 sj |
||
|
||
geantrai
|
|
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: MartinRyan Date: 14 Nov 08 - 03:10 PM Sh**! No, Jim, you haven't - I'm afraid memory was the traitor this time! Regards |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Nov 08 - 02:56 PM "!that was John, of course" Pat -surely - or have I misunderstood? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: greg stephens Date: 14 Nov 08 - 02:46 PM Catpatn Birdseye: you may feel hard done by, or have a quarrel with Ian Anderson. But I really don't think the Mudcat Discussion Forum is the place to look for one. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: MartinRyan Date: 14 Nov 08 - 02:09 PM "Phwat is yer nam? ..... Yer nam is Jams O'Donnell!" Sin an rud a bhí ag goilleadh orm, gan dabht! Mind you, my initial reaction to the vague familiarity of the name in this sort of context involved the ship Melrose! (but that was John, of course) Regards |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Big Mick Date: 14 Nov 08 - 01:56 PM A word to the wise. Go back and read Max's post. It appears you are not getting the message. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 14 Nov 08 - 01:42 PM everything that needed to be said has not been said,firstly an apology from froots Vic Smith,is not right.I have aright to criticise, as everybody does a review,Ian Anderson does not have a right to accuse me of being on drugs, having an axe to grind,or blaming me for rewriting the review. I repeat I was sickened when I first saw this review,had I known it was Geoffs work[Iwould not have criticised it[although I had a perfect democratic right to do so]. reason being, neither I or my partner want another late night phone call.Ithought it was written by JamesODonnell.not unreasonable under the circumstances.Dick Miles |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Geoff Wallis Date: 14 Nov 08 - 01:34 PM I've been out all day so have only just logged on to Mudcat and am thoroughly amazed at the development of this thread. The magazines fRoots and Songlines share a number of writers and it was agreed a while back between their editors, respectively Ian Anderson and Simon Broughton, that those authors who fell into said category should adopt a pseudonym and opt to use this for any work published by one or t'other publication. Accordingly, I kept my real name for Songlines and used the nom de plume 'James O'Donnell' for fRoots on the basis that I'd worked first for the former. Those familiar with Flann O'Brian will recognise the source of my disguise. For some years I've run the Irish Music Review website which not only compiles reviews I've written, plus plenty by other contributors, but also has an extensive discographical section (which I mention because some Mudcatters might be interested). Unfortunately, when I moved to Ireland some eighteen months ago I was unable to afford to continue my subscription to fRoots. I presumed that my reviews for the magazine would still be ascribed to 'James O'Donnell' and posted them to my site on this basis. Clearly (and, of course, I've been unable to check), fRoots reverted to my real name at some point in the past. Some might ask why I stuck to the pseudonym when uploading the reviews and the answer is simply because I believed that it was the name under which they had been published. Dick has been caught in that maelstrom of misidentification; nothing more, nothing less; and, absolutely nothing conspiratorial at all! For the record: 1) to prevent any further confusion I will eradicate 'J O'D' from my website (though I'll much miss him); 2) I did ask Joe Offer to cut part of the review since I feel it's somewhat cheeky to reproduce an entire article without seeking permission first; 3) I have no quarrel with Dick whatsoever and, on my part, there is no animosity (life's far too short for that), but I have only telephoned him once and that was certainly not late at night; 4) my site actually does have a forum so it's possible for anyone to make comments there about reviews which I or others have written and that would have been the appropriate place to discuss my comments on Geantraí. All the best, Geoff |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Richard Bridge Date: 14 Nov 08 - 01:31 PM A curiosity here for me. I am not much bothered about Irish artforms, why should I be, I am not Irish. I do however care very much about things that are not folk being called folk, which leads people to assume that I oppose evolution in form of folk arts, and there I absolutely disagree with their assumption. I am strongly in favour of innovations in the way to present folk music and song. Even re-writing the words and tunes (not losing the old ones). That, IMHO, gives folk music and song its vibrancy. Some however bewail (say) the hymn tune to "Byker Hill" and wish only that it be played as a 9/8 rant, as they think it used to be (I express no view whether they are right). Anderson (in my limited experience) likes to be judge, jury and excecutioner in his own cause, whereas a fair bit of the time I have a less than clear idea what it is that the Captain is arguing, between his typing, punctuation, spelling and grammar. I think (on this) I probably support the Captain, but it is difficult if you think that a particular instrument ruins a song. It happens to me a lot of the time with pianos. To be just to the artist you need to try to discount the prejudice, but part of your review is the aptness of presentation so if you think that a particular instrument is the invention of the devil you will think that it was inapt to use and detracts from the singer and song - so that its use was "bad musicianship". |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 14 Nov 08 - 01:29 PM 1. Ian, the review is in the irish music review,check it out james o Donnell attributed to folk roots,if they have got it wrong thats not my fault.Dick Miles 2.I want a public apology from you,you have overstepped the mark. Iam not on hallucinatory drugs Dick Miles 3.i am not rewriting it,that is how it is out on the net,if someone else re wrote it,how am I supposed to know,here it is again,you can find a reference to it on www.session .org under the thread Geantrai.disappointing geantrai [trad moosic] fifth page in,about post no 40 Geantraí. 4.Iam not on hallucinatory drugs,you have overstepped the mark.you owe me an apology .dick miles 5.a copy of the review. five polite messages,two requests for an apology,three others trying to guide Anderson to the review. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 14 Nov 08 - 01:10 PM IAN ANDERSON,publish my emails,two of them were requesting an apology for accusing me of being on hallucinatory drugs. three were explaining where the review could be located, all were polite.if you dont print them I will. one of them contains a forbidden url.you owe me an apology. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Manitas_at_home Date: 14 Nov 08 - 10:33 AM "the hallmarks of turning into a massive timewaster and trollfest" What? With only you and Dick on it? |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: GUEST,Ian Anderson, fRoots Date: 14 Nov 08 - 10:33 AM Greg: you haven't seen the wigged out emails I've been getting directly from Dick Miles (and am now ignoring). Trust me, if you were on the receiving end of all this stuff, you'd get ratty as well! Outta here! |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: GUEST,Ian Anderson, fRoots Date: 14 Nov 08 - 10:29 AM Dick Miles posted the offending (to him) review on the fRoots message board without saying he had found it somewhere else, crediting it to James O'Donnell and giving an incorrect URL. Therefore I pointed out this error and asked him why he had - as far as I and our readers could see - rewritten it to change the attribution. I am not familiar with the web site he now says here that he found it on: if it is as stated, then it was published illegally there and without fRoots' permission. If I knew how to contact the perpetrators I would ask for it (and any similar bootleg reprints) to be removed. We nearly always grant such permission (f.o.c.) if asked, providing that such things are correctly attributed and properly linked. I closed the thread on the fRoots Board because everything that needed to be said had been said and it had all the hallmarks of turning into a massive timewaster and trollfest. I rarely - hardly ever - do that, but I think this thread proves I was right. Apart from that, Vic Smith above was, as is often the case, absolutely right. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Borchester Echo Date: 14 Nov 08 - 10:20 AM If Dick Miles was unaware that the review in the Irish Music Review under the name of James O'Donnell was the same one (and by the same author even though signed Geoff Wallis) as that which appeared in fRoots - and I believe he was as he had no reason (apart from similarities of style) to think otherwise at the time of posting - then just one word from member Geoff Wallis will clarify whether: YES, he and James O'Donnell are the same person or NO, they are not. I am totally amazed at the artillery being wheeled in. There must surely be a plot but I don't know what it is (do I, Mr Jones). |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: greg stephens Date: 14 Nov 08 - 10:18 AM Vic: you are dead right about the unseemly personal squabbling, but in the case of the closed thread on the fRoots Forum, the unseemly squabbler was Ian Anderson himself. He accused Dick Miles of taking hallucinatory drugs, because Dick referred to a review as being by James O'Donnell. In fact Dick was by no means hallucinating, the review indeed appeared over the name James O'Donnell. Now this may have ben an erroneous attribution, but Dick didn't know that.Neither did Ian Anderson probably. A simple misunderstanding, escaled into a silly spat by Ian getting ratty and closing the thread. Which could have course have been straightened out by a simple explanation and apology. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:51 AM Vic, Iam angry ,because I do not like being accused ,by Ian Anderson of altering the article myself ;his email Why are you sending me this gobbledegook? The review you are aguing about appeared exactly as I stated on the message board under the name of Geoff Wallis. It's there in print for anybody to check. I do not understand why you are re-writing it, attributing it to somebody called James O'Donnell and giving an incorrect fRoots web site URL. Please cease and desist. I don't have time for this! |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Vic Smith Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:49 AM In my opinion - again just one person's opinion - there are a lot of posts on several recent threads in this forum that come under what I would call Unseemly personal squabbling that would be better conducted by private email |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Vic Smith Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:45 AM Whoops! Pressed "Submit" by accident. To conclude..... I |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Vic Smith Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:44 AM It is quite difficult to see why so much anger over this issue should be directed at Ian Anderson who as editor has, in my experience, a fairly laissez-faire attitude towards the opinions of his reviewers and understandably, a very supportive one when the opinions of his reviewers are called into question. I write a lot of reviews for fRoots and quite a number of other publications - and I must say that I hate writing negative reviews - but sometimes my opinion is that something is awful and I would be wrong if I did not say so. A few years ago I was sent a book on the history of the folk revival to review for fRoots. In my opinion - just one person's opinion - it was badly written, poorly constructed, full of factual mistakes and hyper-critical of some of the major contributors eg. Lloyd and MaColl. I wrote a stinging review, then worried about it and sent it with a message to Ian asking if the review was in order. He replied the provided that I could confirm that the mistakes that I had mentioned were in fact errors, then that review should stand, if that was my honest opinion. Then I read a review of the same book in the Folk Music Journal by Martin Carthy which if anything was more damning than mine was. When Martin and I next met we confirmed that we both felt better about not be the only people to give the book a negative review. As to why Ian should have closed the geantrai thread on the Froots Forum, I don't know, but I imagine that he felt that it was already breaching his contributors' guidelines which say:- Carefully crafted arguments, theories, reactions, diatribes, stuff you'd like to know etc. Unseemly personal squabbling and trolling will be zapped. I |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:02 AM Jack,the article[Iam referring to] was published IN The Irish Music Review. and attributed to James o Donnell and said the source was FolkRoots.so the mistake is not the fault of www.session org. There are four possibilities,Geoff or the IRISH MUSIC REVIEW chose a pseudonym,somebody[not me] has tampered with the article,or a proof reader made a mistake.[very unlikely] however it doesnt alter the fact that I did not know it was Geoffs review,I have apologised to Geoff twice.,but should I not have a right like everybody else to criticse a review regardless of the author. I feel that I can no longer do this without being accused of having ulterior motives,so as far as Geoff is concerned I have been intimidated to silence,as regards anything else he might write, I have also been accused by Ian Anderson of altering the article myself[idont have those sort of computer skills,and have better things to do with my time] |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Jack Campin Date: 14 Nov 08 - 08:28 AM CB, you mean www.thesession.org. Not a place you'd look if you wanted correct attribution for anything. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 14 Nov 08 - 08:13 AM I did not know his identity,[how could I]and if I had done I would have not criticised the review,because I do not wish to fall out with him any further. one late night phone call, was enough for me. However artists or anybody do have a right to criticise reviews. [imo] A reviewers first priority is to inform the public who[that includes all the recording artists] is on the recording /dvd,this was not done here,then the cost of the recording and where it is available from,then they give their opinions,these are the guidelines I have used when reviewing in the past. too often reviewers opt for purple prose,which tells us more about themselves than the recording,in this case we learn that the reviewer doesnt like the guitar and bouzouki backing on some tracks,but still we dont know who Anne Conroy Burke is accompanying,or who is playing on fourteen of the tracks etc etc. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Borchester Echo Date: 14 Nov 08 - 07:51 AM I am familiar with the writing style of Geoff Wallis and the piece certainly does bear a remarkable resemblance to the sort of prose he is likely to produce. As he is a member of, and frequent contributor to, this forum, I think he should come out and clarify whether identical reviews in two publications under two different names are indeed his, or not. I think he should do so at fRoots as well, but would at present be unable to do so as the thread there has been closed. I would, therefore, expect Ian Anderson to ask (indeed insist) that Mr Wallis clarifies his position all round. I don't know whether the good Cap'n was genuinely unaware of this possibe dual identity, or whether he saw it as an opportunity to take a potshot at his longtime sparring partner, Sugar Ray Wallis. Nevertheless, considerable grounds for doubt prevail. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 14 Nov 08 - 07:18 AM should I have done? I found the review on a reputable site [www.session .org,disappointing geantrai link about post number40, from voca diva steed] why should I assume anybody had tampered with it. I have just received an E mail from Ian Anderson,accusing me of rewriting it,. I would remind Ian Anderson,that there are libel laws. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: greg stephens Date: 14 Nov 08 - 07:17 AM We are all too trusting of the internet and ggogle and so on . But the fact is that if you read the Irish Music Review, there is the article, attributed to James O'Donnell and saying its source was fRoots. I think in those circumstances Dick was absolutely write to attribute it to fRoots, and not mention the intervening source. It turns out that the Irish Music Review was wrong in its attribution(I think), but I don't see that Dick can be blamed for believing what he read. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Surreysinger Date: 14 Nov 08 - 07:12 AM Without going back to the fRoots pages, though, IIRC, Dick didn't actually mention that he had gleaned the review from a tertiary source - I think it indicated that it had come from fRoots mag direct (or at least, that was certainly the way that I read it). |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: greg stephens Date: 14 Nov 08 - 07:09 AM Thre seem to be other intrigiuing aspects of this thread. Why, for example, did the publisher(the Irish Music Review) ask for the bulk of the review to be deleted from the thread? And why did the Irish Music Review publish this piece over the name of Jasmes O'Donnell, whereas in the original(?) fRoots version it was credited to Geoof Wallis. Curiouser and curiouser. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: greg stephens Date: 14 Nov 08 - 06:57 AM I find it difficult to understand Ian Anderson's anger with Dick Miles on this occasion.The review was published in the Irish Music Review, and attributed fRoots magazine and James O'Donnell; and Dick reacted to it in complete good faith.It may be that publication was wrong, but Anderson should take that up with the publisher. And surely Dick is entitled to disagree with said O'Donnell(or Wallis)? I don't know the programme, or Wallis, or O'Donnell, so I couldn't comment on any other aspects. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: GUEST,Tom Bliss Date: 14 Nov 08 - 04:59 AM Dick's link as a clicky Here Puzzled by this story I'd finally found this page myself yesterday. As the fRoots thread is closed, I hope Ian may pop back here to see that there was perhaps a more benign explanation for Dick's post than there seemed to be at first - (I'm not quite sure why either he or Max is quite so angry with Dick though). There seems to be an unwritten law that artists should never question reviews. Obviously we can't question our own reviews (though I'd love to have done so on more than one occasion) but I'm not sure that it's good for journalism for reviewers to be beyond criticism by artist or anyone else for that matter. I do agree that the review rather speaks for itself about both the DVD and the reviewer (whoever it actually was), but that's no reason why it can't be discussed. Tone of voice is an issue, of course, but we're used to far worse on many forums. Tom |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 13 Nov 08 - 11:47 PM effsee,you are right I had never seen it when it first was published.and was not aware of the original critique I would hardly wait 15 months to respond. I first saw the review,two days ago. Dick Miles |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 13 Nov 08 - 11:42 PM Dick Miles's Private Messages To Title Date Delete Geoff Wallis Re:froots review 13 Nov 2008 11:41 PM Message: Geoff,I had no idea you were the reviewer,my apologies.here is the link that says James ODonnell.http://www.irishmusicreview.com/geantraidvd.htm plus an apology,here on this board. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Effsee Date: 13 Nov 08 - 11:29 PM Aye, your right enough Cap'n. Why on earth should he be named as such when, I presume, the original which appeared in fRoots was credited to Geoff Wallis. Equally, I presume you were unaware of the original critique from 2007 in fRoots? |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 13 Nov 08 - 11:19 PM scroll to the bottom,it definitely says JAMESoDONNELL. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 13 Nov 08 - 11:18 PM http://www.irishmusicreview.com/geantraidvd.htm here,it looks like musical traditions.yes and Iam awake at four oclock in the morning,because I dont like being slandered by Ian Anderson or anyone else.I am owed a few apologies. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Effsee Date: 13 Nov 08 - 10:30 PM Curiouser and curiouser...so where did Mr. O'Donnell appear in the debate/ |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: katlaughing Date: 13 Nov 08 - 07:54 PM I notice no one's mention the bodhran in answer to Azizi's question about drums.:-) Lots of Geantrai videos on youtube. This one *shock* haa a keyboard involved! If you watch it all the way through, you'll also hear banjo and guitar. It would be nice if folks would just be happy the music LIVES! |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Nov 08 - 07:39 PM This all takes me back to the old cry in the playground at school: "Fight! Fight!"... |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: GUEST,Ian Anderson, fRoots Date: 13 Nov 08 - 07:15 PM I am completely baffled by this. The review in question was published long ago, in the Aug/Sept 2007 fRoots and was credited to Geoff Wallis! It raised no comment whatsoever at the time. Why has this suddenly been brought up now and why is Dick claiming it was written by somebody else? If you don't believe me and want to check, it's on pages 89/91 of that issue. I'll do him the favour of assuming his attribution to www.frootsmag.org was a typo rather than a further hallucination since there's no such thing. It's frootsmag.com |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Azizi Date: 13 Nov 08 - 06:33 PM Thanks for that information,Captain Birdseye. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 13 Nov 08 - 05:40 PM azizi, unaccompanied singing was the norm. but no tradition ,stays static,for example since the 1950s,the gd button accordion has been replaced in popularity by the b/c. the guitar and bouzouki has gained in popularity as an accompanying instument,the Piano has declined in popularity. many singers now prefer to have a chordal backing for some songs but still sing unaccompanied for others. traditions sometimes occurred through economic necessity,people sang unaccompanied because they couldnt afford an instrument,likewise they lilted/sang tunes for dances for the same reason. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 13 Nov 08 - 05:31 PM Max,I saw the review on www.session org. I had[after I posted here] also contacted froots LETTERS board[that does have a forum ],and is in fact the origins of the review. at the time of my original post on this forum,and up until very recently, until I was informed[less than a hour ago] by Ian Anderson[editor of froots] I assumed quite logically that James O Donnell[was not a pseudonym] and was in fact James O Donnell. there is no history behind this.,I do not know James O Donnell now that I know [courtesy of Ian Anderson,and after I had sent my posts to this forum]the reviewers true Identity,I would like to apologise to him,and assure him that if I had known the true identity of the reviewer,Iwould not have mentioned this review here. how the hell am I supposed to know someones identity when they use a pseudonym,it is completely ridiculous. I watch GEANTRAI regularly,and while it has shortcomings,I am delighted to get 3o minutes decent ITM on the television,and am appalled to see decent musicians[Ann Conroy Burke etc] slagged of. I had no idea who the reviewer was,and have a democratic right to talk about a review without you accusing me of having an axe to grind,you may own this site,but you do not have a right to make defamatory suggestions about my motives. you can rest assured the last thing I want to do is wind this person up,and receive another late night phone call. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Azizi Date: 13 Nov 08 - 04:59 PM I don't know anything at all about the television show Geantraí or the DVD that was reviewed, and I know next to nothing about traditional Irish music {or any other kind of Irish music}. I opened this Mudcat thread because I was curious about the meaning of the word "geantrai". Having read the full article that was hyperlinked, and having read this entire thread to date, maybe it's just me, Max, but I didn't get the sense of any personal conflict that you referred to in your post. Instead, my reading of the comments from Mudcatters were that they disliked that review because, in their opinion, the reviewer let his strong opposition to guitar accompaniment for traditional Irish music color his review of judgement about that DVD, and tv show. While I agree that the entire article did not need to be reposted, isn't it possible that the posters here might want to discuss the subject of the appropriateness of guitar accompaniment for traditional Irish songs as that point was so clearly a part of that review? Perhaps because I'm so unfamiliar with traditiohal Irish folk music, I found this thread so far to be interesting reading, and I'd like to know more about the subject. For instance, I'm curious to know if unaccompanied singing was norm or if fiddle {violin} playing is/was thought to be appropriate for traditional Irish singing. And I'm assuming that there was no percussive instrument accompaniment such as drums. Is that so? What about handclapping and foot stomping? Also, I'm curious to know when were guitars introduced as accompaniment to Irish folk music, or other types of Irish music? Thanks,in advance for your responses to my questions. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Max Date: 13 Nov 08 - 04:13 PM I happen to think the review is quite harsh though I haven't heard the CD or seen the show. Seems more personal attack than professional review. Sometimes CD's merit such. What I find more fascinating is that since the review was on a site that does not contain a forum and therefore no means to argue with it, it was dragged over here, republished without permission and shat upon, all to make some sort of point. If you are so apposed to such a review, why would you republish it? Why would you draw attention to it. You could have made all the same points by referring to it in general. I see a personal conflict behind all this. A valid discussion about acerbic reviews on the surface, yes, but spite (and history) below. Please do not use our forum to throw stones or recruit allies in your personal disputes. Perhaps you all can help me to not have to use a broad sword to bring a more academic/useful/professional/courteous/polite tone to specifically the UK discourse by doing it yourselves. Unlike your government, I wish not to get involved, but it seems I must. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Declan Date: 13 Nov 08 - 03:21 PM The review says a lot more about the reviewers prejudices than it does about the DVD or the program. The fact that Geanntrai regularly features guitar and bouzouki accompaniments reflects the fact that these instruments have become prevalent in the session scene in Ireland. Many people play these instruments very well and provide excellent accompaniment to the tunes. There are others who don't but few of these would be of a standard to be included in the Geanntrai line-up. While I haven't seen the DVD, I watch the program regularly and it is rarely short of excellent. I have long since stopped buying or reading Froots due to its editorial policies and its tendancy to controversial reviews, which often say enough to reveal that the reviewer has spent little or no time reviewing the material in question. The guitar is well extablished as a backing instrument in traditional music. The reviewer is welcome to his opinion, but many people, including most traditional musicians I know don't share it. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Bryn Pugh Date: 13 Nov 08 - 06:05 AM Ahgain, I endorse the good captain. Perhaps I should lie down in a darkened room :-) Betsy, I booked Wally Whyton at MSG for fifteen quid. I agree with your opinion of him as a guitarist - shit-hot. (Mind you, you can keep Oliver Beak and Fred Barker for me). |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: GUEST,Betsy at Work Date: 13 Nov 08 - 05:46 AM It's perfectly obvious that the man finds no merit in the use or sound of the guitar in Trad. music. I'm sure that these guitarists were more than competent, given that they were invited. Invited musicians (by loose definition) wouldn't be shite - would they? and I guess he is wrong to slag them off, so, I return to my first sentence. I love to play my guitar at sessions (ahem !) Bryn, Bert Weedon never stimulated me to playing with myself, but ooooooooh !! the lovely Muriel Young could have done. On the same programme WAS a decent enough guitarist for the times – Wally Whyton. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 13 Nov 08 - 05:46 AM the reviewer[slagger]also creates confusion,by not just reveiwing the cd,but reveiwing the television programme. I assume he is supposed to be reviewing the cd. this reviewer tell us quite a lot about himself,he must be late fifties[upwards]he must be English[or spent the 1960s in England] He must have spent some time in Ireland.,to be watching Geantrai regularly. perhaps he hasnt watched it at all,but wishes to make waves,to create publicity for Froots. he contradicts himself in the review,firstly there is something rotten,then he says all the above are far from being rotten. what is rotten,is the low standard of review allowed in froots. so the reviewer tells us he doesnt like the guitar accompanists,he mentions nineteen tracks,but only gives details of five perfomances. I understood the purpose of a review,was to give information[what happened to the other 14 tracks]who did they feature. why mention his opinion of the tv programme,when he is supposed to be reviewing the cd. froots need to pull their socks up and get someone who understands the essence of reviewing. |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Bryn Pugh Date: 13 Nov 08 - 05:43 AM Well, McGrath, opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one. I did say that the programme was ghastly in my opinion, and I apologise if I've upset anyone. Brynnie-the-Pugh |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Nov 08 - 05:24 AM Bryn Pugh appears to agree with that review's opinion of Hold Down a Chord. Fortunately a lot of people would not, as indicated in this recent thread: Obit: John Pearse RIP (October 2008) |
|
Subject: RE: geantrai From: Bryn Pugh Date: 13 Nov 08 - 04:41 AM For once, I endorse the good captain's comments in their entirety. This "review" is IMO scandalous. I am old enough to remember 'Hold Down a Chord", and to be honest it was IMO ghastly. A would-be guitarist would have been better off with Bert Weedon's 'Play with yourself in a day' (or something like that). Bryn Pugh. |
|
Subject: geantrai From: The Sandman Date: 13 Nov 08 - 04:36 AM
what are other peoples opinions of this kind of review . I find it deeply disturbing that a magazine such as Froots can publish unpleasant personal attacks[Ann Conroy Burke]. what has happened to balanced constructive criticism.,and standards of journalism. this is [imo]a nasty hatchet job,from someone[JamesODonnell]who is old enough to know better. I am of the opinion,that Ann Conroy Burke is one of the best accompanists on the Irish trad scene,she does her job perfectly accompanying Joe Burke,without being flashy,the art of a good accompanist. this reviewer[who must be middle aged to remember hold down a chord]clearly is not much of a musician,and[imo]not fit to be a reviewer,if he cant refrain from personal attacks. I am pleased that Geantrai,is on the television once a week,it is open to improvement[This reviewer has no constructive suggestions],but having half an hour of ITM once a week,is better than none. if you get a chance to watch GEANTRAI,I suggest you do,Ihave enjoyed much good music on this programme. |
| Share Thread: |