Money v Folk

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 May 08 - 05:49 PM

a) Sorry, Dave, the onus is on you (just one scrap of evidence from anywhere that singers were paid will do).

The onus is not on me at all, sminky. You want me to prove that people before 1850 were paid to sing? Just look up the records of any theatre for heavens sake. Shakespears own Globe theatre had paid singers. What do you want me to do, come round to your house with written records?

I am just back from an excelent night btw - Snake Davies was brilliant. Does it all for love of course. No money involved...:-)

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 08 - 02:30 PM

And, I should add, always has been.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 08 - 02:27 PM

I'm afraid that GUEST,Sminky is suffering from the pastoral notion that afflicts many aficionados of folk music, a sort of "shepherds and milkmaids" ownership of songs and ballads that spontaneous composed themselves. Be not downcast, Sminky, because many of the early collectors of this material suffered from the same romantic misconception. For a somewhat more accurate picture, I recommend obtaining a copy of The Wandering Scholars by Helen Waddell.

The line between what we now call "folk music" and composed song has always been pretty fuzzy. As we know (and has been argued incessantly in thread after thread here on Mudcat), once the initial composer's identity has faded into the mists of antiquity but the song or songs he or she has produced are remembered and sung by a fairly wide and diverse number of people, they begin to fall into the category of what we refer to as "folk songs."

And sometimes it goes the other way. Many composers make use of "folk themes." In fact, this is the recommended method ("quotations" of folk songs in a composed work) for composers who wish their music to have a "national character." Examples: the song "Goin' Home" in Dvorak's "New World Symphony, "Simple Gifts" in Copland's "Appalachian Spring," many others.

Composed music and folk music are inextricably linked. As is the matter of payment for the performance of either.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 09 May 08 - 01:27 PM

Seems to me that the asker of this question never specified a time frame in the first place; why, all of a sudden, has this changed?

Frankly this is beginning to sound like yet another 'what is folk music' thread, something the world really doesn't need IMO

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 09 May 08 - 12:58 PM

Art:

Dowland was a court musician in Paris, Denmark and London. He was a professional composer and musician. He was paid a salary by his various patrons. So was Mozart. So was Handel. No difference.

O'Carolan was a composer and musician who sang for his supper. He may or may not have been paid in cash. You can argue the toss over whether he was a 'folk' musician or a classical composer.

Now tell me how this alters my contention that earning money from 'folk' music (use the 1954 definition, if you wish) in the period 650BC - 1850BC was, at best, a peripheral activity.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 May 08 - 11:51 AM

Smirky, what information do you have that indicates that neither O'Carolan nor Dowland were paid money? And what is it that you consider to be "folk music", anyway?

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST, Sminky`
Date: 09 May 08 - 11:30 AM

People are starting to give answers to questions that haven't been asked.

This thread is about Money and Folk. I repeat:- name one pre-1850 traditional singer that was paid money.

I can't get much more specific than that.

My original contention was that earning money from 'folk' music in the period 650BC - 1850BC was, at best, a peripheral activity. I have yet to be convinced otherwise.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Grab
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:40 AM

Singer - don't know. But musician-wise - do the names Paganini and Turlough o'Carolan ring any bells? Both made a decent living from their music.

At the very least, musicians would receive board, lodging and clothing from the rich family putting them up (or at least board and lodging for an itinerant musician staying the night). If you choose this to mean that they weren't paid *money*, then you can try that interpretation, but it's not really a valid reading of the situation in a barter economy (which was generally the case back then) - and even then, itinerant musicians (the folk variety) would be busking for money.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:35 AM

John Dowland: singer-songwriter
Turlough O'Carolan: singer-songwriter
and
Pete Seeger: singer-songwriter

The difference is what, exactly? Oh yeah...Pete doesn't get paid.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:18 AM

Sorry, that was me.

And sorry, that should be 2500 years.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Morris-ey
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:13 AM

Mr Observer:

I'm interested.

You have had many replies from which you should be able to make up your mind - since you clearly have no ideas of your own - what do you think?

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:13 AM

Dear me!

John Dowland - composer and lutenist
Turlough O'Carolan - composer and harper
Banjo Paterson - pre 1850?
Ancient Rome?
Ancient Greece?

I'm not asking much here, guys. Just one example in, what?, 1500 years

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Mark Ross
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:02 AM

When Woody Guthrie was asked to play for a good cause, he replied, "Lady we don't play for bad causes!"

Mark Ross

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: trevek
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:51 AM

Funny, I'm sure in the Bible it mentions singers being paid (mustn't have been folk musicians, just wedding-bar mitzvah bands).

Romans had paid performers and rates of pay for particular ones, I'm sure.

Ancient Greece... that Orpheus guy mustn't have ben a folkie.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Mr Red
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:25 AM

So between 650BC and 1850AD no-one was paid to sing folk music?
John Dowland
Turlough O'Caralan
Banjo Paterson

They may not have been considered Folk in their day - but after a hundred years or more - the distinction is fading.

& - Sir Paul McCartney (you just wait - trust me)

And there are whole threads on "Molly Malone" and who wrote it.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:16 AM

Most of us like folk music in some form or another (or why would we be here?) but some are less enthusiastic about an unthinking, generic delivery that has long since passed into parody. A few claim that performance is the only one worth listening to and certainly the only stuff that can be called folk. It's patent nonsense alongside the dogma that rock and roll died on the plane with Buddy Holly and the Big Bopper, or atonal, serial music killed romanticism but it acts as a compass for those who need such things.
Fortunately most of us just keep our ears open and don't require a backstory to prove what's good.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 09 May 08 - 09:08 AM

a) Sorry, Dave, the onus is on you (just one scrap of evidence from anywhere that singers were paid will do).

b) No.

It's Friday, I will certainly have fun.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:56 AM

Sminky

If we're talking folk music, then the answer is 650BC - 1850AD (approx).

So between 650BC and 1850AD no-one was paid to sing folk music. I'm intrigued. Maybe you can

a) prove it and

b) define folk music.

Have fun.

:D

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:51 AM

Without television, iPods, and video games, they didn't have much to do but participate if they wanted amusement. It doesn't mean that "the people" created, though,-- music has always been created by songwriters and composers, made popular by performers/entertainers, and then learned from them by "the people".

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Mr Red
Date: 09 May 08 - 08:16 AM

As
<hushed tones> Martin Carthy </hushed tones>
says

You can do anything to Folk and it will survive, except ignore it.

OK, I would not dare to disagree with the MBE, though I have to add there are a lot of things you can do to Folk and it won't stick in my mind - which is a way of defining "surviving" for one individual (me).

And there are people who will do it to Folk and I can happily ignore them, and their endeavours.

Money is an agenda and too much of it distorts the product. Which is probably why Martin asked for smaller fees than his comtemporaries, and was criticised for it. But then Paul Simon charged too much for his appearances (according to those at the time) and where is he now? In "Folk" or "Entertainment"? And Folk survived.

So is the "Observer" hiding their agenda?

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:49 AM

as it is today, they were the example of quality that less skilled musicians aspired to.

Rubbish - name one pre-1850 traditional singer that Joe public 'aspired to' - and was paid money. Folk singing back then was a communal/participatory activity. Only in comparatively recent times has it become a performance/receptive one and THAT'S when serious money entered the equation.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Grab
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:30 AM

but they were peripheral at best

Rubbish - as it is today, they were the example of quality that less skilled musicians aspired to.

For centuries, people have knocked nails or pegs into bits of wood to hold stuff together. Anyone can do it to some approximate kind fo standard. It hasn't stopped carpentry existing as a profession, for situations where a higher standard is called for. Ditto baking, cooking, building, farming, fighting, cesspit-digging, clothes-making, etc, etc.. Music is just another one. Just because you put the word "folk" in front of it, it doesn't change anything.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 09 May 08 - 07:14 AM

The commodification of folk music is a different issue to the money thing. When the public twigged some singers were better, knew more songs and played their instruments in tune more often than the chap in the Grey Horse - and you could see him two stations along the line for thruppence - the game was up for Old Ned at The Nag.
Somewhere along the way folk music moved from being the music of the people to an exercise in connoisseurship. Once the shortcomings were dwelt upon as exemplary by the 'informed' it wasn't folk any more. Folk revival is not folk in the true sense and it's crazy to describe it in those terms.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 09 May 08 - 06:30 AM

You seem to imply that there was a time when no music was paid for and I still ask; when was that?

If we're talking folk music, then the answer is 650BC - 1850AD (approx).

For centuries, 99% (substitute your own percentage) of traditional music was sung/created wherever 'ordinary' people gathered. I'm struggling to understand where money played a part. Sure, there've been minstrels, ballad writers/sellers, publishers etc trying to eke out a living, but they were peripheral at best. Or am I missing something?

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: mattkeen
Date: 09 May 08 - 05:38 AM

No its not a much needed debate - its a non issue, of course people should be paid if other people think they are worth paying to see and hear.
Its the sort of tosh that gets served up by people who should know better.


I am spending most of the next week paying to go and see professionals and semi professionals at gigs - it will probably be great, if past experience of the following performers is anything to go by

They include: Duncan Macfarlane band, john tams and batty coope, chris wood and hugh lupton, horses brawl, lark rise band, whapweasal

It will be a privilege to pay to hear them, and in the meantime I will also enjoy listening to myself trying to master some tunes from Brackley, my mate Rob Bray (we are semi pros) and a few people who are not paid but are really good like Jeff at the Great Knight Club in Northampton.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: trevek
Date: 09 May 08 - 03:37 AM

As a Punch and Judy performer I've had the odd attempt at a free show used on me (I do sometimes give free shows). My favourite one is "Oh, well I thought as it was for kids you might do it for nothing!" "Hmmm, let's see how far that gets you in Mothercare or Toys-R-Us"

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 May 08 - 03:16 AM

*Laura*

but it existed and survived without people paying for it.

The point I was trying to make is that there has never been a time when people have not paid for music, just as there has never been a time when people have enjoyed it for free. Whether it is the latest rock band at Wembley stadium, the singer at the Music Hall, the kings Bard or, presumably, the cave man being fed for drumming out a particularly funky beat:-)

You seem to imply that there was a time when no music was paid for and I still ask; when was that? We do not know if it would survive without, because there has never been such a time and there never will be.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: M.Ted
Date: 08 May 08 - 06:14 PM

I've been involved in fundraising events from both sides, Don, and have seen that stunt pulled before. It happens when the event costs more than expected and brings in less--which happens a lot more often than you realize.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 May 08 - 04:42 PM

I recall one afternoon when I was sitting in Len Hanson's office (Len Hanson was the producer of the weekly Seattle Center Hootenannies in 1963) when he got a phone call. He talked to the caller for a moment, then said, "Just a moment, please," and asked me if I was free to do a gig that evening. He mentioned how much I would be paid. It wasn't much, but I was free, so I said "Fine." He wrote down the address and handed it to me.

Hanson gave out a lot of work to those who were singing in the Seattle Center Hootenannies. People who wanted to hire a singer knew that Hanson had a long list of singers, and although he was not any kind of an agent, he did this sort of thing as a favor to his "stable" of performers.

I didn't have my own transportation then, and the time constraints were such that I had to take a cab out to where I lived to change clothes and pick up my guitar, then take another cab to the engagement. The cab fare ate up a goodly chunk of what I'd be paid, but I figured, "Oh, what the heck!"

So I sang for the requested half-hour. Then the person who had contacted Hanson wrote me out a check for the agreed upon amount.   I thanked him and started to stick the check into my wallet. He cleared his throat and said, "Umm  . . most of the entertainers who perform for us usually endorse the checks back to us as a contribution. This is a charity, you know."

No, I didn't know. Suddenly I felt myself in an awkward situation. By the time I got back home that night, the gig would wind up costing me money. Not much, but still.

The situation was similar to that described in Sean Ruprecht-Belt's post at 08 May 08 - 01:27 p.m. It was a banquet, and the people who had been invited were all pretty wealthy, and had been invited so the directors of the charity could mine them for contributions. One of the inducements to come, in addition to the food, was that there would be entertainment. The person they had originally hired had pooped out on them at the last minute, so they called Len Hanson to hire a pinch-hitter—me. Most of the people I entertained that evening could afford to spill more money than I was being paid.

I made a decision.

"I'm sorry," I said, then I explained the cab rides and the economics involved. Then I told him, "I make my living as a singer and music teacher, and no one told me that this was to be a benefit performance. In the future, you might want to make that clear." Then I put my wallet, containing the check, back into my pocket.

He wasn't happy, but then, he was anticipating getting, easily, several thousand times more than my meager fee in contributions from the assembled big-wigs.

I do a lot of singing for free, just for the fun of it. But—I established a policy early on:   If someone is making money out of the fact that I'm singing somewhere, then I have to have a cut of it. I do make exceptions, such as charities, retirement homes, and such. But—I insist on being the one who decides who I will sing for pro bono.

Dave Van Ronk once mentioned (and I have found this to be true for me, too) that he got a lot of requests to sing for free, often accompanied by the comment that "This doesn't pay anything, but it will be good exposure for you." Van Ronk then remarked, "People have been known to die of exposure!"

It's entertainment, folks (see similar thread, "Entertainment vs. Folk"). If a pop singer, a clown, a piano player, a stand-up comic, a juggler, an opera singer, or a guy making balloon animals gets paid to entertain, then why should a singer of folk songs not be paid as well?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: DonMeixner
Date: 08 May 08 - 04:32 PM

I am an entertainer and I get paid to entertain. The medium I chose to entertain with is up to me. I stopped thinking of my self as a folksinger and story teller many years ago. I actually preffer Entertainer to Folksinger. I get a lot more latitude that way.

I supoose you can substitute a lot of things with entertainer. Politician, Televangelical, and Conservative Talk Show Host come to mind most immediately. And they must be entertaining as I find myself laughing right out loud at the TV and car radio quite a bit these days.

Don

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 08 May 08 - 03:58 PM

'Debate about what?'
Exactly. The question is fairly simple and straight forward. Should anyone be making money out of Folk?

My answer is, bloody right I'll accept money for performance.

'Gee...and what IS folk music, anyway?'

Don't even go there...... *LOL*

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 May 08 - 03:53 PM

I blame Walkabout verse.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Peace
Date: 08 May 08 - 03:36 PM

Debate about what?

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 08 May 08 - 03:02 PM

I don't think it matters who started this thread, the point is it's opened up a much needed debate.

Sal

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 08 May 08 - 02:06 PM

Mind you.
It's not much of a money spinner!
R

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 08 May 08 - 02:00 PM

With much respect to all posters here.
I tend to spend my time playing at home.
The cost of driving around the country is becoming more prohibitive as the years go by.
My audience of one (me) seems to enjoy it.
Am I a bad folkie?
Discuss.
Ralphie

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Sean Belt
Date: 08 May 08 - 01:27 PM

A couple of weeks ago my musical partner and I spent four hours playing folk music for a couple hundred of the wealthiest people in town while they dined on ribs, chicken, and fine wines as part of their "Hoedown" night. The premise of the anonymous starter of this thread seems to suggest that these rich patrons should have expected to have gotten our services for free even though they were perfectly willing to pay for the use of the hall, the food, wine, open bar, waitstaff, and all the rest.

Nonsense. Whether I've spent my time learning folk music or string quartets, my time and talent have a value. If someone wants to make use of them, they have to be open to paying for them.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: treewind
Date: 08 May 08 - 10:04 AM

That song's not about folk music, it's about busking, and while there's plenty of folk-singing buskers it's perfectly possible to be either without being the other.

Nice irony in the song though!

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 08 May 08 - 08:06 AM

Bob Snider's song "Darn Folksinger" tells it like it is re the unfortunate propensity of folksingers to accept remuneration.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 08 May 08 - 07:13 AM

More fun that way - like knocking on someone's door and then running away

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: mattkeen
Date: 08 May 08 - 06:46 AM

Why doesn't original poster say who they are and stop these trolling type of posts

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 07 May 08 - 08:02 PM

Tredegar House yet. It's only £5 for camping. Singing is free. The Friday concert is only £3!

sal

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 08 - 07:53 PM

Yeah, I'm beginning to get the impression that there are chains being yanked here. . . .

I like to sing folk songs and ballads and such. And if someone wants to give me good money to listen to me sing, I'm sure as hell gonna take it!

And not feel the least bit guilty about it!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 07 May 08 - 07:33 PM

A friend of mine recently reminded me that one of Johnny Carson's favorite jokes was his nominee for the least-frequently said sentence in English: "Look at the banjo player's Mercedes".

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 May 08 - 04:36 PM

Money money money
If I had a little money...in a rich man's world

                              trad. child ballad 462

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 08 - 03:24 PM

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: fat B****rd
Date: 07 May 08 - 03:18 PM

..I don't have to speak...

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 May 08 - 03:15 PM

Artbrooks said, "Gee...and what IS folk music, anyway?"

It's whatever amateur horses don't sing.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 08 - 03:04 PM

. . . she sends me
If I spring a leak she mends me

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 07 May 08 - 02:55 PM

A chain yanking thread if ever I did see one.....Up on Cripple Creek....

Charlotte R