Our ghastly folk tradition

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:54 AM

What I don't get is that all these cool rockstars sampling their own farts is some sort of vindication of the the English Ping Pong and Prance brigade, but Gerry Lockran was never offered a concert there, or Roger Brooks.

Or half a dozen living living exponents of the contemporary form.

To quote a great writer of folksongs, money doesn't talk it swears - obscenity who really cares......

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:38 AM

Bugger, I just lost my entire post while editing. It's vanished from the history. It wasn't even important, merely pointing out that I've never knowingly seen either Snail or Bridge and so have never commented on their performing ability or lack thereof. I wouldn't know. Never seen the man with the silly hat either, as it goes.

Bridge seems to think it's fine (and not illegal) to be homophobic and so I was questioning whether he is actually a lawyer.

Snail was telling the Boatman I despise everything he does. Actually I found his description of the gig and the fish hilarious, though with a serious aspect as far as ramshackle "organisation" is concerned.

Had I been inclination to be "spiteful", I'd have named the failing venue and its incompetent "organiser". Can't remember the rest but, as I say, it's not important. Going out. Goodbye.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:31 AM

"doing what you do as well as you can (and practising in private before practising in public!)"

I know of nobody who doesn't do that.

You are very lucky then, Snail (Bryan?). Maybe that is why we have disagreed on the quality of floor singers in the past. Im my experience there are lots who don't know what the word rehersal means! It annoys me when someone shambles onto 'stage' or sits in the same place then mumbles about not knowing what to sing, gets out their loose leaf folder of words 'collected' from obscure scratchy vinyls, drops half of them, sets off in the wrong key, starts again, realises halfway through that they don't know the tune to the middle 8, starts a new song, misses 2 verses and sings the same one 4 times, etc. etc.

Surely you must know at least one? I know loads! I believe this is what Dianne is complaining about. Not amateurs that support folk week in and out without a fuss, respect the fact that people have gone out of their way to listen to them and generaly do not cause embarasment to either themselves or the audience.

I could be wrong of course as I do not really know Dianne either.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:28 AM

"Found"? That sounds like the same logic that let the EFDSS claim the copyright of material they had collected."

Not at all - no way!

But the process by which collected or other obscure works (along with newly written works) become known to the wider public usually involves some kind of business activity - by publishers, booksellers, record companies, distributors, transcribers, artists, arrangers, producers, studio engineers, and so on.

That's why I call the folk world a machine, not a cake. ALL the cogs, of whatever size, are equally important - professional musicians, floor singers, club organisers, publicists, magazine editors, you name it.

Take one out and the machine will not turn.

It is a symbiotic ecosystem, and people who inhabit each cog (bother I knew this metaphor would fall over) should recognise the interdependence of every element, instead of - as too often happens, and has been happening yet again in this thread - championing the part they like and denigrating the others - and making twits of themselves (and, by association), the rest of us in the process.

Tom

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:12 AM

Diane Easby

The Snail person, in common with Richard Bridge, can have not the faintest notion what I "despise" or what I do not.

Against my better judgement, I do read your posts Diane which give me a fair idea of what you like or dislike. What DO you think of The Vulgar Boatman's description of the folk scene?

"doing what you do as well as you can (and practising in private before practising in public!)"

I know of nobody who doesn't do that.

A Well-Known (F*lk) Performer of my acquaintance once arrived an hour early at a failing venue

It obviously wasn't the Lewes Arms or any other folk club that I go to.

Tom Bliss

but much of the material that amateurs enjoy (and from which they draw for their own creations) is only there because professionals wrote and/or recorded and/or found and/or distributed it by some other means

I don't deny their influence, Tom, but I think you are overstating the case. "Found"? That sounds like the same logic that let the EFDSS claim the copyright of material they had collected.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:10 AM

Well I agree - make em all do exams. I got the cycling profiency second time, so it goes to show natural ability has nothing to do with it.


With a properly constituted exam board run by an august body (several contenders for this vital function spring to mind naturally and immediately) we could have the folk festivals and folk clubs full of people who are getting on for about six out of ten on the interesting scale in no time. (4.5 should be the pass mark for 'O' level folksinging).

What I say is, keep it traditional! Never mind if its uninteresting rubbish. Keeping the tradition alive is the thing.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Dave Earl
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 07:08 AM

Diane,

"The Snail person, in common with Richard Bridge, can have not the faintest notion what I "despise" or what I do not."

Actually I think they have a fair idea- you've told us often enough in this forum.

Am I allowed to be annoyed when my friends - I know both of the two mentioned above - are put down by you. They are both ( in my opinion ) good quality performing musicians who do what they do to the best of their ability.

You may not like what they ( and I ) do but I don't see why you have to be so spiteful in presenting your view of things.

Dave

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 06:37 AM

Hi Bryan

I do agree with you - but much of the material that amateurs enjoy (and from which they draw for their own creations) is only there because professionals wrote and/or recorded and/or found and/or distributed it by some other means - and that goes back through the history of music, through folk, classical, music hall, pop, show songs, broadsheets etc etc - (all of which feeds into folk, of course).

So professionals are also perhaps the eggs in the cake as well as the icing.

And that's something that should never be forgotten too (but frequently, sadly, is).

Tom

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 06:32 AM

The Snail person, in common with Richard Bridge, can have not the faintest notion what I "despise" or what I do not. They do not know me.

My definition of "professional" in this context is as Nigel has said above: "doing what you do as well as you can (and practising in private before practising in public!)"
And this applies equally when your audience consists only of a stuffed fish, but then you wonder why.

Had the organiser publicised the event and made sufficient effort to attract punters (especially from without the "f*lkie" (yuk) clique?).

Possibly (probably) not.

A Well-Known (F*lk) Performer of my acquaintance once arrived an hour early at a failing venue in order to plaster the pub with posters because I had related to him my experience of the previous week. I'd questioned both barstaff and customers who all denied any knowledge of live music at the venue. Assuming I'd got the wrong place, I stepped out into the street where, by chance, the guest artist was just arriving. He too is an international name yet attendance numbered 9. And the following week, despite postering efforts, there were 8.

Since this "organiser" had failed to inform even the pub's staff and customers (hire of the room was apparently a private and secret pact between him and the landlord), it goes without saying that no publicity work had occurred in the local community. This organiser was an "amateur" but his MO was "amateurish" and truly "unprofessional".

This is clearly NOT the best shop window for a music whose reputation you are (presumably?) seeking to extol and widen.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 05:58 AM

Well said Vulgar Boatman. I'm not sure why you find yourself agreeing with Diane since she despises everything you have just described.

I would put in a word for the professionals. The folk scene wouuld be poorer without them but they are the icing not the cake.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Nigel Spencer
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 05:16 AM

AAAAARRGHHH! No cookie....

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 04:37 AM

'But some people wouldn't allow it unless you pass their exam first...'

So who's advocating this, Richard? I can see plenty of people advocating doing what you do as well as you can (and practicing in private before practicing in public!), but I don't really see anyone arguing that you must pass exams before you play live... unless it's another sly and pointless dig at the Newcastle traditional music students? Or the musical equivalent of the anti-intellectualism some university educated individuals feign?

Whatever it is, I'm not sure who or what it helps and how.

Cheers

Nigel

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Banjiman
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 03:04 AM

Folkiedave,

Re "Can I ask how and when you acquired this image?"

This is a completely fair question (and you asked it very politely!).
Over a lifetime basically, I am quite (even very) happy to have my prejudice proved wrong......I will check out the website (and MySpace...wow, down with the the kids huh!).

I look forward with interest to see what happens with the new chief exec in post.

Meanwhile back to the thread....does anyone know if any of our representative organisations responded to the BBC re MPs comments?

Paul

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 09:35 PM

"exhort everyone to bloody well get out there and do it, as performer, accompanist, dancer, organiser"   Good idea. But some people wouldn't allow it unless you pass their exam first.

As for singing folk at open mics, well, cast your pearls if you wish, but open mics are for allowing people to stand up in front of a mic, which they want to do because that's what pop idols do. Otherwise there wouldn't be mics.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Suegorgeous
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 08:21 PM

I sing trad folk at open mics (invariably I'm the only one that does, granted). I think it's good for 'em. Some of them even like it. :)

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Vulgar Boatman
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 06:41 PM

For one night only, I shall attempt to be serious, so please bear with me because this has become very personal. I've been doing it for something in excess of forty years, and for my money communal singing and playing, be it in family, pubs, clubs, houses, festivals or anywhere else, paid, unpaid or paying, is the most vital component of what we are discussing. I've done it for money, used it in therapeutic work, politics, in the revival of a street tradition at least three hundred years old, been bitten in the arse by it when I got cocky, recorded, collected, performed at the Royal Festival Hall (no shit) and a club in Leeds with four audience and a stuffed pike, (which, on reflection I probably deserved) fooled nobody but myself and at the end of it all can only exhort everyone to bloody well get out there and do it, as performer, accompanist, dancer, organiser or - and let's not forget them since without them performers wouldn't have a platform - audience. Because that's the only way it will survive as a living art form.
This discussion is wondrous, but it hasn't played a note. Worse still, I even find myself agreeing with Diane. As for Parris - a far better writer said "If by a man's works shall ye know him, he is a festering pile of horse droppings". There is more worth in a beginners' session at the Grand Union, however dire, or at the Bear or the Board, or Whitby Scratch Morris than a thousand newspaper articles. And if this sounds like the ravings of an old fart, so be it; I love the music that I grew up with and all those who, according to whatever lights guide them, take on its performance, conservation and development.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:25 PM

If you can't see the difference between propriety and legality you think even less than I thought.

Oh, and you might want to re-check the ambit of the laws you think you are referring to, as well.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:13 PM

Captain Ginger

And the bog-standard folk club simply doesn't cut it as a shop window for trad material.

You know, sometimes I could wonder why I bother to help run a folk club if it wasn't for the people who turn up every week to enjoy the show.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:33 PM

I agree entirely Ruth - but they are assumptions based on history and not based on current reality, which is why I asked the question "when".

At least once a fortnight I hear on BBC Radio 4 (generally) that folk music is about "beards and tankards" and "Aran sweaters" and "fingers in the ear" and any combination of those those cliches. You and I know it is round spherical objects - if nothing else it ignores the 50% of the population that is not male when it mentions beards.

It needs challenging whenever it appears and eventually it will (mostly) go away. Which is why I asked Paul (politely I hope) to think about when and where he got his cliche about the EFDSS and suggested it might not be true.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:55 PM

There's a distinction, isn't there, between traditional folk music (passed on from generation to generation, of historical and cultural value but not necessarily to particularly good performance standards), tradart (performance of traditional music and song by professionals, and possibly with inclusion of contemporary material written in trad idiom) and communal singing and playing together - of varying quality - in sessions? They're all valid in their own right, and sometimes can be found together. Different people enjoy different aspects. Shirley Collins suggested on her radio programme that people might get distracted from the quality of a song by the quality of the singing....

Kitty

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:38 PM

To be fair, Dave, I think it's easy to make those sorts of assumptions about EFDSS based on its history, and if people have been out of touch with the organisation for a while, it's probably not that surprising that these are their impressions.

I should add, as mentioned elsewhere, that Thursday night's launch for the Young Coppers CD at Cecil Sharp House was attended by Dave Rotheray from The Beautiful SOuth and Graham Coxon from Blur. Both were very enthusiastic about EFDSS when I spoke to them, and happily parted with contact details so that EFDSS can keep in touch with them.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:27 PM

I may be completely wrong (and possibly have some prejudice) but my image of the EFDSS is that it is a bit cucumber sandwiches and more tea vicar.

Can I ask how and when you acquired this image?

And rather than ask about myspace - which they don't have - have you taken a look at their website recently which they do have? That would tell you a bit about how they represent themselves.

http://www.efdss.org/

I understand one of the dances held on a regular basis is a hotbed of debauchery. I have only read about it of course, I couldn't possible comment further. But further away from vicars and cucumber sandwiches you couldn't get.

Of course EFDSS members know about this, because it was featured in the magazine.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:21 PM

Banjiman,

Yes, the website is www.efdss.org, and the Myspace for English Dance and Song Magazine is myspace.com/edsmagazine.

The website is about to undergo a refurb, but there is some useful information on there about recent activities. Keep in mind that the new Chief Exec has only been in post for about 6 weeks, but it's a bright horizon. I think the days of cucumber sandwiches are well and truly in the past, but mine's a pint of Abbot if you're buying.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 02:22 PM

You confuse imitation with mockery, that's a common mistake among those devoid of the ability to laugh at themselves.

G [The panoramic view across the Highland hills from my non Morrison's black plastic, imitation leather swivel chair]

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:56 PM

We do also have the "anything is good enough for folk" crowd here. Bit sad really

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

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:53 PM

I have a problem with armchair activists, especially the imitation ones. :-)

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

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:45 PM

Yes. Especially Morris.
Did you get your imitation leather swivel chair from Morrisons?
I did and it fell apart.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:42 PM

I think that dissing any form of tradarts [thanks Diane] should be a hanging offence.

G (The view from my black imitation leather swivel chair, overlooking Little Loch Shin}

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:41 PM

At the many open mics up and down Camden High Street they're falling over themselves to describe any old shit as "f*lk". It's a "cool" word, apparently. And since it has been so comprehensively hijacked, I'm all for binning the expression forthwith. They can keep it now that it is so devoid of meaning. If you play trad music, call it that.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Banjiman
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:34 PM

Nigel, Ruth,

Thank you for your constructive remarks about the EFDSS and the differentiation of Folk Arts England as the main lobbying organisation. I may be completely wrong (and possibly have some prejudice) but my image of the EFDSS is that it is a bit cucumber sandwiches and more tea vicar.

But I think I better go have a look at websites etc if things are changing.....does the EFDSS have a MySpace page.....I ask for 2 reasons.

1/ I'd really like to have a look and listen to how they represent themselves and

2/If not, why not?

Richard Bridge,

"No, no hypocrisy. Open Mics aren't about folk music, they are about rock and roll, and mobo and all sorts of other stuff, but not about folk music because folk isn't seen as "cool" by stupid pundits or knuckle-dragging hoodies whereas the element of anti-social behaviour in (etc etc) enables the callow to believe they are rejecting their parents' values or the oppressions of society."

Maybe where you live, plenty of folk (including trad) music at open mics around here...and well accepted when well performed .......

Paul

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:29 PM

'And I do find it ironic that Parris's prejudice against English folk arts is seen as acceptable'

It becomes acceptable because and when people refuse to stand and be counted when it really matters. The same goes for politics,attacks on people based upon their religion or sexual bias. As Diane correctly states, one is a personal loss (and could grow into more), the other is criminal.

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

Vancouver Island MusicFest 2008

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:13 PM

It's perfectly simple.

Someone says they don't like a particular genre of, say, music and speaks ignorantly of it. That's their loss.
Someone else discriminates unlawfully on the grounds of race, religion or sexuality. That's a criminal act.

Are you sure you're a lawyer?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:06 PM

No, no hypocrisy. Open Mics aren't about folk music, they are about rock and roll, and mobo and all sorts of other stuff, but not about folk music because folk isn't seen as "cool" by stupid pundits or knuckle-dragging hoodies whereas the element of anti-social behaviour in (etc etc) enables the callow to believe they are rejecting their parents' values or the oppressions of society.

And I do find it ironic that Parris's prejudice against English folk arts is seen as acceptable, whereas any prejudice that others might have against homosexuality is unacceptable. What's that about casting motes, beams, etc?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice)
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:03 PM

I don't understand..? As a matter of fact I do, as we here went through the denigration of the folk music scene some years ago, by someone who genuinely didn't see the point to festivals etc receiving governmet funding (a complete and total waste of time and money was his favourite phrase and he also suggested that gays and lesbians be sent to 're-education camps') We rode out the storms. The person in question has since passed on, but we still have our nay-sayers and we still continue on as ever.

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

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 12:28 PM

Cheers. They (the Shed) have a changing list of beers so I won't know if Adnams is there until I get there. I usually drink on of their own brews - Top Cat.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Nigel Spencer
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 12:20 PM

Have great night then, Jon, and a pint of Adnams for me if they serve it.

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.

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: 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,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: GUEST,Nigel Spencer
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 10:37 AM

Damned cookie thing...

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,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: 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 - 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: 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 - 09:12 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 - 09:12 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
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: 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.)