The Concept of FREED Folkmusic

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Tootler
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 04:46 PM

I am beginning to see where you are coming from, Conrad, and at the heart of your argument is a fundamental misconception.

Don Firth expressed it above when he said "... collectors like Cecil J. Sharp, the Lomaxes, the Warners, et al, are not particularly concerned with the quality of the voices and the general singing ability of those from whom they collected songs..."

The point is that their primary interest was collecting the songs so they would not get lost. Although the early song collectors could only write down the songs, the technology for making audio recordings was becoming available and later song collectors were able to make recordings of the songs they collected. Many of the early recordings of traditional song do not come over as particularly good quality partly because of the limitations of the technology available to the collectors and partly because their respondents were often elderly and past their best. However, that does not matter in this case because the quality was of secondary importance to the record and the main objective of the collector was to make a record of the songs.

As a result of their work, we have a body of music which would otherwise have been lost and which would not have been available to us today. However, that time is now past as the people from whom the body of traditional song was collected are now all dead.

For those of singing the songs today (and playing the tunes - we must not forget the tune collectors) then quality is important, particularly if you are singing to entertain others. That does not mean you are being elitist or exclusive.

You are confusing purposes. If you are collecting a song, then content is more important than quality of delivery - providing the words are clear and the tune can be discerned. If you are singing to entertain, even if it is among your family, then quality of delivery is of prime importance.

Your misconception is in not recognising;

a) The different purposes for which a singer may be asked to sing a song.

b) That the days of collecting are effectively over, so folk songs are now sung largely to entertain.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 05:04 PM

Don what you are advocating is what occured in Irish pub singing around 1945. Somewhere I will find the source- essentially a history of irish pubs here somewhere.

Prior to that time people of all kinds of skill levels would play or sing in pubs casually.

With the advent of tourism and mobility from the cities the musicians started to attract attention and audience. Where at first singers and players were just amongst their piers they became known to a wider audience. Soon competition for the "best" grew. Publicans added stage managers and amplification to the venues.

Before long the favorite, but not "excelent" musicians were locked out of performance venues and the locals complained.

This is what has happened today. You may have lots of songs and tunes but you wont be playing at Don's folk festivals- but if people think you are good and you only have singer songwriter's words and music the product of your own mind entirely you will be given a venue and given the title of folk musician.

I do not wish to ban new material but I think anything with the word folk attached should contain a fair percentage of old material.

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Howard Jones
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 06:19 PM

Conrad, again you are confusing two different types of performance.

If a group of friends get together to sing or play tunes, whether that's at home, around a campfire, or in a pub, then quality may be secondary. It is primarily a social gathering. That's the sort of situation where someone like Don's friend might perform without embarrassment. Anyone overhearing such a 'performance' will recognise it for what it is, and won't draw any conclusions about folk music as a genre from it.

It is very different when you begin to organise public events to which you expect to attract members of the public. Then you have a responsibility, firstly to the audience who have taken the trouble to come along, and secondly to the music itself. In this situation then it is not unreasonable to expect a certain level of competence in performance, and an understanding of both the genre and of the individual songs. This is particularly true if the audience is paying to hear the music, but also applies even if the event is free. If you present them with performers who are rubbish, not only will they not return to future events but they will come away with a very negative impression of folk music as a genre.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Howard Jones
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:16 PM

Oh God, Conrad's now veered off onto singer-songwriters versus traditional folk. God help us.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:31 PM

Just additional proof, as if any were needed, that Cornhole doesn't know shit from Shinola.

Tootler did a superb job of pointing out the problem of the first part and so we move on to his next!

We all need to take advantage of these moments as it is rare that one gets to spend so much time seeing the inner non-workings of the truly moronic mind and even rarer to find a "mind" so completely moronic.

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 07:47 PM

I have to continue to maintain that performance should be always a secondary concern and that maintenance of the songs and the tradition is the priority.

If we only reward those who sing perfectly then we discourage others who are not so good.

The result of this is fewer having the songs and singing them.

We just get a large mass of consumers- audience. Those at a festival for entertainment will not maintain or extend the tradition.

Having gone to school in Knoxville Tennessee in the 70s I was fortunate to have access to many older singers. They had many ancient songs and people did not mind in the least that their performance might not have been the best.

The important part is that we support as many people who take the time to care for the songs in an active way as an integral part of their existence.

As for singer songwriters yes. This is a problem if one considers the central concern of folk music the preservation and maintenence of the old material as best as we can manage and in as much an active way as we can manage.

I see those who do exclusively all their own material as a threat to the central purpose. There is nothing wrong with new material or gentle adaptation of the old. The key here is to make sure that it does not dominate the performance of someone who takes the title "folk".

These people suck down grant funding and take publicly funded venue spots simply because they do "folk like" things.

When we do not remember that folk music has a heritage that must be cared for we fail. We can only manage the most extensive active maintenance of the folk tradition if it is open to the largest number of people. Makes perfect sense.

In this thread so far we have seen often how quality has been used to keep out people, how economic segregation has been justified and how professional musicians are elevated as elites.

The point is that we can all live together but that the pie has to be cut a bit differently. While singers and writers are happy with the way things are they are not necessarily correct or supporting the best philosophy for the extension of folk music and the guardianship of its treasures.

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: John P
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 08:14 PM

how professional musicians are elevated as elites.

If you said "competent performers" you might be closer. And yes, competent performers are better than incompetent ones. Skillful people are part of the capability elite.

I have spent 40 concentrating on becoming a good musician. I am one of the elite. People who don't put in the time and care aren't. Go figure. It sounds like you get turned down for so many gigs that you're trying to turn it into a plot to keep out poor performers. News flash: it's not a plot. It's just the way the world is. People who are better at their craft get more opportunities to display it. Go figure.

And just to head off your next stupid response, I don't think I'm a better person because I'm a good musician. All it means is that I'm a better musician than many. I also spend time encouraging, teaching, and playing with musicians who are less skilled than I, because I think that passing it on is very important. Does that make me part of the altruism elite? I've also spent a lot of time organizing festivals and concerts. I do this because I'm good at it and it needs doing. Does this make me part of the well-organized elite?

You, Conrad, are yourself an elite -- you're part of the beer-drinking elite. You're trying to keep non-drinkers and light drinkers from being part of the folk experience. You elitist! Stop it right now!!

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Tootler
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 08:23 PM

"And just to head off your next stupid response..."

No chance! He'll simply twist your words. He does it every time.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 08:44 PM

I really mist say, having considered all Conrad's thoughts carefully, that if everything he proposes were put into effect, there should be very little danger that folk music will die a slow death.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 09:38 PM

You don't read very carefully, Conrad. I SAID that I do not organized festivals, nor do I run a pub or coffeehouse, and I don't set up and promote concerts. I leave that to people who are better at it than I am. As I said, I don't make the decisions. But I PERFORM at these events. And I am not "advocating" anything in particular, other than trying not do drive people away from performances of folk music and alienating them.

If you were REALLY interested expanding interest in folk music, you wouldn't be taking the position that you are.

Performers don't have to be "the best." But they shouldn't be so bad that they make people look around desperately for the quickest way out.

Other people here understand what I've written. Why can't you!??

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Sep 10 - 11:09 PM

"I really must say, having considered all Conrad's thoughts carefully, that if everything he proposes were put into effect, there should be very little danger that folk music will die a slow death. "

Yup - it would implode instantly ....

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 01:37 AM

Hey, you guys helped him get over 600 posts.
Shit! Now I'm doing it!

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:41 AM

Thanks Seamus but I am not looking for numbers just trying to encourage people to take steps to make sure that folk events and activities broaden the tradition as much as possible.

Expansion of the tradition is now being set back by a lack of understanding of the ways people are kept from it. Lots of barriers could be removed and new practices which transform performance to sharing can be implemented.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 08:35 AM

Bugger. I'm very disappointed. I misread the thread title title as "The Concept of FRED Folkmusic" was ready to congratulate you all on reaching 600+ posts on the sainted Mr Wedlock.

Here's a little consolation for all of us to help us through the next 600...

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Howard Jones
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:20 AM

Conrad, people have spent the last 600 posts explaining to you why the things you believe are barriers (such as the price of beer) aren't actually barriers, and why things which you think aren't barriers (such as the quality of performance) are. Perhaps you should go back and read them again.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: GUEST,Fred Folkmusic
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:28 AM

Tempting, Mr Spleen - so very tempting...

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:38 AM

Just passed The Number of the Beast.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 12:06 PM

Yup. That was me actually WAV - your friendly nieghbourhood Beast (known to some as the Rudest Man in Folk but we won't go into that here; you and I both know differently, do we not?) trying to imagine what sort of cove Fred Folkmusic might be. Perhaps he's a troglodytic throw-back like Fred Flintsone - or maybe wor Canny Conrad fits the bill just right? But I prefer to reserve it for certain company, say in our local singaround the next time someone accuses me of singing The Collier's Rant too slow, then my repost will be:

And just who the hell do you think you are? Fred Folkmusic?

Though being the Rudest Man in Folk I'll be duty bound to crank up the alliterative tension with a suitably vernacular expletive...

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 01:41 PM

"Expansion of the tradition is now being set back by a lack of understanding of the ways people are kept from it."

People are kept from folk events by mediocre or downright inept performers who do not engage the interest of the audience and in some cases, completely turn people off. "So that's folk music! Well, that's enough of that!" Whereas, if they hear a performer who is at least listenable, who sings the songs in an engaging manner, and who can give relevant information about the backgrounds of the songs—without talking too much—they are entertained and informed, and most people find that sort of thing an enjoyable experience.

People are also kept from folk events by having to encounter other audience members who are so beered up that they get loud, obnoxious, and barf on other people's shoes.

"Lots of barriers could be removed and new practices which transform performance to sharing can be implemented."

Like lowering the cost of beer, and thus increasing the number of drunk, loud, obnoxious audience members who barf of other people's shoes? Not a good move.

One of the big reasons I prefer singing in coffeehouses to singing in bars (despite the fact that bars usually pay much better than coffeehouses do) is that people drinking coffee tend to be alert and pay attention to the singers rather than focusing on obliterating their ability to think and boring holes in their livers. And barfing on other people's shoes!

And most of the singers I know feel the same way.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 01:58 PM

At the risk of repeating myself, for the vast majority people Folk Music is a minority irrelevance of interest to a bunch of like-minded misfits & weirdos collectively known as Folkies. Folkies are a very special sort of human being - you seldom meet one in the real world, but when they're flocking in their collective feathery midsts it's as if the whole world is Folk.

Actually, I can see where Conrad is coming from here, and might sympathise to a certain extent - I'm a lot happier roaring The Old Songs with a bunch of drunken Hearty Traddies in a rancid back room someplace than sitting paying careful attention to an overly precious recital of Folk Song in a coffee house, but hey - horses for courses after all. It amounts to the same thing at the end of the day - the real folk still stay away in droves because they've got more pressing things to get on with.

People aren't being kept away from folk by anything other than folk's wholesale irrelevance to their lives - nothing to do with beer prices or performance quality. Those who are there are what's important - cherish it; I know I do.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 02:33 PM

I tend to agree pretty much with what you said, Suib, with one small exception:

". . . overly precious recital of Folk Song in a coffee house. . . ."

Most coffeehouse performances that I've seen and been involved in are not "recitals." They're pretty informal, with a lot of interaction with the audience.

One coffeehouse I sang in a lot during the 1960s generally had three or four singers up front at any given time. No set program and not always the same singers. We played off each other, did impromptu duets, trios, and such. A lot of banter and interplay (unrehearsed!) between the singers and with the audience. An evening at this coffeehouse was sort of like going to a party, and the audiences (generally wall-to-wall on Friday and Saturday nights) loved it!

I save the "recitals" for when I'm singing for some fairly formal organization like the Early Music Guild or the Seattle Classic Guitar Society. But I still keep it pretty relaxed.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 02:40 PM

And why do I stick fairly close to a recital format for formal organizations like those I mentioned? Because that's what they are used to.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:37 PM

Nothing inherently good about what anyone is used to.

Get over it changes might be helpful.

Quality raised again and again....hey it doesnt matter. If you have the songs they are important not quality.

Clearly Don would exclude those with the most songs who are just not Professional enough.

That is counter productive to expansion and wrong simple.

Quality discrimination, economic discrimination.....

No wonder that folk music has grown slowly....

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:29 PM

"Clearly Don would exclude those with the most songs who are just not Professional enough."

You, sir, are a LIAR.

You are DELIBERATELY misrepresenting what I've been saying all along.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:34 PM

Folk music like no other genre has an amazing heritage to care for and protect and keep alive. We have to guard against using the limited resources at our disposal to promote entirely new music at the expense of the treasures we are obligated to care for and the tradition that we need to keep alive- no just on recordings and in libraries.

We must keep access to the music free and reject any theory that says that quality is more important than the songs.

We must keep the doors open to those of all incomes especially the poor.

We can not give in to the temptation to raise up professionals as heros for worship and adoration.

We must all, no matter what the quality meet at the festivals as one family with access to all.

We should shun the entertainer performer relationship in favor of the teacher and learner.

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Will Fly
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:51 PM

We don't have to do any of these things at all.

When did folk music start being "heritage? Let's have your idea of what you mean by "folk music" - examples please, just so we know what music you're applying your stupid principles to.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:53 PM

Conrad, you are trying to peer at the vast Cosmos through the tiny keyhole of your own inadequacy.

In the meantime, the world of folk music will not only survive, but thrive very nicely, thank you, without the straitjacket of you limiting ideas.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Howard Jones
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:37 PM

We must keep access to the music free and reject any theory that says that quality is more important than the songs.

Unless the quality is there people will not listen to the songs. Once people are hooked and start to become interested in studying the songs themselves, they may be prepared to overlook limitations in performance in order to seek out songs, but unless their first contact with folk is positive they will never get to that stage. People have to be attracted first by quality, then they may develop a more academic interest. Even then, when they want to listen to music for entertainment and relaxation, rather than academic study, quality is paramount.

You seem to regard folk music solely as something to be studied and conserved, like a rare species in a zoo, rather than recognising that it can and should be enjoyed as entertainment.

We must keep the doors open to those of all incomes especially the poor.

The doors are open to the poor. Read the posts. There are many free events, and where there is an entry charge this is usually far lower than for most other genres. The only reason you feel there is an economic barrier is your insistence on accompanying the music with gallons of beer and platefuls of food. It is the music which is important.

We can not give in to the temptation to raise up professionals as heros for worship and adoration.

The folk world manages to resist this temptation pretty well. Folk professionals have their feet on the ground and are approachable in the way few are in other genres. It is quite possible, quite normal in fact, for ordinary enthusiasts to be on first-name terms with internationally-recognised professional performers. How accessible are the professionals in other genres?

Respect, yes. Inspiration, yes. Unashamedly stealing their material, yes. Worship and adoration? No. Sorry guys.

We must all, no matter what the quality meet at the festivals as one family with access to all.

I don't know what festivals you go to, but you seem to have a very different experience from the rest of us. "One family with access to all" pretty much describes the atmosphere of most folk festivals I know. If you feel excluded, perhaps you should try some different festivals. Or perhaps you should consider whether this is due to your own behaviour and attitudes.

We should shun the entertainer performer relationship in favor of the teacher and learner.

Again, the distinction between entertainer/performer and audience is more blurred in folk than in possibly any other genre. Most performers do teach, not only by giving formal workshops but in explaining the songs and their provenance during performances.

All of these 'problems' exist only in your imagination. Yes, there are problems facing folk and preventing it from being more widely popular, but these are not them. In fact your solutions, especially your insistence that quality is not important, would add to the problems rather than solve them. You are so wide of the mark, it is laughable.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:38 PM

No it wont don you are putting many things in its way.

Teach always a priority

Performance and entertainment barely useful

having fun as a priority is a waste

you only want the best performers that is wrong.

You permit the use of folk music to bring people in to expensive venues so they can be ripped off leaving entertained but without a song....

I do fine thanks!

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Tootler
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:43 PM

A couple more to add to Conrad's last post;

Pretty Polly, Pretty Polly

Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight!

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Howard Jones
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:14 PM

Performance and entertainment barely useful

Conrad, what do you think folk music is actually for?

This is a genuine question - I really cannot understand your approach to this topic. You appear to view it as some kind of medicine - it doesn't matter that it may taste nasty, as long as it's doing people good in some undefined way. Just as long as they don't start to enjoy it.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:46 PM

Conrad wants to turn folk music into something akin to a dose of castor oil.

You're not supposed to enjoy it!

PTUI!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:52 PM

Simple Howard.......Conrad is a lousy performer so he passes it off as being true to the original........complete horseshit of course but then that's all the fuckin' Pissant has as he has no talent.

Conrad....try reading for comprehension.


Spaw

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 08:23 PM

having fun as a priority is a waste

Aye, there's far too much happiness in the world. Dammit, they'll be making food taste nice next. Coddled to buggery, are them folkies - make 'em suffer; raw sewage and discord, that's what they need. Good solid traditional misery like we 'ad in the gudde olde days. Folk music without lice and rickets is for wimps and theatrical types. And they should make performers sit on iron spikes.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 09:15 PM

"having fun as a priority is a waste"

Conrad, what in bloody blue blazes do you think is the primary reason anyone,anywhere, has ever sung, or listened to, folk or any other genre of music?

I actually do think I have known of people who have attended, and listened to, opera because they felt that doing so made them elite, and would impress others with their elitism. But I'm quite certain that they are a small aberrant minority among opera fans.

You have come out in favor of drinking alcohol by the gallon during music performances. Do you feel that people should do this for the sake of tradition, even though they don't enjoy it?

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 09:18 PM

And yes, foolestroupe promptly caught what I really meant by my post last night. I was wondering if Conrad would laud me for being on his side, but he didn't bite.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 10:42 PM

And if you pay him enough, he'll dress up as Santa and traumatise your kids.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Will Fly
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 04:35 AM

The kids in the photographs mainly look scared shitless, don't they, Smokey? Can't think why?

Conrad, at the risk of more waffle on your part, I repeat the questions:

When did folk music start being "heritage? Let's have your idea of what you mean by "folk music" - examples please?

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 06:26 AM

I'm sorry, I'll post that again..

Most coffeehouse performances that I've seen and been involved in are not "recitals." They're pretty informal, with a lot of interaction with the audience.

Sounds idyllic, Don - although I must admit I get jumpy if I drink too much coffee. Seriously, the Ecology of Folk is important to me; it's as much about the Context as it is about the Content, though both have got to be right for it to work. I've polemiscised elsewhere about Feral Folk Music (my Mudcat posts on this matter I've collected onto a Myspace Blog HERE) in which the nature of the music is determined by its immediate context / ecology, but when it comes your Actual Traditional Folk Song, then we must deploy a very careful nurturing to ensure we get the right balance, be it in formal or less formal contexts. I do Formal Stuff too of course, and an appreciative sober audience is something to treasure.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 06:48 AM

Too much emphasis upon entertainment is wrong.

Nothing wrong with entertaining but when no one but the performer "has" the song then something is wrong.

Ballads have two functions- they preserve a story, a history and they entertain. Both need to be served by our work.

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Will Fly
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 06:54 AM

When did folk music start being "heritage? Let's have your idea of what you mean by "folk music" - examples please?

Any answers yet?

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:06 AM

All musical traditions are sort of like icebergs.

One sees the tip only that is popular or new in the present.

Songs that are not being sung, not now popular are the vast portion below the water line and out of sight.

These songs may be stored on recordings some more fragile than others or in books some deteriorating at a fast pace some in librarys that will be destroyted.

The most important unseen portion of the iceberg is the portion stored in the heads of the keepers of songs. This is the best form of storage. It is not dependent upon popularity or quality and it is living generally passed across generations.

What is the health of that portion?

How is it influenced by what is now the domination of an entertainment entertainer tradition-which dominates venues and does not teach and to a larger degree these days only presents new pieces?

If we are to grow this tradition we must re structure venues. More people rather than fewer need to get in and take part. More teaching has to occur and there has to be a greater tolerance for less than professional quality.

Nothing wrong with entertainers but our festivals need to be less focused on entertainment dimension and more focused on smaller stages intimate gatherings and transmission.

Perhaps learning a song should be required for every festival audience member. Give them a song sheet and get to it with a few run through s then let them in the gate.

Providing lyrics and tunes to songs sung to take home is also a good step.

Smaller stages will bring listener/learner and performer closer.

Lots of things to be done. The best start is lowering the costs of participation at all points not just sometime.

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:12 AM

Too much emphasis upon entertainment is wrong.

Why? Do you have a logical argument to support this, or is it some puritanical objection to getting enjoyment from folk music?

Nothing wrong with entertaining but when no one but the performer "has" the song then something is wrong.

leaving aside that the first part of this sentence contradicts your previous statement - wtf does this mean?

Ballads have two functions- they preserve a story, a history and they entertain. Both need to be served by our work.

The ballads are safe. They have been collected, recorded and analysed. You can be assured that should a new one be discovered it will be added to the collections. You need not fear the ballads will be lost.

Getting people to listen to them is another matter. For that to happen they must be entertaining, and to be that they should be performed by someone who understands the story and how to get it across. That is "our work" - what's yours?

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:21 AM

Yes recorded but not in active use. The best preservation is in the minds of the people. Libraries are destroyed, computers crash, books deteriorate.

Would having more songs, ballads and others in the minds of the people hurt or help? I believe it would help.

People do things that they consider to be important. Entertainment is important and people are taught to value it. They can also be taught to value things for other reasons- heritage, antiquity, meaning. Being entertained is only one way of reflecting on the music.

Some national anthems are unsingable yet people continue to struggle with the singing for heritage reasons......

Conrad

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Chris Green
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:52 AM

Er, bollocks. The best means of preservation is not in the minds of the people. The best way to preserve something is to write it down or record it.

If you're advocating preserving songs in the minds of people, the songs will change over time. Different singers will add to them, subtract from them, seek to improve them or possibly just not remember the words or music accurately. Thus you end up with several slightly different versions of the same song. It called human nature and the process I've just described is called the folk tradition, about which you clearly know jack shit. Folk music isn't about preservation, it's by its very nature somthing that is continually changing and reinventing itself. That's how it's survived.

As for the idea that the folk circuit exercises censorship over non-entertaining performers - what planet are you on? Over the years I've seen utterly execrable performers who can't remember the words, who sing out of tune and who have all the charisma and stage presence of a road accident. These people have got up as floor spots, massacred a couple of traditional songs and been rewarded with polite applause. This wouldn't happent ON ANY OTHER CIRCUIT!

I don't care if you're a piss artist. I'm fond of a tipple myself. I also don't care if you think that I (as a professional musician) am a parasite leeching the life blood from the tradition. That's your opinion and as Voltaire said 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. But I do care about factual accuracy and I've struggled to find any in anything that you've said.

I await your response with interest.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:57 AM

Welcome to Fahrenheit 451............

Cornhole you asshole.......None, and I do mean NONE, of your bullshit makes any sense at all! Everyone explains and you still can't see the forest for all of them damn woody things. I often use the phrase in jest but you really are the epitome of a broke-dick jadrool..........Go take a fuckin' bath.

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Bettynh
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:12 AM

"Perhaps learning a song should be required for every festival audience member. Give them a song sheet and get to it with a few run through s then let them in the gate."

Perhaps your attitude is the reason your events look like this

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Tootler
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:25 AM

Perhaps learning a song should be required for every festival audience member. Give them a song sheet and get to it with a few run through s then let them in the gate.

Explain to me how that isn't exclusive or elitist? The very that you are complaining about, you are now advocating.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Tootler
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:29 AM

700 for goodness sake - and Conrad still hasn't got it.

More likely he doesn't want to get it. It is quite amazing how some people will hang on to a notion in spite of all the evidence presented to them to the contrary - and, of course, a lack of evidence in support.

Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
From: Tootler
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:43 AM

Except that after two posts, the count on the forum home page went from 698 to 699, so maybe this is actually 700!