Singer/songwriters(again)

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 01:56 PM

I `ad the Devil in my cab the other day. He looked well pleased with `imself, a great big smile and `is tail all fresh and lively like.
I said, "You look a bit chipper Nick. What, `ave you lost a tanner and found a bob?"
`e said, " Nah, I bin reading all them bits on that Mudcat about that lot that write songs and then go and sing `em. From what I can see, it looks like I`m gonna get some more converts."
I said, "What, are they all out there singing about sinning then?".
`e said, "Nah, many just aint `appy with what they`ve done so they`ll `ave to come to me `cos everybody knows THE DEVIL `AS THE BEST TUNES!!"

Whaddam I like??

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 12:53 PM

"How would Woody be able to describe the fact that he writes and sings songs?"

If Woody were around today, he would probably call himself a singer-songwriter and certainly would be accepted by that audience.   However, I suspect that if Woody were around today - he would be making rap music.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 12:49 PM

Actually, Spleeny, you make my point when you said:

...if you tend not to particularly like a type of music (in my case, the James Taylor and Co style of singer songwriting),

In the comment you used the term as a description instead of a title. Fair enough, as everyone is entitled to what they enjoy or don't enjoy. But when you use the term as a label for anyone who writes their own music, or use it in such a way that one cannot describe their art without negative connotation, I think it is a problem. How would Woody be able to describe the fact that he writes and sings songs? How about Jed?

As usually happens on our beloved Mudcat, we have parsed it to death once again.... ***chuckle***

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 10:30 AM

Nothing to fight about at all!!...If you don't like it, don't buy it!!

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 10:30 AM

Speaking as another middle aged white heterosexual bloke*

* And as a social worker, I don't do self loathing...

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: matt milton
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 10:30 AM

I suspect that one big reason why this discussion persists is that some people are quite adamant that there is a line to be drawn between singers of traditional material and singers who sing songs they've written influenced by traditional material. No matter how deep and how manifest that influence might be, for some it still musn't be thought of as 'folk'.

As for me, when I say I like folk music I am thinking of Bert Jansch, Dave Evans, Gillian Welch, and Mary Hampton just as much as I am Cyril Tawney, Shirley Collins, Walter Pardon et al. For me, it's all part of the big picture.

(The absurdity of the "it's not folk if it's a song written by a contemporary performer" stance is abundantly clear in the case of performers who sing both traditional and their own material. At what point do they cease to become 'folk' singers? How many original songs are they permitted per album before their license to folk is revoked? What's the ratio?)

However, I don't think of, say, Joni Mitchell or Joanna Newsom or Newton Faulkner as folk. Their music quite simply isn't rooted in folk the way the other names I mentioned is. They're singer-songwriters who happen to use acoustic instruments. It's quite rare that I enjoy this kind of singer-songwriter. Early Leonard Cohen is about the only one I can think of (and anyway, you can hear a rich Spanish folksong influence on those records so they arguably don't count.) The only recent exceptions I can think of are Citizen Helene (myspace.com/citizenhelene) and Gemma Garmeson (myspace.com/gemmagarmeson).

So I'll continue to call myself a folk singer rather than a singer-songwriter, even though I sing hardly any traditional folk songs. I play at a lot of singer-songwriter open mics, and what I do doesn't sound remotely like what they do.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 10:27 AM

Can I just agree with Ron? Both on the specific post above and some of his general points?

The below is in the context of none of it mattering that much - and five minutes to spare...

First off, it does rack me off when you get sanctimonious twaddle about how if you tend not to particularly like a type of music (in my case, the James Taylor and Co style of singer songwriting), it's then taken as a given that you simply don't get or understand music. Would I be correct in thinking that the posters who think I'm being unreasonable here would apply the same inclusive, tolerant standards to, for instance, grunge, disco, death metal, techno, post rock, hip hop, grime and free jazz? Or is it okay to largely not like anything in those particular genres? Put it another way - when you go to a record shop do you look at everything in there from A-Z or do you go to the racks where the sort of music you like is more likely to be? Personally, as a music obsessive on a limited budget, I owe it to myself to spend my money wisely. I exercise my right to critique someone's music every time I open my wallet and still pass it by on the racks. I suspect if that wasn't acceptable to them, they wouldn't put it out there. Just because the artist is a singer songwriter, critical faculties should not be suspended: Bruce's 95% rule still applies.

Ironically, despite displaying my abject ignorance about music by not liking James Taylor type stuff, I'd put money on my tastes being considerably more eclectic and broadminded than those of many of the contributors to this thread... it's just that my heart doesn't tend to leap with joy at the thought of another middle aged white heterosexual bloke (or woman) with an acoustic guitar, sorry and all that... although some of them sometimes surprise me, which is always quite nice.

PS Jeri - no apology required - I was just curious as to your motives, more than anything, which you've now clarified.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 09:20 AM

"I don't understand why some folks care enough about this to fight about it. "

That is something that we can't help you with. You need to figure that out for yourself.

If you understood the passion that many people have you would understand why it is discussed so often and with such vigor.   I think the biggest issue you and others face is labeling it a "fight". Having a passionate discussion and LISTENING to all the views is not a fight.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Oct 08 - 12:46 AM

From: Jeri
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 03:45 PM

And Mick, you got it. I don't understand why some folks care enough about this to fight about it.

Nothing to fight about...just do it!

Check out my other post...not complicated

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 05:15 PM

"I guess I just came at songwriting through the back door and it more describes my music then it does me. "

I had Eric Andersen on the show this past Sunday and he said something very interesting.   We were discussing his early days in the Village "folk scene" and he said that many of his peers started writing songs because they felt they could not find songs that related to the subjects they wanted to sing about. Eric was interested in the poetry of the Beats and his songs were more in tune with those styles.

When I thought about it later, that struck me as being the same spark that created the traditional songs that we now consider folk.   For whatever reason, someone was moved to write "Red River Valley" and through the years, others have adapted and used that song to fit their own needs.

I agree with the sentiment that many have expressed - it is the song and not the label that really matter. I also agree that I am not fond of a singer-songwriter who uses his or her songs as a report on their latest session with their therapist.   Yet at the same time, there are some very personal songs that I feel are important - because while they are written in the first person, they speak about issues that all of us face.   A love song is probably the most personal song you can think of, and our traditional folk collections are filled with them.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: JedMarum
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 04:50 PM

Thank you Mick - and right on DebC.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: JedMarum
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 04:49 PM

Ron - I hadn't considered the "work to change, or reintroduce additional aspects of folk" to the Folk Alliance, but it is a point well taken. The truth is I'd still be involved with FA if I could afford it. My business costs are so high as it is, I've simply let my membership slip. I keep thinking I'll go back to it one day ... and maybe I will, but the flip side of that coin is booking the time off to attend the events. All of those are solvable problems, but they are problems for me. I truly did enjoy the people and the time I spent at the couple of events I went to.

Thanks for playing the music - and for your kind words. I love the album and hope it'll do well. You are the first on FolkDJ to report playing it - you may have been the first to receive it. I have another 150 or so, waiting to go out the door - but I lost my check from the festival I played in LA last weekend!!! Can you believe it?? First time I've ever done that (and hopefully the last). Anyway - I can't afford the postage until the check is reissued!

I really don't mind the songwriter title. I guess I just came at songwriting through the back door and it more describes my music then it does me.

I understand Utah's comments though; I think he might say being a singer songwriter is does not automatically make you a bard. It is always the quality of the music that matters, when performed - you have to deliver the story, one way or another. I have seen too many very very talented young and indeed gifted songwriters. I would never apply the negative connotations the SS term may have, to them. So I'm careful about any disparaging comments on the subject.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Jeri
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 03:45 PM

Spleen, figuring out your acronym isn't hard. I didn't think I was revealing a secret or 'outing' you. I figured you didn't care. If I was wrong and this is a big deal to you, I'm sorry.

At the bottom of all this is a problem with personalities meaning more than music. It's what haters of singer-songwriters perceive is the problem with singer-songwriters, and it's what I perceive is wrong with hating singer-songwriters. If you need labels to tell you whether you like or dislike music, you don't really know much about the music.

And Mick, you got it. I don't understand why some folks care enough about this to fight about it.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 03:34 PM

Just to make life (even more) interesting, according to the DT, Red River Valley was written by James Kerrigen in 1896. I'm not aware of much folk-processing of the lyrics, either.

'Course he's not singing it much any more...

:-)

~ Becky in Tucson
(who's recently been dragged kicking and screaming out of the "all trad all the time" mode)
(a little way, at least)

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 02:00 PM

Man, you folks make my head hurt. There is one hell of a lot of bandwidth giving up its life for a discussion that just isn't that complicated. For me, very similar to my friend Jed, it is about whether a song touches me in a particular way, or evokes a certain feeling, or speaks to a specific cause. If I like it, it is up to me to interpret it in a way that gets the audience to understand what is being presented. The need to classify folks that write songs is just so unnecessary. As I have said before, Woody Gutherie could be considered a singer songwriter. So could MacColl, as Dick pointed out. I consider Jed to be a multi-talented writer of lyrics that describe so many facets of the human condition, an empath that has the ability to look at a letter from a long ago era, read a book about a historical figure...... and then apply the lessons learned by his sensitive soul and tell the story. Jeri is another that has similar abilities. Jed then combines this with excellent musical ability and there you have it. I just don't see the need to classify either of them comparatively with others, or to denigrate/praise the fact that they write songs. They are simply very good at what they do, and I want to sing what they write.

I think the term being used as a title, instead of as a description, is the problem. I am very much in the Deb Cowan camp. If a song appeals to me, on whatever level, I will sing it. Makes not a whit of difference to me if it was written several centuries ago, or yesterday. And I applaud those that have the ability to capture the story/emotion and put it to words.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 01:26 PM

"the entire focus of the event was on the current form of new songwriting."

Some very good perspective and excellent points Jed! (By the way - your new CD is brillant - if you don't wish to call yourself a songwriter, that is your call - but you are EXCELLENT at whatever you do!!!!!)

One thing to note about the Folk Alliance, something that Rich Warren of "Midnight Special" brought up in a recent discussion in another forum. The Folk Alliance was created to be an "alliance" of organizations and individuals to perpetuate this music.   It is indeed a fact that contemporary singer-songwriters have gained the focus of the gatherings, but what ever happened to the "crusty old folkies" who would organize and change things?????    I'm not directing this at you Jed, but at all the tradition based artists who do not participate in changing perspectives and criticize others who are doing something to perpetuate themsleves.

The "singer-songwriters" who have created an audience and a genuine movement in this country deserve credit. While some are turned off by the stereotype of "introspection", they end up missing an entire canon that speaks to all sorts of topics.   It is like using the song "Kumbayah" and saying that is reflective of all traditional folk music.   These singer-songwriters have effectively worked through Folk Alliance and created a network of opportunties and watched the audience for their style of music grow.

I am not advocating singer-songwriters over traditional folk. I like both.   If I want to insure my car is working properly, I check more than fill up with gas - I also need to check the oil, belts, battery, radiator, and even wiper fluid among other items. It alls up.

Traditional folkies might not need the Folk Alliance, they might be very happy with the way things are. However, if you want to create change - it only takes one person to make a difference. You can't wait for the other guy to do it.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: JedMarum
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 12:26 PM

I really do resent the attitude that a singer songwriter is some sort of a higher calling and that they are proven to be much more worthy performers. I know the attitude is not prevalent, but it is out there.

In my passive/aggressive way I always tell those folks that I am NOT a songwriter!

;-)

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: JedMarum
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 12:22 PM

There are "bigots"* on both sides of this issue. I am a singer songwriter; not by design and that is not a self-described term, for me. But by definition; I write much of the music I play.

I never intended to be a songwriter. I started out being a song singer and I wrote a few songs in my early days - but as time wore on, I wrote more and more of what I sing. Today, some shows I do I sing only my own songs, but most shows I try to mix - and most albums I try to mix. To me, the honest to God truth is, I play what I love and what fits the occasion. I really and truly don't see or feel the difference between my songs and the others I sing. I frequently do not tell the audience whether I wrote the song or not - but focus my intro on the story behind the song. I don't do that on purpose, it happens because that fact is not important to me - or at least not as important as the story the song tells.

On my first visit to a Folk Alliance gathering, I was there for 30 minutes and I decided that I hated singer-songwriters! OK - I'm joking, but it did put me off that the entire focus of the event was on the current form of new songwriting. I know I am a bit of crusty old folkie, but I wanted to sit and jam with some pretty goodpickers - but every room was song circle after song circle, everyone admiring one song at a time, in dead silence (except the songster) - and paying homage to song in turn. They were lovely songs written by talented folks - but damn it, I wanted to play! I decided I didn't fit the Folk Alliance format. I did like the people and they ran a very good event, but it just wasn't my cup of tea.

*NOTE: Bigot is probably a strong word for my comments. I use it with a wink and bit of tongue-in-cheek. I just want to describe the folks who have extreme points-of-view and who lump all others into one camp or another.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 12:12 PM

Jeri, "outing" me, or whatever you're trying to do by repeatedly (well, twice) using my real name rather than my chosen pseudonym, isn't big, clever or even funny. What point are you trying to make? Whatever it is, you've made it, albeit badly. Now please leave it out.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 11:53 AM

Sorry Spleen - I did not mean to forget your "e"!   

As I read these posts, I am beginning to think that there is more of an issue with the term "singer-songwriters" in the UK than there is in the U.S.   I don't recall anyone taking exception to the term, nor do I see any reluctance to singer-songwriters being part of the "folk" community (except from hardcore traditionalists.)

It is just a term, it does not have to be logical to work. As I said earlier, it is what it is.

Country music is a terrible description for the style - what country are they referring to?

Rock music? Rocks just sit around, but rock music makes you move.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Jeri
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 11:45 AM

I didn't realize we were having a spat of any sort. You really think I sounded bitchy? And I wasn't even trying!

Ron, don't leave the 'e' off, or the anagram winds up being reversed to be 'Nigel Spencr' instead of the whole name.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 11:40 AM

And sometimes they will ramble just to get a

100

in.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 11:40 AM

I see singer/songwriter as a job description. It does not describe my "style". Neither is singer/songwriting particularly associated with any genre, in my view. Hey, I have written songs in a number of different styles, and some of them not even I would call "folk"! The world of rock, nu-rock, heavy metal, C&W, blues, reggae, salsa etc is full of singer/songwriters. Sure, folk has some too - why wouldn't it. Even classical music has them, though they 'd call them "composers", the flash gits.

There's nothing special to it. Some people paint. Some are plumbers. Some write songs and then sing them to get them heard. And in all of those walks of life, some are good at it and some are bad. And probably more realistically, all are both good and bad at it at different times. The better ones are good more often, that's all.

To snigger at singer/songwriters, or to defend them unreservedly, is akin to doing the same for plumbers, taxi drivers, doctors or solicitors.

It's variously a job, a hobby or a need, like an itch. The "sensitivity" they are accused of is part of the profile - they have to be sensitive to surroundings, antennae at the ready, if they are to write about more than their diary. But don't mistake it for wimpishness, they can kick you in the b****cks as well as the next person.

And they like a pat on the back from time to time.

So do plumbers.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 11:38 AM

Don't take my last 'e' Ron!

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 11:31 AM

"Some people use it to describe a specific genre of music that either came into being in the 1970s or the 1990s, depending on who's doing the telling, that tends to the introspective."

Yes, it did "come into being" during the 1970's. Artists like James Taylor, Harry Chapin, Joni Mitchell and others were described as such - but it was more likely to hear them called "folk rock" during that time period.   During the 1990's, that was replaced by "singer-songwriter.

As to the "sensitive" and "introspective" tag - that is merely a stereotype. Yes, songwriters will tend to write more personal songs - but many traditional songs are also intensely personal so to add that description to all singer-songwriters is equally incorrect.

It is amazing- where once we had discussions on "what is folk", I can see it changing to "what is singer-songwriter". At the end of the day, as Spleen Cring points out - it really doesn't matter.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 11:17 AM

Half time...

Ok, so some people use singer-songwriter as a value neutral term to describe anyone in any genre of music who has ever sung a song they wrote themselves, ever.

Some people use it to describe a specific genre of music that either came into being in the 1970s or the 1990s, depending on who's doing the telling, that tends to the introspective.

Clearly it can't be both.

The first is so broad as to be entirely meaningless, in that it covers every song ever sung unless done as a cover or unless the identity of the author is lost. The second, the one I always understood it to mean, offends all those who consider themselves to be singer songwriters but who don't consider themselves to be sensitive or introspective (a new genre of crass, insensitive singer songwriters maybe? Joking. Joking!).

If I can briefly reprise my mild spat with Jeri, above (who I'm sure is far more charming than his/her posts make him/her sound!), when I was referring to the UK music press, I was talking about the mysterious obsession and reverence they generally have for the singer songwriter genre (in this case), rather than referring to the one magazine that generally doesn't cover singer songwriters (definition two) as they are outside its stated musical remit. Still didn't stop them recently putting Devon Sproule on the cover though, thus reminding us that breaking your own rules in a good cause is perfectly okay.

Not that it really matters. It's only music. The soundtrack to life rather than life itself.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 08:28 AM

I used to (when it was first coined) do that in the 60's and early 70's. Then I got into writing them for other voices. From there, I went to writing for a particular voice, and now I'm composing more of larger works. I did a soundtrack for a film, in which incorporated several styles, and genres,..and did it very well and authentic to their particular style, if I do say.....(clears throat)....What is important to remember, is that music is a communication, and to communicate, with accuracy, just exactly what is is you wish to convey, so the listener, participates to some degree in your experience. To merely write, as to fulfill some notion of 'how you fancy yourself', or wish to be seen, is rather self indulgent, and that comes across too (whether you think so, or not).

Here's a link, to a fantastic song, in where the composer wrote for another voice,...the words and feeling conveyed say so much more, just in what is implied. The composer is David Downes, also the pianist, seen in the video. Singer is Lisa Kelly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh-q8RNLr3Q

If ever there was a song that conveyed an inner desire, for a song, from a composer, this is it! Enjoy!!

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Piers Plowman
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 05:35 AM

From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

"Piers, there was no intention on my part to offend you, and my response was based purely on the fact that you referred to singer/songwriting as a genre. IT IS NOT!

It is in fact a description of a group of people who have a part in EVERY musical genre.

Therefore my comment about stereotyping me, based on that as the only thing you know about me.

I don't think that stereotype is defensible."

Perhaps the term "singer-songwriter" shouldn't be used as a label to refer to a genre, but I think it is. I like some songs by some singer-songwriters and dislike others. The label tends to make me think "music I probably won't like". For example, if I see a poster advertising a concert that reads: "Melancholy folk ballads about the impossibility of love accompanied by his/her own sensitive guitar accompaniment", I think "well, I think I'll give that miss". Just like "Indie garage punk with contemporary hip-hop beats with special guest DJ Milque Toast" doesn't make me want to rush out and buy tickets.

I think the music that's marketed under the label "singer-songwriters" is often a kind of light rock or pop. Very popular in the 1970s and , like many things that were "in", eventually became very "out". I think Joni Mitchell is very good at what she does; I just have come to find it extremely irritating.

I quite understand if singer-songwriters are annoyed by the stereotype and the negative prejudices against them. I think part of the problem is the quality of a lot of music that's marketed under the label. It's a shame if good musicians who work hard at what they do suffer from this negative stereotype. However, there's clearly an audience for singer-songwriters and under the name "Liedermaching" (an artificial word meaning "song-making" --- "maching" is a mixture of the German word "machen" and the English "making") it even seems to be kind of trendy in Germany.

I admire the ability of a people to write words and music. I can compose, but I have a terrible time with words.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Mark Ross
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:43 PM

Thank you Ron.

Mark Ross

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:34 PM

that should have been -

it is what it is.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:33 PM

Like it or not, there is a singer-songwriter genre.

Like it or not, it is associated with folk music.   

While neither "fact" are true based on a number of educated reasons, it still exists.

The term became popular in the 1990's.   I remember a former music director at the station entered a new CD into our library, and under the GENRE he wrote "SSW". It took me about 10 minutes to realize that it was not a listing of a sexual preference but a term for singer-songwriter. The term was being slung about by the emerging "Americana" market for composers/performers of that so-called musical style. Suddenly, artists that I had been following for years were now catagorized under this brand. It was an attempt to differentiate the contemporary artists that had evolved out of the folk music scene.

While many on Mudcat enjoy an Ayn Rand view of the world, nothing is gained through a semantic discourse that will convince no one.   The bottom line - is is what is is. Perception is reality.   Deal with it.

Re-read Utah's statment to the Folk Alliance. He was not trying to push traditional music and favor "unauthored" folk song. He was simply explaining the craft of songwriting and the fact that a song will belong to everyone who sings it and be remembered more than the writer. Simple lyrics and a catch will make a song memorable. "Red River Valley" was probably written in the 1870's and the forgotten author never received credit.   The song did go through some changes as it spread, but in all probability, it was the product of a singer-songwriter.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 09:44 PM

""Fair enough, but have you actually read my postings? I think you're responding to some things others have said.""

Piers, there was no intention on my part to offend you, and my response was based purely on the fact that you referred to singer/songwriting as a genre. IT IS NOT!

It is in fact a description of a group of people who have a part in EVERY musical genre.

Therefore my comment about stereotyping me, based on that as the only thing you know about me.

I don't think that stereotype is defensible.

With respect
Don T.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Wrinkles
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 07:57 PM

I think that somewhere, someone, has made the error that "singer/songwriter" has something to do with folk music.

The term means nothing more that the individual writes and performs mostly their own songs. Many of the Greats of Jazz, Soul, and R&B were singer/songwriters but neither accoustic or folkies!

True, on the accoustic front, folk clubs and singer's groups, have, and still do, give many singer/songwriters their first platform. But if you log on to MySpace and do a music search under "singer/songwriter" you'll get far more rap artists than guys whose roots are based in folk.

As said before; It defines the person not their music. I suspect the modern singer/songwriter rap artist would just pee their pants laughing at the old folkie's uncredited music rather than be in awe ;-)

Barbara

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Joe_F
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 07:22 PM

Russ: I don't have the online OED, but I have the CD-ROM (version 3.1, 2004). The compound is not there at all.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 11:42 AM

And now for something completely different.

Anybody here subscribe to the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary?

I am curious to know if they have an etymology for "singer-songwriter".

There is an interesting discussion of the term in Wikipedia that briefly alludes to the use of the term pejoratively but gives no details.

I think I remember a time when singer-songwriter was value-neutral.

Russ (Permanent GUEST and eternal PEDANT)

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: matt milton
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 07:39 AM

In London, where I live, there are plenty of clubs that demonstrate things aren't quite so polarized as young/old, singersongwriter/trad. Clubs such as the Magpie's Nest, Lantern Society, Easycome Acoustic club and the Goose is Out.

At Lantern Soc and Easycome, it's probably more of a slant towards original singer-songwriter material – but with the unmistakeable authenticity of people who do actually understand traditional songs and have listened to a hell of a lot of them.

At Magpie's and Goose there's more of a mix of trad and new.

"Snigger-songwriter" is a horrible term – it just sounds snide and childish.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Jayto
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 11:33 AM

I don't agree about the Red River Valley thing. When it comes to this style of music what captures a crowd is their ability to connect. In order to connect they have to be able to relate it personally. ALot of people can't relate to Red River Valley. The same way alot of people can't connect with black and white movies. Don't stone me here on this one lol. I am expecting alot of people to disagree with me. I know personally I am seeing a big movement around here (Ky) with younger crowds going for singer/songwriters. I am also seeing a big movement back to folk music in general with younger crowds. It is not the stuff alot of people would think was drawing them back though. It is not the beautiful ballads and feel good lyrics that is found in alot of the folk songs. Red River Valley would not hold water with these guys. Like it or not it wouldn't. I remember singing that song in music class in grade school. That is where I first heard it and that is my point. To alot of them it is like going out and talking about long division or reminiscing 3rd grade. How cool can it be in thier mines if Mrs. So and So the music instructor in 3rd grade taught it to them? That is the mind set. I love Utah and don't mean this disrespectfully toward him at all. What would have happened (if he was in Ky or Tennessee)is he would have busted out Red River Valley and the younger guy would have just looked at him and said "yeah we used to sing that in school. Do you know any Steve Earle or Doc Watson?". The old songs that are hanging with these kids are the darker songs about hard times. This is what they are clinging to. I jam with musicians all the time. ALot of them are in thier late teens and early 20's and these are the songs they are playing and wanting to learn. St. James Infirmary is a VERY popular one. I have taught so many people this song I have lost count. That is just in the last 4 months at that. I mean these musicians came up listening to metal,rap,alt country, and punk. They are all pretty aggresive music forms. So lyrically that is what I see them drifting toward. The folk songs that are rougher in content and are less likely to be taught in school. I think the whole music education thing is great but in some ways it takes it's toll on some very good songs. If they are singing them in music class most of the time that is going to throw them into that realm that is a death sentence with younger adults. That is the realm of being deemed "uncool". Noone wants to conjure memories of thier music teacher in grade school when they perform a song. I know I might get slammed on this post but it is just my observance.
cya
JT

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Piers Plowman
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 10:42 AM

From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 05:57 PM

""I don't think criticizing "singer-songwriting" as a genre is either "whining" or "bitching" and I'm quite able to say what I don't like about it, as well as what I do. The point of this thread is to discuss, like every other thread here. Why shouldn't the music of singer-songwriters be criticized, as long as its civil and not below the belt?""

"No problem with people criticising my music. If you listen to one or more of my songs, and react by saying you don't like them, or they are crap, FINE. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

If, however, you hear that I am a singer/songwriter, and without knowing any more about me than those two words, you make derisive, sniffy, comments about singer/songwhiners broadcasting the contents of their diaries, and say that's not your kind of music, then I am afraid that you are not only a bigot, but a rather stupid bigot. [...]"

Fair enough, but have you actually read my postings? I think you're responding to some things others have said.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 06:52 AM

And I agree with Don.
But that dont mean i dont agree re Al Stewart
Just never heard any

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Acorn4
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 09:14 PM

I'll agree with Al Stewart - I think "Zero She Flies" is one on the best albums ever released.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 05:57 PM

""I don't think criticizing "singer-songwriting" as a genre is either "whining" or "bitching" and I'm quite able to say what I don't like about it, as well as what I do. The point of this thread is to discuss, like every other thread here. Why shouldn't the music of singer-songwriters be criticized, as long as its civil and not below the belt?""

No problem with people criticising my music. If you listen to one or more of my songs, and react by saying you don't like them, or they are crap, FINE. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

If, however, you hear that I am a singer/songwriter, and without knowing any more about me than those two words, you make derisive, sniffy, comments about singer/songwhiners broadcasting the contents of their diaries, and say that's not your kind of music, then I am afraid that you are not only a bigot, but a rather stupid bigot.

It is hardly the action of a rational being to take a dislike to anything with NO knowledge of what that thing is.

When you are told that someone is a singer/songwriter, you know only that he/she is a person who sings songs he/she has composed. You haven't a clue what genre of music is involved, nor whether the songs are good or bad. YOU HAVE NO LOGICAL BASIS FOR CRITICISM, and any criticism you DO make, says more about YOUR ignorance than about the other person's talent, or lack thereof.

When, and only when, you have heard the music, you will be in a position to make meaningful criticism of its quality, and the singing ability of the author.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,Nicholas Waller
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 04:47 PM

Al Stewart is a singer-songwriter whose oeuvre covers a pretty broad field and he (and people like him) can't be pigeon-holed as purely navel-gazing in his subject matter

Yes, he did a lot of the regular s-s personal relationship stuff (particularly Love Chronicles, an 18-minute examination of his love-life from the age of 6 and famous for being a first deployment of the popular sex term "fucking" in the album sleeve printed lyrics).

But he's also done a bunch of historical songs on subjects like the Versailles Treaty, the German-Russian front in WW2, the 500 BC Carthaginian navigator Hanno and, relevantly enough for today, the optimistic world just before the 1929 crash in Lindy Comes to Town:

Every day is better than the one before it
If I see a raincloud then I'll just ignore it
Everybody says it'll get much better yet
It's 1927 and my whole life lies ahead.

As well as other material - a whole album with wine as a theme (Down in the Cellar) - he's done songs that mix the personal and the historical, as in Fying Sorcery referencing Amy Johnson images:

With your photographs of Kitty Hawk
And the bi-planes on your wall
You were always Amy Johnson
From the time that you were small.
No schoolroom kept you grounded
While your thoughts could get away
You were taking off in Tiger Moths,
Your wings against the brush-strokes of day.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 04:10 PM

Ahhhhh!
SO its all down to the supply of beer?

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: bankley
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 02:01 PM

well, TL, that depends on the crowd.... you just play the appropriate tracks and make sure you move your lips a bit out of sync like those old Japanese movies.... gets 'em everytime...

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 01:07 PM

LOL
Traditional LIp Sync?
OR that awful made up modern stuff?

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Acorn4
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 05:30 PM

I still think that most of the singer/songwriters you hear in a folk club are better than the c**p you get on commercial radio.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 04:46 PM

so if a person uses only the venacular/patois for lyrics and then simply mouths the words for the hearing impaired,

would they be considered a 'lipsync-er/slang-writer' ?

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 03:54 PM

"People tend to toss off 'singer/songwriter' here"
Hmmmph
And all I ever get is polite applause sometimes.
The amasingly purile and childish singer song whinger Tim....
Sorry.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 02:39 PM

"A great song is a great song, whether it is composed by someone we can name or whether it was written long ago by someone we can't."

"Sadly it can also be ruined by rubbish production, an awful arrangement, a dire singing voice and so on and so forth."

A great song is never ruined in my opinion.
It is still a great song even if you hear me butchering it.
Dont blame the song for any of those other 'problems'

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 02:30 PM

No, I haven't. Not since the 80s when Alan Taylor was played next to the Watersons on Radio 2. I did have a subscription to a British magazine for a while, and noted the sneering hatred they seemed to have for singer/songwriters, as if they were personally hurt by them. They also came across as hating all things American, possibly as a result of us not joining them in their level of loathing.

People tend to toss off 'singer/songwriter' here with absolutely no concern for the poor sensitive soul who may be helpless to stop having a completely out of proportion knee-jerk reaction. A few people may state their aversion to singer/songwriters, except the ones they like, but they don't go on and on.