Our ghastly folk tradition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard,

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

No hypocrisy there then!

Paul

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

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

What would 20:20 folk be like?

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

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

OK Tom,

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

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

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

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

Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom,

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


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


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

Paul

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

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

Tom 'tankard half full' Bliss

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

beards and tankards
And I plead guilty on both charges!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RB said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It isn't about funding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

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

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

Bugger. To "financially reward it accordingly".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMHO.

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

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

Kitty

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kitty

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

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

I think not


'who expects to be taken seriously.'

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

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

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

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

G

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Kitty is right Mike

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

But I had two professional reactions as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We sail ships on storms smaller than this.

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

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

Wassail!

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Our ghastly folk tradition
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:52 PM

I think that it is an act of crass stupidity for one who relies on the public for a living, to heedlessly antagonise some of that public, by making flippant remarks.
It may be only a few people, but these things add up, first cyclists, now folkies, whoever next?

G.

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

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

Kitty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wassail!

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

Folkiedave,

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

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

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

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

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

Kitty

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

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

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

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

Kitty

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

Sabotage eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this: The GEFF Fest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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