Over Analysis

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 15 May 08 - 01:16 PM

Nine tenths isn't a percentage it's a fraction.

That's the trouble with the literate, they tend to be innumerate.

Best wishes

Les

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Mr Red
Date: 12 May 08 - 08:10 AM

Ah - Sturgeon's rule - was ever apt.

Theodore Sturgeon, Science Fiction writer - he say:

"nine tenths of everything is crud."

quibble with the percentage but not the sentiment.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 May 08 - 11:37 AM

the trouble with analysis, is that it tends to be either some expert with a a sackful of axes to grind, or one's own myopic vision based on your stomping up and down one's own familiar stomping ground.

The dismaying and indeed stimulating thing is when some old folksinger just says something and it opens up a whole aspect to the music that you hadn't considered.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 May 08 - 10:30 AM

Once musicians reache a certain expertise, it is inevitable that many move to greater challenges. For those who are not professional there is not much mileage in honing the music, some will and I see some very skilled performers who can't take too many gigs because of the day job. However some folks are studious and seek to delve deeper into roots, history, technique, doyens etc.. So they start talking with like minds. If you listen-in you are in danger of being bored. If that is verbal you walk off. If it is on a forum like this you can still let your fingers do the walking. Over-analysis can damage the skill and the cause, but only in the wrong hands. It can enhance and enlighten. Different strokes for different folks.

But I know nothing of this - as a drummer who never practises!

Ducks and runs for cover..........

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:41 PM

I don't do introductions when we're doing a special event at a cocktail party or a commercial boat show. No one is listening to anything there except as background music.

However, if there is an audience that is listening to the songs, I do make an effort to tell them where the song came from, either before or after singing it. It's part of the song, and I'd like to pass on what I've learned about it. That doesn't mean a 30-minute lecture, however, and while that is an exaggeration some song introductions seem to take that long!

There is a problem with over analysis, I've found, which is the more one learns about a song, the more variants one discovers, and ultimately it becomes a judgment call on what to do with all the information. Some Mudcat threads are classic examples of unresolved origin of song. It almost enough to inspire one to be a singer-songwriter, but then there are all those "influences."

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Sugwash
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:43 PM

Simple soul indeed.

I'll just point out that I was arguing that we were in danger of overanalysing the music, not analysing per se. I would also argue that there is a distinction between analysis and research; I can blather on for far too long on a song's background and source myself, and often do. I was thinking more of the threads running into the hundreds of posts over not very much at all.

But any hoo, just a thank you before I ride off into the sunset: Suffolk Miracle, thanks for the flattery , imitation being the sincerest form of; Parvane, which playground have you escaped from?

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Mr Red
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:34 AM

Are we over-analysing our music?

We can't sing on a discussion forum, we can only discuss, or merely cuss in some cases.

Go to a singaround, session, festival, FC, ceilidh and see how much discussion ensues. Some, by some people.

But we are here to opine.

Overdoing it? Too many BS threads? What else should we do here? Wallow in it and enjoy!

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Banjiman
Date: 09 May 08 - 05:50 AM

Redmax, Marje.....I did acknowledge the point from Sedayne re the increased interest when photos are properly labeled and accepted the analogy with songs......I'm doing my penance right now and reading "Folk Songs of Britain & Ireland" (824 pages) from cover to cover....and yes the descriptions and provenance of the songs does make it a whole more interesting!

Paul

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Marje
Date: 09 May 08 - 05:40 AM

We're off on a side-issue now, but I do agree about the photos. I used to think old photos were not worth bothering about once there was no one alive to recall them, but then a bit of very surprising news came out, concerning a family member many years ago - news that shed new light on many relationships within the family.

Old photos could perhaps have yielded more information or more detail, but most of the fmaily photos were not labelled with dates or names. A mystery young man appears in a couple of photos; he may be a key player in this story, but we simply don't know. Other photos of people we do recognise would be much more useful if we knew when and where they were taken.

I have since pencilled some information on some of the photos, so that at least what I know will not be lost when I go.

Maje

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: GUEST,redmax
Date: 09 May 08 - 05:27 AM

There was a rather well-chosen comparison with old photogrpahs earlier on, and the response: "Interesting, none of my photos have place and date on the back.....I can remember where and when most were shot though, and the feelings associated"

This got me thinking. My grandma has an old tin box full of family photos, including her own grandparents. None of them had any writing on the back, so we sat down and asked her about them, noting down names etc. Now she's in her mid-90s and no longer able to remember much, so I'm grateful that we made the effort when we did.

Old songs are a bit like old photos. We can admire them without knowing anything about the people portrayed, but it's so much more interesting if we know a little about them.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: frogprince
Date: 08 May 08 - 11:47 PM

As musical performers go, I'm a decent photographer. A few years ago I heard a younger amateur photographer go on a major rant to the effect that all photographs should be of "found" objects or scenes; nothing in any artistic photograph should be added, subtracted, repositioned, or deliberately rearranged, period.

Of course this is in no way analogous to the position of any scholarly folk performers....

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 May 08 - 07:39 PM

I think if you spend about 40 years doing something, you're bound to think thoughts about it that haven't occurred to people who haven't.

I'm not claiming any great esoteric insights. Some people have done all the same stuff as me and come to different conclusions. Still it makes for a sort of 'legion of the damned' sort of mentality.

Most of the daft arguments on mudcat spring from this dichotony of people who've tramped round the various gigs available, and those who haven't.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Peter Beta
Date: 08 May 08 - 07:13 PM

Didn't mean to dismiss the value of obsessive practice/rejigging/adjustment (I suppose this could be considered a form of analysis) in my earlier post- this is of course an integral part of doing justice to a song, making it work with one's own vocal cords/instrumental style etc. Just that I personally would give primacy to how it SOUNDS (and yes, one's intuition is probably the best guide here IMO) rather than when/where the song originally came into being, what chord groups/tunings/instumentation would've been available to the original composer, blah, blah. A song, and its performance, ultimately stands or falls according to whether it sounds good to the people who comprise its current audience. I doubt whether many would disagree??

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Marje
Date: 08 May 08 - 10:24 AM

This is a discussion forum, isn't it? I mean, it's not a song-swap or a tune session or a concert. If we're here it's because we enjoy discussing certain aspects of the music; indeed, "enjoy" doesn't come near it in some cases - some people are totally enchanted and absorbed by folk music.

But we all have different interests and specialisms. Some of the topics we read are going to seem quite absorbing and interesting, while others may lack appeal.

This is all, I know, blindingly obvious. So why do some members, from time to time, find it odd or out of place that animated and detailed discussion takes place? Could it be that they begin to feel uncomfortable when they don't understand it all?

If your attitude is along the lines of "I don't know much about music but I know what I like", then why are you reading this forum at all? If you don't want your views challenged or your knowledge expanded, then just go right on thnking and doing as you please, but don't complain because others are more interested in the music than you are.

And now I'm off to plan what to play or sing at the club I'm going to tonight. Theory and practice are not mutually exclusive - they should and can support each other.

Marje

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Zen
Date: 08 May 08 - 09:31 AM

As someone who primarily enjoys playing music I tend to agree with you Sugwash. While I do like to know something about what I'm doing I do agree that there is occasionally a tendancy to over-analyse to the extent of negative nitpicking.

Zen

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: GUEST,Black Hawk on works PC
Date: 08 May 08 - 09:21 AM

I recently heard a performer give a 7 minute intro to a song & then as he sang the first line, he realised he couldnt remember it.
He apologised & did a 6 minute intro to his next 5 1/2 minute song.
I was testing a digital recorder (zoom H2) at the time so the times are accurately recorded.
Total of 20 mins for 1 song.
I enjoy a bit of background to a song but not a history lesson.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: BB
Date: 08 May 08 - 04:29 AM

I would have thought that knowledge of the background of a song means that one can give a more meaningful introduction to it, even when cutting that information down to a length which isn't going to bore the audience. I agree with the person above who talks about 1 min. intros., but I believe that you can put the song in context better the more you personally know about it - and still give the audience their money's worth in terms of the number of songs you manage to perform in the time allowed.

Barbara

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: GUEST,Smiffy
Date: 08 May 08 - 03:50 AM

I think there's a distinction between knowing the background to a song and 'over analising' that song? I can agree with some of the points Sugwash makes (although I dislike the saxaphone, for no good reason other than, I dislike the saxaphone). There does seem to be a tendency on some Mudcat threads to go on and on and on picking over the same subject. I'm all for academic debate but, all too often, it degenerates into slanging matches and vehicles for personal egos.

I guess that Nerd has the right of it, if you are an artist then you're bound to do some analysis, even if it is subconsciously. The trick is to know when to stop analysis and put that knowledge into practice.

Dave Smith

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: pavane
Date: 08 May 08 - 02:52 AM

So Music is an art, not a science.

And who was the first great mind to investigate music? To discover the reason for the scale? An artist or a scientist? I think you have all heard of one Pythagorus?

In fact, music is BOTH. Much of it is fundamentally based on mathematics, from scales though to rhythms.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:20 PM

I agree with Malcolm. I'd also second what Jack Campin said, and extend it to songs. I can't even work up a piece to sing it without some analysis. I need to know what all the words mean, and have some idea what the song would have meant to people when it was created, and then I need to say, "will my audience know what all the words mean?" Then I'll need to decide if that's important--if a single obscure word will confuse people or lend the song flavor, etc. If I think it's confusing, I need to change it...and that requires further thinking.

I recently was singing a concert at a US Civil War museum, and I decided to adapt a Civil War recruiting song from the mountains of Pennsylvania. To use the song to its full effect, I had to change some of the words, which required me to think: well, what is the point being made in the original verse? Can I make the same point in a way that people will understand? How do I do that?

All that is analysis of the song. As Malcolm says, artists analyze endlessly. Don't tell me that (say) Martin Carthy hasn't thought long and hard about most of his material....

Now, some of us certainly analyze more than others. Largely, this is because we have another career in which analysis of culture is important for some reason: we are (say) writers, reference librarians, scholars, teachers, etc. If this kind of analysis doesn't appeal to anyone, nobody forces (or even asks) them to participate.

But if you're a decent artist, I bet you're analyzing the music more than you admit!

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 07 May 08 - 08:36 PM

It most certainly doesn't. In rather more than forty years of involvement with traditional music (I mention this only because the original poster thought that sort of thing relevant), I've never once met one of the 'academics' so regularly slagged off round here who wasn't also a performer; frequently to a very high professional standard; and I've never met one who told other people how a traditional song or tune should be performed.

That is the territory of the performer who, through limited knowledge (and therefore limited understanding), believes that his or her way is the only correct one, and that he or she is, by mere virtue of playing or singing, an expert on the whole thing. I've met a few of those 'anoraks', if that is what you like to call them, but they are not to be confused with those who make a serious study of the music; which includes both the immediate aesthetic and the broader picture.

Shall we say rather that some people don't particularly care where their material comes from, while others do? To dismiss the search for knowledge and, through it, understanding, strikes me as a little sad and limited. Nobody, I think, is suggesting that we must do things in the way they were done in the past; but if we ignore that past, or dismiss it as irrelevant, how can we possibly understand what we are doing now?

The true artist analyzes endlessly; the mere amateur just guesses and hopes for the best, frequently relying on uninformed 'intuition' while deluding himself or herself that he or she is working at some sort of 'cutting edge'. There is room for everybody, though, surely?

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Peter Beta
Date: 07 May 08 - 07:00 PM

Agree with the original post. Music is an art, not a science.

(Sorry to labour the point, but it all comes back to, those that can, do...)

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Barry Finn
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:39 PM

Charlotte R
Don't write me off, I take all of what I can get. Weither or not you intro a song is not near as important as you & the song itself. I would love someday to get a chance to be in the room where you're performing. If I had a reason to want more about a song you sang I'd try & corner you at your convinence, later or do some research on it myself.
But if the song is good I don't even care if the performance sucks. I'd sit through a pile of trash for just one piece of gold, well,,up to a point.
But I do love a bit of background too.

irishenglish, I saw that same great performance, I hope it was at the Somerville Theater, otherwise there goes your theory on ad-libbing.

Barry

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: GUEST,Steve Gardham
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:30 PM

What a silly thread!
Those who like the backgrounds/history/research are perfectly entitled to do so.
Those who like to perform (& do what the hell they like with the material) are also perfectly entitled to do so.
Those who like to do both have the best of both worlds and are also perfectly entitled to that.

As for song intros being too long - this is all down to judging your audience. If you've got a 50-50 audience of intro lovers and haters either suit yourself or get the hell outa there!

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Jack Campin
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:26 PM

Historical background can make all the difference to whether a siong is performable or not. What would be the point of doing "Parcel of Rogues" if you're audience didn't have the basic historical facts? (money changes hands - country loses independence, you could get that over in about thirty seconds). It would just come across as a content-free rant.

And technical analysis can make the difference to whather a piece is performable. Try doing "The Bob of Fettercairn" on a diatonic moothie or melodeon. Oops. Something wrong here. Can I do it? Maybe, but not without thinking about the structure of the tune.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: irishenglish
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:21 PM

Part of it is also being flexible, if the intro is for a song of an unserious nature, I love it when it becomes a comedy routine. Richard Thompson and Fairport are great at this, but when it's time to be serious, they are skilled enough to either play the song, or give it only the briefest of introductions. I was at a Waterson Carthy gig, where Martin was trying to explain to us Americans where a particular place in England was. He held his guitar up, saying, now if my guitar was England..., at which point Eliza held her violin up next to him saying, this would be Ireland, at which point Saul Rose crouched down underneath them, stretched out his melodeon, and said this would be Spain. Now when Saul did that, we just about all bust out laughing. It took awhile, but no one cared, because it was all ad-libbed. Now if anyone does that for every song, like your dude in the cowboy hat, I would get a little annoyed too.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:11 PM

Well I'm sure Mr Finn wouldn't want to sit through one of my gigs..
:-D I tell where I got the song from and that's it. (takes all of 30 secs approx.)

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: EBarnacle
Date: 07 May 08 - 06:07 PM

At one point during a set one of our people was giving the history of a song and a shout came from an audience member: Shut up and sing. We listened and cut our intros down to no more than a minute per song.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Barry Finn
Date: 07 May 08 - 05:46 PM

Can we all analize this too?
A friend whose's a performer once said that he started giving up the background of a song & realized (when told by a mate) that most of the people who came to listen didn't give a shit about the background. Funny, my wife told me exactlly the same thing. I felt like juming up & saying "hold on, I do" but I didn't want to embrass my wife.
Anyway, there are some of us who care & some who don't,hopefully we can our differences.
I loved hearing Ewan MacColl talk & Martin Carty then there's an American in a cowboy hat who usually performs with his wife that I can't stand, his 10 minute intros to a 2 minute song kill me. When it comes down it I'll suffer my way through both, thanks & let others do what they want.

Barry

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Slag
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:19 PM

I would imagine that the singers of old played whatever instruments were at hand in tune-patterns that were familiar and acceptable to their audiences. The dances were the dances they knew. The fact that various cultures have identifiable differences speaks to lack of communication and the inherent difficulties of travel.

In this age of instantaneous mass communication and comparatively instantaneous mass transportation, anyone who cares to know can be up on the leading edge of any genre anywhere. It's a different world.

The true artist does, ART! If there is analysis it's at a subconscious level. Art is a sort of communication between the artist and his/her subject: a back and forth, one feeding the other. The historian, the scholar is the one who is into analysis, origins and classifications. Sometimes the two are one. It's human nature to become curious about your subject, your culture. I don't believe it hurts anyone's artistic ability to know as much as they can about their subject because the artistic procedure does not change but it does have more to draw on when more knowledge is obtained.

The person who is only and totally into the analytical end can become quite odious as a critic or a connoisseur who nitpicks everything he/she hears. These people are not musicians and they are certainly not artists (well, maybe needle artists!). If they want to write a document or history, good for them, but as far as making judgments about what is Kosher, what is right or wrong, forget them. The "Artist's Edge" is the growing, living part of the movement and what has gone on before are just the annual rings left behind.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Banjiman
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:18 PM

Sedayne.....you do have a valid point, I'm just not very good with the discipline needed to either catalogue my own or do the research required to find the provenance for others (songs or photos!).

I'd rather spend my time playing the banjo!

Still I do appreciate the efforts of others or those old (and new) great songs/tunes wouldn't still exist for me to play (even if not the "right" way).

29th at Fleetwood should be good.

Cheers

Paul

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 May 08 - 03:58 PM

Paul,

I wasn't thinking of my own pictures necessarily (although it does help!) - rather old photographs, things from (say) my grandmother's albums for example - stuff from long before my time that needs such a provenance to give it some sort of context; a date, a location, names; people long dead, streets long demolished etc. Same with stuff that turns up in house-clearances; if they carry a bit of information then they have so much more meaning somehow, and are more use historically.

Looking forward to the 29th!

Sean

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 07 May 08 - 03:56 PM

I always point out the first four letters in the word analysis and its many variants

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Rumncoke
Date: 07 May 08 - 03:48 PM

It might seem a silly thing - but I feel uneasy about women's dance sides/teams wearing black stockings as part of their uniform - because dark stockings are what were worn for work and white or light colours for 'best'. It is not a tradition, it is just what people did.

As for reserch and analysis - well - if that is what fascinates a person then they should do it - though it might be better if they accepted that what they discover was done in the past might not be what is done now.

Dance teachers moved, industries moved or died out, things happened - and maybe trying to discover why is all part of the interest. It might make a good talk for a wet afternoon in Sidmouth one year.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 May 08 - 01:35 PM

I applaud the sentiments expressed by 'GUEST Suffolk Miracle' - some really strong points which have been ignored.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Banjiman
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:29 AM

Sedayne,

Interesting, none of my photos have place and date on the back.....I can remember where and when most were shot though, and the feelings associated.

I guess we all operate in different ways.

Paul

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:27 AM

"In the middle people get on with making folk music. "

MAKING folk music, or trying to replicate folk music?

A middle-age suburban guitar player who drove to the pub in his BMW to sing a song about the hardships of whaling is NOT making folk music, they are enjoying the song.

It is one thing to study the traditions and give an accurate REFLECTION on how the tradition evolved, but it is another to put up a set of rules that will determine how the tradition evolves into the future.

You can study a Van Gogh painting of a bowl of fruit and try to mimic the brush strokes, but you cannot paint the same bowl of fruit in your own style and be told that it is "wrong". The art and the tradition is in the making.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:13 AM

We need zero tolerance folkies to stop it spinning off into pop and jazz orbits while recognising such fundamentalism for its cloying absurdity.

Hear, hear. We need both sides, even (or especially) if they both think the other lot are crazy.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 May 08 - 11:01 AM

To me, a song without provenance is like a photograph without the date & location written on the back; I think this is where the aforementioned autism (see my post on the Folk & Entertainment thread) comes into it.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: glueman
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:55 AM

Folk and its enthusiasts are caught on the horns of a dilemma. OTOH it's full of realism, authenticity, history, on the other it's a romanticised form with a dubious family tree and mediated by middle class collectors with all kinds of dubious motives.
Self doubt and conflicting pulls are its strength rather than its weakness. We need zero tolerance folkies to stop it spinning off into pop and jazz orbits while recognising such fundamentalism for its cloying absurdity.
In the middle people get on with making folk music. Most of it is generic pap but some is transcendently brilliant. One lives for the latter.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Banjiman
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:45 AM

The history of songs and tunes is interesting....but surely with music it is more about the way it makes you FEEL or think than provenance.

You would have to admit there are some real anoraks that you come across from time to time, telling you how a song or tune "should" be performed.

Paul

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:38 AM

"other people like to get things right"

Except there is no such thing as "right" when it comes to an artform. You can also say that Van Gogh never used the appropriate paint colors, but that does not take away from what he created.

I don't think I've ever found someone who said "I really don't pay much attention to my hobby". If you are passionate about something and find some people that are just as passionate and enjoy discussing their love. To many, folk music is a vocation - even if it there is no pay involved.

Perhaps we should analyze the people who find it necessary to complain about "navel gazing"!   Perhaps it is because they are unable to bring something to the table and feel left out? If you have ever spent time with a group of lawyers, doctors, or some other professional group that you are NOT involved in, you probably feel a bit of discomfort at your own lack of input.   There isn't anything wrong with that.   Simply move on to a different conversation.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Leadfingers
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:34 AM

SOME Background to what you are singing is fine , but there IS a lot of Nit Picking sometimes !!

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: GUEST,Joe
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:31 AM

Again it comes down to balance. Just dont let historical innacuracies etc get in the way of enjoying a damn good performance!

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: pavane
Date: 07 May 08 - 10:26 AM

Perhaps you like to stand up and sing Wild Rover, telling people it is an Irish song (wrong, from Norfolk), or Danny Boy (wrong, words not even folk, written by an Englishman), or say that Freeborn Man is traditional...

That's fine, but other people like to get things right (or as 'right' as possible, history always moves on...).

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 07 May 08 - 09:13 AM

Well then you must be in Francis Shergold's side! :)

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: GUEST,Joe
Date: 07 May 08 - 09:00 AM

Don't be silly Ruth, there is only one true/original/proper Bampton side and the other two sides you may see are figments of your imagination. You never saw it happen.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: GUEST,Suffolk Miracle
Date: 07 May 08 - 09:00 AM

Are we under-analysing our music? Perhaps I'm an over-complex soul, but I just like to know what I am doing when I sing or play folk music. I care how it's presented, be it an unaccompanied singer, a singer accompanying himself (or herself) with an instrument, a group of musicians/singers or any combination of the above.

It matters to me where it's from - be it an English song that's crossed the Atlantic, degenerated and come back, or a pop song that someone is singing in a folk club because they're too lazy to learn a folk song.

It bothers me if it's played on an instrument that is completely out of sympathy with the way the lyrics have developed; my life would be no poorer if songs that developed for two hundred years unaccompanied or with a single note per syllable accompaniment never saw a chord-strummer. I love the saxophone in many jazz pieces, but it has no place in an English dance band.

I hope that I respect the various traditions, but I'm a British folkie, brought up in a specific culture, not an American cowboy. I'm happy that I lived in a generation that still had some direct contact with the oral tradition.

I've been in love with folk music for over forty years. Recently I've been reading seemingly endless threads failing to analysing the music I so love. I've found myself beginning to question why I stick with this music. So I'm resolved to stop replying to these often negative threads and get out there singing and playing. Or not.

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Brian Peters
Date: 07 May 08 - 08:55 AM

Indeed, Phil, but surely it has to be a positive step when "those who don't" have their own thread on which they can discuss earnestly what sad time-wasters the navel-gazers are.

To Sugwash: Nothing wrong at all with getting out there and playing it. Some of us do that, too. But what you call "over-analysis", I call "curiosity".

Subject: RE: Over Analysis
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 07 May 08 - 08:55 AM

Ah, but WHICH Bampton side? Are you Judean People's Front, or People's Front of Judea?

Splitter.