Our ghastly folk tradition

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:08 AM

"Matthew Parris is one of the most offensive people alive, when he was a Tory MP he was filmed trying to live for a week on unemployment benefit, he was treated with the utmost kindness by people who REALLY were living on the dole, they bought him drinks and food etc, afterwards he said it was impossible to exist on unemployment benefit............but he wouldn't recommend increasing it, what a twat eh."

So that's the bastard. Wasn't it he who was outed in a tv programme called Maggie's Militant Tendency?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Dave Hunt
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 06:57 AM

GRAB wrote - above
'FWIW, I also wasn't greatly keen on the singer in that clip, and the prospect of an entire evening of it would fill me with as much dread as it probably would Matthew Parris and Kim Howells. That's not a judgement on the song but the singer - it made my teeth itch like fingernails down a blackboard. Thankfully all folk singers don't sound like that'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mores the pity! Kevin is a superb singer - and I could listen to hours of his singing - (and indeed have done in the past) his choice of material,singing style, timing, etc. are magnigicent - IMNSHO !!
Dave

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 06:46 AM

""These people are still part of the folk community - if anything, they outnumber the more hardcore types like us. The point I was trying to make is that we may not see them around here, but we can't presume their non-existence. If the festival scene is anything to go by, there are plenty of them out there.""

I think Melissa's point is that if we were more welcoming, we WOULD see more of them around here, and I would tend to agree with that.

I have spent most of a lifetime organising Folk Clubs, sessions, and singarounds, and have made it my trademark to welcome personally everyone who does me the favour of attending.

Mudcat is a wonderful place to be if you are (as I am now) a recognised insider, but there is, and always has been, a tendency for some here to forget that they themselves once made that mistake, of opening a long defunct thread, or asking a very dumb question.

How much REAL effort is involved in taking the time to set a newcomer on the path to being a regular Mudcat contributor. We can't expect youngsters to respect our experience and knowledge, if we don't have the patience to communicate with them.

Back on topic.

Anyone is entitled to like, or dislike anything he/she chooses. What I consider to be absolutely unacceptible, is for that opinion to be aired to a massive audience without the opportunity for the contrary viewpoint to be presented.

The BBC is a public service organisation, funded by licence payers, and as long as we all pay the same fee, we should all receive the same balanced service.

MP should keep his prejudices to himself, unless he has the guts to field a member of the group he is rubbishing to answer his comment.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: tijuanatime
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 06:12 AM

The key point is that Parris chose to express his dislike of traditional music in specifically racial terms: as a thoght experiment, try reversing his sentiments and imagine what the reaction would be.

As for these being off-the-cuff remarks, POTW is certainly pre-recorded and almost certainly scripted.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: melodeonboy
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 05:58 AM

"I'm beginning to wonder whether Parris doesn't do this sort of thing deliberately, just to get a reaction. A chain yanker as it were. I might be wrong", said Charlottte.

Excuse me if I'm a bit slow, Charlotte, but that was rhyming slang, wasn't it?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 05:04 AM

Nice one, Tom.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:58 AM

This just sent to Pick of The Week and Feedback:

Sir

Those of us who make our livings in the 'folk music industry' and who commit our time and effort to promoting the indigenous musics of these islands have become used to having it rubbished by people who have plainly never tried to listen to it with an open mind.

However, Matthew Parris' tone of voice in condemning the highly skilled Irish singer Kevin Mitchell as a 'dreadful caterwauling' and the rest of our musical heritage as 'ghastly' on Pick of the Week yesterday seemed to plumb a new depth in narrow-mindedness.

Would he have been allowed to use those terms on the BBC to describe, say, a traditional singer or music from India or China, I wonder? I suspect not.

Parris is of course entitled to express his opinion (and to attempt cheap and clichéd jokes if he must), but to call Mitchell's delicate, precise and tuneful delivery 'caterwauling' was not only offensive to Mitchell, and to Irish and other traditional music in general, it was also lazy and ignorant in the extreme.

I hope Parris will be persuaded to issue an apology.

Yours faithfully

Tom Bliss

Slipjig Music

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: John J
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:37 AM

I think Matthew Parris's comment on folk used the word 'catawaulin' (sp?). I wasn't impressed by his damning description, but I suppose we're all entitled to our own opinions.

I found the programme on the Black boy was very enjoyable.

John

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:35 AM

Only 5 festivals? What gave you that idea?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:35 AM

Gene, you questioned the idea that there were lots of young audiences AND performers (your emphasis) on the folk scene.

Good lord, do I have to name all of the festivals booking such artists as well? The ones mentioned were meant to be illustrative, rather than an exhaustive list. I have no idea which festivals you're attending, but I probably do abut 10 a year, and see many of the artists I named at all of them. I also attend a lot of folk gigs in various parts of the country. These artists are bringing out CDs and touring them to venues all the time.

In addition to the festivals I cited, others booking substantial numbers of younger artists include:

Oxford, Cheltenham, Loughborough, Broadstairs, Gosport, Holmfirth, Chippenham, Southwell, Middlewich, Big Session, Ely, Priddy, Trowbridge, Bideford, Shrewsbury, Bromyard...those are, again, off the top of my head.

Audieces: well, that depends on the festival. Some are more successful at attracting younger audiences than others, as I said previously. This can be to do with pricing policies, type of accommodation available, engagement with the local community, and a number of other factors.


So as was suggested on the previous thread, perhaps you do need to get out more.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Gene Burton
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 02:25 AM

Of the artists listed by Joan, I wonder 1) What the average age of their AUDIENCE is and 2)(following from this) how many will still be making a good living in, say, 15 years time? Not a comment on their quality, just on the state of the folk scene. OK, so this supposedly thriving young festival scene boils down to about 5 festivals previously mentioned (I can only assume this to be the case 'cos it's certainly not true of any of the ones I've been to). Even if every artist listed got booked at all of these every summer, I hardly think that alone would provide a decent year's income...so I'd guess most of the rest must be coming from folk club bookings. Even Joan accepts the folk clubs are by and large failing to attract new blood, so what, realistically, are the prospects for (say) a 25-year old pro now still hoping to be doing it at 40 and beyond?

Though I sincerely hope I'm wrong, I can only say of the people listed, that I hope for their sake they have other strings to their bow/alternative careers lined up if they don't want to be facing poverty some time down the road. And, I repeat, what are we doing about it?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 01:05 AM

Matthew Parris is one of the most offensive people alive, when he was a Tory MP he was filmed trying to live for a week on unemployment benefit, he was treated with the utmost kindness by people who REALLY were living on the dole, they bought him drinks and food etc, afterwards he said it was impossible to exist on unemployment benefit............but he wouldn't recommend increasing it, what a twat eh.

eric

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ythanside
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 09:29 PM

Come on, guys, lighten up. If only Rambling Sid Rumpo were still on the go he'd write and record a suitable response to that ill-informed pillock's comments and make sure the BBC got a copy. :-D

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 09:15 PM

Not wanting to drag the thread off topic too much, by and large this forum is pretty welcoming, and a useful source of information. In that it resembles the Volvo Owners' Club forum (alas having a current bout of angst and closure arising out of solicitors' letters, rather as the DT every so often gets things removed thanks to the copyright police). By way of contrast, if you go to the Turbobricks forum and display ignorance or even an unfashionable opinion, you'd better put your earplugs in! By way of analogy go to the Froots or BBC fora and express the view that we would be better off with more folk music and less world rock, and batten down the hatches!

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: gnomad
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 08:54 PM

Parris has made a study of bitchiness, see his book Scorn, With Extra Bile (A bucketful of discourtesy, disparagement, invective, ridicule, impudence, contumely, derision, hate, affront, disdain, bile, taunts, curses, and jibes) ISBN0-140-27780-3.

Given his interest in nastiness, and his having been a politician, can we really expect a pleasant or informed comment from him?

I didn't hear the Parris piece, but was not very impressed with the "Black Boy" programme itself, which seemed to be rather limited in its geographical scope, the possible explanations investigated, and indeed the depth of those investigations. Nice that they tried, but a shame it was such a feeble try.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 08:47 PM

I agree with Grab. Most of us in Mudcat may love traditional folk music, but not everyone has to share that love. Music is very subjective.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Grab
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 08:23 PM

Hmm. I heard that, and thought "how long before there's a hundred-post thread on Mudcat about a 2-second off-hand comment?" Answer seems to be: not very long. :-/

Is Matthew Parris allowed to say he doesn't like trad folk music? If not, why not? And if he'd said the same about rap, would anyone here be complaining? Or opera?

FWIW, I also wasn't greatly keen on the singer in that clip, and the prospect of an entire evening of it would fill me with as much dread as it probably would Matthew Parris and Kim Howells. That's not a judgement on the song but the singer - it made my teeth itch like fingernails down a blackboard. Thankfully all folk singers don't sound like that.

And interestingly the same programme also mentioned the disproportional funding of opera against other traditional English music such as brass bands.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Art Thieme
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 08:20 PM

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 08:12 PM

I wasn't trying to say there were carbon copies of Mudcat out there, Melissa. I was trying to say that there are sites which are probably more appropriate for the casual, "dip-in" sort of person that many newer and younger folk fans are likely to be. The majority of people who pick up a Kate Rusby or Eliza Carthy CD, or see them in concert, are realy quite happy to simply chat to other people about that CD or gig, and don't feel compelled to seek out something like the DT.

These people are still part of the folk community - if anything, they outnumber the more hardcore types like us. The point I was trying to make is that we may not see them around here, but we can't presume their non-existence. If the festival scene is anything to go by, there are plenty of them out there.

Many artists' own websites have open fora. There is also Facebook, as I've mentioned previously. Some will find the BBC folk messageboard, or the Froots one if their musical tastes are a bit wider. There are also newsgroups like the Morris and E-Ceilidh lists.

For sheer weight of useful information, MusTrad is hard to beat.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Suegorgeous
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 08:00 PM

Melissa

Thanks very much for your thoughtful answer, apology accepted! and appreciated, cos not many people here do step back from what they've said and apologise if they feel that's right.

I'm sorry if my reply came across as dismissive, that's not how I intended it at all. I sometimes say things online very concisely (I enjoy brevity and can be impatient with waffle) and perhaps it can come across as abrupt.

I don't think I'm ever spiteful. I sometimes tease, and I have to be careful with that, as that can be taken wrongly. I do occasionally have a merciless dig back at people who are rude to me without cause (but I wouldn't even call that spite).

Sue

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Melissa
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:34 PM

Ruth,
Can you please refer me to two other online communities with an open forum and something comparable to our DT?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Melissa
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:31 PM

Yes, Sue...and I followed by apologizing after thinking a bit and realizing that maybe instead of being snippy, you could possibly have been giving a non-discussion answer.
I was hoping for discussion. All of us here stayed because we did and the response sounded dismissive to me.
I AM sorry for my defensive reply, it happened to feed into my thoughts about slamming doors and "take this link and leave us alone" and it was inappropriate for me to let your comment strike me that way.

From this point on, I will refuse to read spite in any message of yours in response to mine (presuming I say anything you might want to chirp in on) unless you specifically mention that it should be read that way.

Sorry.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:27 PM

"Ruth, the 'scene' may be vivid and lively around you, but not everybody has access and/or knowledge of a slice of Scene near them."

It's hardly a hotbed of activity where I live, believe me.

Mudcat is one view of what's going on; it's not the be all and end all. Many people here, for instance, tend to be interested in the more traditional end of folk. There are a number of websites out there covering a much broader range of folk music. I would suggest that many of the younger people with a more casual interest in folk may find their way more easily to those, and find themselves in rather more like-minded company. There are a number of Facebook groups, for example, dedicated to folk music and dance, and which boast a substantially younger membership than Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Suegorgeous
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:22 PM

Melissa

I certainly did read your words, and I answered the question you put to me at the start.

I think you've not read MY words, or you've misunderstood. No way was I sniping, and I'm completely puzzled and concerned that you could take it that way.

You wrote: Why would someone persist past it, Sue?
I answered by telling you of my own experience of persisting past someone's rudeness to me on here, and my own view that there's not much one can do about other people's rudeness. How is that sniping?

Sue

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Melissa
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:15 PM

Gene:
"But I do worry that our musical heritage is being allowed to dwindle and wither by those supposedly dedicated to its propagation."

Without care, a body can die from an infected, untreated hangnail.
Mudcat is a teeny little thing in the Big Picture. If our garden is full of poison, I suspect the surrounding area feels the effect.

Kitty, I apologize for stepping on your toes by standing in your living room encouraging the conversation to move past your chosen topic. I read the thread and had nothing to add until the conversation turned in a direction where my input seemed appropriate. Maybe it's a direction we're all more comfortable leaving unsaid?

Ruth, the 'scene' may be vivid and lively around you, but not everybody has access and/or knowledge of a slice of Scene near them. For those of us who fit that category, mudcat IS a representative view into what's going on within Folk.

Sue, if your "because I did" statement wasn't meant to be snippish, I am sorry I snapped off a reply in rebuttal.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread where we learn whether the outraged listeners will continue tuning in and listening to the objectionable fellow to insure that they don't miss his next ridiculous comment.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:10 PM

"But I do worry that our musical heritage is being allowed to dwindle and wither by those supposedly dedicated to its propagation."

*sigh*

If the scene is dwindling and withering, how come these young artists are so consistently on my radar?

Mawkin:Causley
Lauren McCormick and Emily Portman
Jackie Oates
James Dumbleton
James Reynard
Matt Norman
Last Orders
Mike and Ali Vass
Laurel Swift
Oli Matthews
Tom Wright
Saul Rose
Benji Kirkpatrick
Paul Sartin
Bodega
Park Bench Social Club
Megson
The Gloworms
422
The Askew Sisters
Spiers and Boden
Laura Hockenhull
The Young Coppers
The Demon Barber Road Show
Uiscedwr
Bella Hardy
Lisa Knapp
Rachel Unthank and the Winterset
Shona Kipling and Damien O'Kane
Jim Moray
Crucible/Hekety

...and that's just off the top of my head. These are people getting booked regularly at festivals and venues - and even folk clubs.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:04 PM

Just because your talking about your own people doesn't mean that you can't be racist about them.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: peregrina
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:55 PM

Hi Kitty,
I heard it too and entirely agree that it merits a thread...meanwhile I've just written to feedback and suggested that they make good the acoustic littering (I mean rubbish) by doing some community service--viz, for example a show on the music of the lost industrial communities of the northeast featuring the real stuff new and old rather than specially commissioned pieces.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Gene Burton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:55 PM

"Perhaps what you actually mean, Gene, is that they're not booking you."

This is the kind of remark I'd anticipated when I requested that this should be discussed "without resort to snideness or personal remarks". I've made my current position with regard to the folk scene and bookings clear on other threads, and can't be arsed to do so again.

This stuff is a lot bigger than my career or anybody else's. Provided I can retain the joy of singing, I really couldn't give a toss if I never earned another penny (I've actually earned more in the last year than in any previous year, though admittedly it is all relative). But I do worry that our musical heritage is being allowed to dwindle and wither by those supposedly dedicated to its propagation.

I do hope others feel able to discuss the points I've raised more constructively. For now, though, I'm off to bed. SWEET dreams, people.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:52 PM

Thanks, Peregrina - I started this thread because a presenter on a BBC radio 4 flagship programme had gratuitously rubbished a genre that he isn't really qualified to comment on.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly...write to feedback!
From: peregrina
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:44 PM

Melissa--thanks for your post. Agreed. I for one think it would be nice to see a little more of 'welcome here kind stranger'...

I first joined Mudcat to try to enlist others to send some e-mails of protest after a local station axed its excellent folk slot. I'll write to the BBC, but can't such much point in adding to the chorus here (which I agree with).

(I'm the person who takes the petition up and down the street for the doomed post office even though it's doomed..)

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:39 PM

I certainly am not going to claim that there are lots of youngsters at folk clubs. But there are a hell of a lot of them at festivals, both performing and as punters.

The Young Coppers launched their new CD at Cecil Sharp House in London on Thursday. The concert bill was packed with younger folkies. In the audience (and the post-gig bar) were a member of the Beautiful South and Graham Coxson from Blur. Not kids, I grant you, but young by folk standards...and from the pop scene.

Cambridge and Towersey festivals usually get particularly large numbers of young attenders, but others such as Warwick, Shepley and Sidmouth attract robust younger audiences, especially evident at the late night events.

In terms of artists - well, the scene is chocka with younger people at the moment. I can't be arsed to make a list. Perhaps what you actually mean, Gene, is that they're not booking you.

Re Mudcat: this is one tiny and quite specialist niche of the folk scene. The majority of young people with a burgeoning interest in folk will never find their way here. There are many other avenues for them, though.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Melissa
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:34 PM

Maybe it would be more conducive to pleasant conversation if you would read my words and take them at face value before deciding to snip me, Sue.

You don't know me well enough to give me that type of response.
For future reference, whenever you notice my name attached to a post, you can be assured that I'm speaking honestly and as clearly as I can...and that I am trying to share my viewpoint from my perspective.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Suegorgeous
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:28 PM

Melissa

Well...cos I did! past some gratuitous, unnecessary rudeness...not a lot you can do about it (apart from raise it, like this).

Sue

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Gene Burton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:23 PM

"I do think that someone genuinely interested (young or old) would persist past this..."

As I have. It IS hard work at times though, frankly.

A fourth factor which I perhaps should have mentioned, is denial. Melissa mentions people bemoaning the lack of young folkies; but when I brought this up on another thread recently a number of contributors claimed (apparently in all seriousness) that folk clubs and festivals were packed to the brim with young audience members AND performers, that folk music was more popular with the young than at any time including the '60s revival, and that if I didn't know that I should "get out more". Well, all I can say is I've been to scores of folk clubs and a good few festivals in the last 5-6 years, and it just ain't so. And I'm afraid I can count the number of people my age (27) and younger who I know personally, who listen regularly to folk music, on the fingers of one hand. If it were possible to talk a problem like that out of existence simply by denying it, that'd be great...however, we have to deal with the position as it is, not as we'd like it to be.

Melissa, thank you for posting, BTW.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Melissa
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:21 PM

Why would someone persist past it, Sue?
The world is big and there are a lot of other ways to spend time and if a newcomer feels like a door has been slammed in their face, an impression is made.

The "In Crowd" here can ask each other the most basic music questions and get reasonable, useful responses. That's fair enough and it's really, really nice to be able to carry on 'living room' conversations with people who are scattered all over the world.
If a newcomer falls in to mudcat, the first posts they make are trials..testing the water. A Guest who opens a thread asking how the math for turning chords into sevenths is likely to be given a link and a pat on the head.

Sometimes new people might want to talk. Questions are how we introduce ourselves here. If what they wanted was a link..and if they found mudcat by playing around online, chances are they're smart enough to find the sterile information themselves.
Yes, giving a link is nice.
Giving TIME and consideration is a lot nicer.

There's a LOT of stuff here above the line that does not look very appealing when you look at it from the perspective of an outsider.
Great threads are more prevalent than lesser quality ones, but there's a lot of tackytalk up here that isn't good advertising IF the idea is to welcome and embrace young/new folks who are interested or to pull in and win-over the ones who poke in out of curiosity.

Another aspect of seeming to be 'offish' is that we lose out on the chance to learn by introducing a little new blood to the place.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Suegorgeous
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:05 PM

There are elements of truth in Melissa's posts. Some people are aggressive on here, particularly to a newcomer posting something a bit naive. But I do think that someone genuinely interested (young or old) would persist past this...

Sue

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:52 PM

Takes one to know one, Charlotte.

:D

Dave (Not particularly interested in the view from anyones arse...)

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Melissa
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:49 PM

Ok Gene, I'll bite.

There's nothing in my home area for me to base an opinion on The Folk Scene. Mudcat is the only example of Folk Gathering available to me. Initially, I was excited at the prospect of having found the opportunity to sort of 'hang out' with musicians. I figured the conversations would be informative, friendly and a nice way to fill time with a music community without having to put on shoes and go somewhere.
I will apparently always be an outsider here, and that's ok. The outer edge is a decent place to be, and I learn a lot by reading. Some of the stuff I learn is lovely and I can learn to be content out here rattling the shrubbery.

One thing I have noticed is that there are plenty of posts saying "gosh, where are the young/new people?! Why aren't they interested in this brilliant thing we call Folk?" Threads with those posts usually also include self-congratulatory "we're such a nice, welcoming type..nobody's friendlier than a Folkie" (remember, this is an observation, NOT a criticism. I understand I have no Rights of Criticism.) I wouldn't disagree. Musicians do have a natural tendency toward wanting the next generation to admire and emulate them.
In contrast, threads open frequently where someone who is obviously new to mudcat, maybe new to music altogether, sometimes clueless and occasionally their requests for help are phrased in a way that doesn't look polite. Those threads are often allowed to dwindle to the bottom and off the list for lack of response. Those posts are made by the young/new people who are supposedly non-existent. There's nothing here for them and they don't have a reason to come back.

If someone is curious about what 'folk' means (maybe a folk club/show/gathering in their area and they're curious, wanting to find out whether they're interested in going to see the thing?) Mudcat is going to show up on their online search.
They're going to come, read some threads, maybe make the error of opening an old thread (responses to old threads being opened is mixed, but it's not consistently pleasant) or asking a question about something that's been beaten to death already (where they are likely to be told something that sounds suspiciously like "hey dummy, why don't you use the damn mcsearch thing and find it yourself and quit bugging us--we're talking about something Important here!")

If mudcat is representative of the Folk Scene, I would say there's possibly a fairly strong argument for the idea of "Exclusivity" being a problem and source of shrinking interest.

It's sort of like burying a treasure and refusing to make a map. After we're gone, the hoard is lost.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:45 PM

Errrm, isn't that what I said?

"This isn't the first time Parris has been gratuitously offensive for a cheap laugh. "

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Mole Catcher's Apprentice (inactive)
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:41 PM

I'm beginning to wonder whether Parris doesn't do this sort of thing deliberately, just to get a reaction. A chain yanker as it were. I might be wrong

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

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:33 PM

In a nutshell Art.   YES

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Art Thieme
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:32 PM

Obviously we are dealing with a pugnacious churl and an impudent rapscallion. It is enough for me to know that he is wrong, and WE are correct.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:32 PM

Actually, Gene, it's not just the English musical tradition (and what the fuck has an Irish singer to do with that?) that is perpetually rubbished by the British (a very large part of which is foreign controlled or heavily influenced) media, but ALL English tradition, and I for one am very pissed off about it.

But because of the way the media are run, there is no significant outlet for contrary views, and nothing will change until we have our own Mehdi army.

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:28 PM

Oh look! This isn't the first time Parris has been gratuitously offensive for a cheap laugh. From Wiki:

"In his Times article of 27 December 2007, Parris took a strong line against cyclists, beginning his column with "A festive custom we could do worse than foster would be stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists",[4] going on to denounce cyclists on a number of grounds, particularly their alleged propensity for littering. This came as a shock to many cyclists, including some who had previously been caught by similar wires. Responses in the paper have included letters[5] and a column in reply mentioning, among other things, that litter is often found along all-motor vehicle routes.[6] Comparisons have been made to other issues of incitement and hate speech[7], which have been a controversial issue in the UK in recent years."

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: The Mole Catcher's Apprentice (inactive)
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:20 PM

I just Googled 'Black Boy pubs'

there are a fair number in the British Isles with that name. Were there more at one time?

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

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: Gene Burton
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:16 PM

The question nobody on this thread has addressed thus far is WHY is our music so often represented in such a denigratory manner; ie. what's the causation and where are WE going wrong (and something clearly HAS gone badly wrong; the UK must surely be the only democratic country in the world where the indigenous musical tradition is held in such low regard by the vast majority of the population).

There are no easy answers, and I wouldn't claim to have 'em all. But it won't do to blame it all on media bias; these pundits are after all only (broadly speaking) reflecting the views of their listeners. For what it's worth, I'd suggest we look at three major factors.

1) Are the breaks always going to the right artists? Are we rewarding orthodoxy over originality, virtuosity over passion? If so, is this contributing to a perception that folk music is a little bloated, middle-aged, fussy, lacking in edge?

2) How's the folk scene being run? Is it operating for the benefit of performers, or listeners...or for the benefit of a small self-perpetuating elite? (Please take the trouble to look within before jumping in with a knee-jerk, defensive response...remember, this is EVERYBODY'S music we're talking about).

3) Is there an extent to which some of us actually LIKE being marginalised, being part of an exclusive interest group spurned by the hoi polloi and thus being afforded a certain snob value status...(call it the "only gay in the village" syndrome, if you will)...and consequently not only don't CARE that the music's being ignored but actively encourage it's neglect?

I suggest we need to engage with these issues, ideally constructively and without resort to snideness and personal remarks. Any takers?

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:16 PM

Because the person presenting the programme is black himself, Lem Sissay, so it's apparently OK.
The programme itself was neither informative nor entertaining, and although billed as an investigation into the origins of the 'Black Boy' pub name, it came to no firm conclusions.

G

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:14 PM

There was a pub near Henley on Thames called "The Black Boy "---- sadly, due no doubt to political correctness, it is now called "Black Boys Inn " .
    In Her Majesty's Navy, we had various words ,phrases,and expressions for describing people like Matthew Paris ( no relation to Frederick, I hope ??) , none of which I will repeat here.( they are not politically correct ).I will, however, gladly offer some abbreviations, viz. BB, KJ,TB, BH.......

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 05:09 PM

How come they are allowed to talk about 'Black Boy' yet when a plant on Gardener's Question time called Black Man's Willy was taken out of the repeat of the program because of complaints? There was even an apology in their gardener's World magazine.

Like wot???


Sal