional singers and they sound ridiculous, false, and in one case absolutely painful to listen to. Surely the thing to aim for is to find your own voice. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 Apr 08 - 08:51 AM Brian, I've tried focus many of my comments on instrumental sessions. I have my reasons but it's been suggested I don't go into it in this thread. I'll try to leave it at that. --- As for inspiration and being attracted to folk in the first place, I think singing at home with the piano and singing at school (notably Singing Together) would have been sufficient for me to always have some inbuilt like of folk music waiting to be triggered off later. Of course professionals have helped too. I'd single out the Clancey Brothers and Tommy Maken from childhood and Barney McKeena of the Dubliners later in life. The revisiting the Dubliners and me picking up on the tunes possibly owes a bit to a local folk club and some participation in Morris... On this, to me, it is exactly as Tom has suggested, ie. both pro and am have been important to me and it has needed both for my personal "folk journey. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: Dave the Gnome Date: 04 Apr 08 - 08:46 AM The Snail - Dave Polshaw doesn't seem to be doing a very good PR job for the Swinton Folk Club. Maybe not, Brian, but I am being honest. Out of the 20+ performers that enter and exit our club as floor singers on a regular or occasional basis at the moment, the vast majority have the professional attitude that we are talking about. A high proportion of them are actualy professionals. There are, maybe, 4 or 5 who fall in the other category and of those only 1 or 2 will consistantly disappoint. The point is people do not remember the regular occurence of good performance, only the occasional bad ones. It is those that they talk about most and it is those that give the whole of folk music a bad name. I must also point out that it is not just Swinton that I am talking about. I used to visit clubs all over the country as and when I was away on business. I am more home based now so that is curtailed somewhat but I can honestly state that I have not yet come across a club where, on a singers night, someone has not cocked it up. I would be very surprised, nay, amazed, if I was to vist Lewes a couple of times not to find someone forgeting words, fluffing the tune or cocking up in some other way. If someone new to folk comes to our club on a singers night after, for instance, being impressed by John Tams and Barry Cope at Fylde then I am afraid they may be disappointed. At least if I set their expections to the correct level - Ie 'you will see some excelent stuff, but expect a bit of roough with it:-)' then they have nothing to complain about. Oh, and by the way, you say I have been involved in running a folk club for 10+. years. Well, I have been runnning Swinton for nearer 30. 25 of which we have run an annual festival as well. And we are still going strong. Maybe the PR is pitched right after all.:-) Cheers Dave |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: TheSnail Date: 04 Apr 08 - 08:16 AM Tom Bliss Bryan I give up. If you can't understand what I'm saying from all the words I've written above then you never will. Tom, I have been involved in the folk scene for getting on for 40 years and I have been involved in running a folk club for 10+. I have been to many folk clubs and festivals. I know many of the great and good, both amateur and professional. I am reasonably bright and I am not being deliberately obtuse. Despite that, I do not recognise the sort of folk scene you describe nor do I understand the point you are trying to make about the position of professionals. For instance "In fact I'd hazard that 70-80% of the material I hear in clubs of both trad and mod hue across the land is directly attributable to a 'festival main stage' performer." Not in my experience. Sam Lee said he learnt the Mary Ann Haynes song from the CD with - Traveller's Joy: Songs of English and Scottish Travellers and Gypsies 1965-2005 recently published by EFDSS. Yes, both it and the VOTP are commercial products because they need to be to be produced at all. I am pretty sure that the main motivation was to get the material into the public domain. I doubt if they made anybody rich. I AM TALKING ABOUT THE NATIONAL PICTURE - not the Lewes Arms. I am talking about the folk scene that I know which extends beyond the Lewes Arms which I don't think is that exceptional amongst traditionally biased clubs. The folk scene that I am involved in is a social activity not the "folk indstry" or a commercial enterprise. I don't need a business plan to get together with my friends to share the music we enjoy. Glad you came back, Tom. We really need to understand each other. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: Brian Peters Date: 04 Apr 08 - 08:08 AM "Fitzgerald: Professional folk singers are different from us. Hemingway: Yes, they've got more money." Bryan, should this have read: "Less Money"? Or possibly: "No Money"? |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: Brian Peters Date: 04 Apr 08 - 08:04 AM I can't understand why the unexceptionable point that Tom's been trying to make has attracted such strong disagreement. I believe in folk music as community entertainment as much as anyone, but for all the years I've been attending folk clubs, singaround sessions and what have you, it's been obvious that a very large part of the material sung by floor singers has *originated* from professional or semi-pro performers, be it MacColl, A. L. Lloyd, the Watersons, Martin Carthy or - on the more contemporary side - Richard Thompson, Jez Lowe, Keith Marsden or Dave Webber. The Coppers have never been full-time professional musicians but their importance as a source depends on commercial recordings and publications ("the Coppersongs Empire" as Bob used to call it, tongue firmly in cheek). The give-away is when the version sung in the singaround is a Lloyd or Carthy collation some way removed from any archived source material. Wouldn't it be great if everyone learned their songs from VOTP, but thus far not many do. And that's before you address the matter of inspiration. What attracted the people who like this kind of music to it in the first place? Was it a visit to the local folk club, or was it the Fairport or Kate Rusby record they heard on the radio? |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: theleveller Date: 04 Apr 08 - 07:56 AM Oh god, this debate seems to have degenerated into semantics. We'll be having the 'what is folk?' argument next. Is not the point that the beauty of folk music exists, and can be enjoyed, on a number of levels? On one level (I hesitate to say 'top') are the people who earn their living by performing. We all enjoy them: on CD, at concerts, at festivals and, because we are paying to hear them, we expect a certain standard, reflecting their style of performance. At the opposite level are the people who just like to sing and play and/or listen to others doing so, at clubs, in pubs, at parties or simply sitting around at home with family or friends – this allows participation by people of all levels of ability. That someone is enjoying performing it or listening to it is all that matters. I suspect that Mathew Parris's comments were simply made for effect, based on one particular style of folk music and certainly not from an understanding of the full complexity and diversity of the genre. Admit it, we all do it. I've jokingly referred to modern jazz as 'tuneless shit' because I personally don't like it or understand it. If the truth were known, I wish I did but, hey, life's too short! Having read a lot of the posts here, it seems to me that quite a few people are expressing opinions that are as prejudiced and narrow-minded as Mr Parris's – it's just that his were expressed in more public way. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST, Sminky Date: 04 Apr 08 - 07:19 AM The folk tradition, as I understand it, is/was the gathering of 'ordinary' people at work, rest and play, who sang (well, badly or indifferently) songs they happened to like (good, bad or indifferent). There was no financial transaction involved - apart from the buying of the odd pint. And no, musicians have not always been paid to play for dancing. And troubadours/minstrels did not charge a fixed entrance fee - they relied on 'contributions' (it's called busking). There are those who will always try to make money out of something - it's a tradition (it's called commerce) - but that's a different tradition entirely. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:38 AM Could somebody please point out at what stage during the 1000+ year history of the folk tradition did this start? I'd guess as soon as there was money and people could sing/play. Your guess is as good as to mine as to when that might have been. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:30 AM Sorry that was me above and before - typing in a hurry. Tom Brown has not, I don't think, contributed to this discussion. (I wanted to catch Henry before he went out) |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: Ruth Archer Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:29 AM Yes - he gets it, our Sam. :) I think you'll be seeing a lot more of him soon. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,sorry cant resist Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:25 AM and who made and distributed the recording of Mary Ann that Sam probably learned the song from? VOTP is a commercial venture. Sminky - musicians have always been paid to play for dancing, and probably for singing in some circumstances. There have always been songwriters who sold songs, song collectors who sold broadsheets, tune collectors who sold tune books. There have always been travelling musicians and singers (and actors), who did it for a living. Folk music is interwoven with music hall and other forms of entertainment, and crosses over with classical and earl music - all with professional elements. Jon - yes people do seek to drive wedges. And dangerous it is. We all need each other. Why is that a problem? |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: The Borchester Echo Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:22 AM Professional traditionalists I do believe that troubadours did the rounds for cash, singing about battles and gossip, at least until all castles got satellite dishes installed. I also believe that they should get a proper rate for the job. Artists' rates and conditions in the UK are worse than anywhere else I've come across. Snail "In tune and in time and knowing the words" would be good for a start. We know you don't call yourself "professional" because you do some other full-time occupation. Whether you approach your performance "professionally" or put on an amateurish show of "nasal bleating, stumbling and fumbling" I know not as I've never seen you but I suspect not. Indeed Bryan Creer says the latter does not occur at all yet Tom Brown asserts that it's been going on since the 15th century. At least one of you must be wrong. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: TheSnail Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:15 AM Forgot to mention that I saw Sam Lee for the first time last night doing a floor spot at the Royal Oak. Excellent. With people like him around the future of traditional music is assured. He sang one song learnt directly from Stanley Robertson and another from a recording of Sussex singer Mary Ann Haynes. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 Apr 08 - 06:12 AM Well we'll have to disagree on that (can exist) point, Tom. I will add to my "not desirable" comment that I can see a fair bit of what you have commented on in that undesirable situation. Perhaps where we disagree most over is what fuels what. I doubt I'd be questioning whether each side could exist without the other without me reading comments that can make me feel there are wedges already being driven in. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: TheSnail Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:56 AM Diane Easby obsessed by some dumb notion that by "professional" I mean "getting paid" Well, one of your other major themes is that folk singers should be paid "properly". It does get confusing when different people are using "professional" in different ways. So it seems professional means "in tune and time and knew all the words" which seems to be setting the bar pretty low. Captain Ginger seems to think that the only alternative to professional is "crap performers .... inflicting their nasal bleatings, stumblings and fumblings on the public". I wonder which category I fit into or any of the other amateurs that make up the majority of the folk scene that I know. Dave Polshaw doesn't seem to be doing a very good PR job for the Swinton Folk Club. Yet to believe that the population of Swinton is as talentless as he claims does take some swallowing:-) |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST, Sminky Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:54 AM "Commerce is woven through the folk tradition" Could somebody please point out at what stage during the 1000+ year history of the folk tradition did this start? It's not in any of the books. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:53 AM "You seem to be claiming some sort of special status for professional folk performers which I don't acknowledge." Bryan I give up. If you can't understand what I'm saying from all the words I've written above then you never will. Special status? Good grief - where is my chip-remover. I'm saying the EXACT opposite. Hit my name in blue above and just read all my posts in this thread, would you? "I think you are in for a surprise when you come to us" No I'm not - I have a very good idea what your club is like, and I know scores of others just the same. Apologies for shouting, everyone but I AM TALKING ABOUT THE NATIONAL PICTURE - not the Lewes Arms. Jon - "I think either "side" could exist without the other" And THAT is the dangerous belief that I'm challenging. They cannot, would not, should not, and never did or could, at least not for any length of time - because this is the way the world goes round. Why do I use the word dangerous? Because it's that belief which underlies the attacks on 'amateurism' by those who don't understand it's importance, and the attacks on professionals as 'capitalists' or 'people giving themselves special status (sheeesh!), or demanding too much money etc. I will not be contributing to this discussion any more. I'll be cancelling gigs next! |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:33 AM It is not something on the top that could be jettisoned as unnecessary if people so chose. It's one where I think either "side" could exist without the other, one where I do seriously wonder at times whether a split will occur but I don't see such a thing happening as desirable. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: TheSnail Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:30 AM Tom Bliss "Are you saying that if a professional has ever recorded a version of a traditional song that we are forever in their debt if we perform it?" Heavens above, Brian - what are you on?! Then what are you saying Tom? I honestly don't get it. You seem to be claiming some sort of special status for professional folk performers which I don't acknowledge. Fitzgerald: Professional folk singers are different from us. Hemingway: Yes, they've got more money. In fact I'd hazard that 70-80% of the material I hear in clubs of both trad and mod hue across the land is directly attributable to a 'festival main stage' performer. I think you are in for a surprise when you come to us. My experience is that most people take their influences from the tradition either by direct contact or from recordings of the original. I am not doing down professionals or denying their influence. We book a great many of them and you must know about our workshop series. (Next Martin Carthy 19th April, workshop sold out, evening nearly so. Don't turn up without a ticket.) What we don't do is fill our floorspots with superstar imitators. Believe me, nobody would mistake our version of Tower of Refuge for yours; apart from anything else, Suzanne is an alto. Looking forward to that beer. That attitude does FAR more damage to the scene than a few tie die tee shirts and swirly 'folk trousers.' WHAAAT?! |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Date: 04 Apr 08 - 05:23 AM Your club sounds like it's in the middle somewhere, Jon. The point it has taken me so long to make - in response to Bryan's cake/icing analogy - is that the business elements (and that involves many trades) of folk (using the broadest definition to cover everything that is called folk by anyone) is a key ingredient of the cake, which influences everything, to various degrees in different places. Commerce is woven through the folk tradition, just as it is through all other forms of music, (I was delighted to read the post above about other musical genres with a similar pro/am structure - folk is not unique in this respect) and indeed through all the arts. It is not something on the top that could be jettisoned as unnecessary if people so chose. Call it a machine with cogs, call it an ecosystem, call it what you like, but recognise the way it actually works and respect ALL the essential parts. That's all I'm asking. Tom |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,Jon Date: 04 Apr 08 - 04:58 AM I wouldn't tell you that Tom and I'd be quite surprised if anyone could say that these days! :-) I don't deny the proffessional element or that we use it. It's just the way we use it that I can get touchy over. I think it's usually the basic tune with what ever personal touches one can add to it, learned from a variety of sources, all coming together (somehow - sometimes I wonder how it comes out "right" more often than no) togther to form an arrangemnt that's pretty well unique to the night. I think the singing world can be quite different in approach. I'm trying to think how things would work out in the local folk club (which I've not been to in nearly a year)... Maybe 10% tunes which I'll call "trad". 40% "Dylan/modern American style". The rest gets harder and (other than something I might attempt) I wouldn't know where a person got them from but can contain for example Smile In Your Sleep (Hush Hush) amongst those I'd guess most would think are trad. |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Date: 04 Apr 08 - 03:36 AM You've made my point for me, jon. Would you apply the term amateur or professional to Tony Sullivan? Now if you'd told me you'd learned all your tunes form Pat in the pub, who'd learned them from his Granddad in Roundstone it would be a different matter. The business element runs right through the folk scene. And that's a good thing - and it does not, as someone on the BBC site claimed (I'm sure you saw it), make us all "baubles of capitalist, corporate greed." That attitude does FAR more damage to the scene than a few tie die tee shirts and swirly 'folk trousers.' But obviously the tune session end of things tends to be the least commercialised, and has the strongest aural link back into the tradition. My guesstimate is an average, which includes all those clubs where you'll never hear a song pre Bob Dylan, (that's trad - using the 'second definition' - to many) and it's mostly Steve Tilston, Richard Thompson, and Christy Moore (well, they think he wrote them anyway)! |
Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition From: theleveller Date: 04 Apr 08 - 03:11 AM How come MPs think folk is crap but jazz is....nice!? |
Share Thread: |
Subject: | Help |
From: | |
Preview Automatic Linebreaks Make a link ("blue clicky") |