 sj |
||
|
||
The Concept of FREED Folkmusic
|
|
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: John P Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM My name is James Blunt. I was born in 1793 and live in Yorkshire. I play the fiddle. Mistress Nancy seems to be the person who always organizes the dances in the village, and she usually asks me to fiddle. The last two dances, however, she decided that, since we're the folk, everyone should have a chance to participate in the folk experience. So she asked Billy Jenkins to play at one of the dances and Will Shate to play the other. Well, wasn't that a good idea! Billy can't play in tune to save his life and Will has the timing of a broken clock. I tried to dance for a while but couldn't stand it, so I went home -- as did almost everyone else. The same thing happened to Clara Willis -- you know, the woman who knows all the songs and sang at all those weddings we had two years ago. When little Maggie Horn got married, she asked Mistress Nancy to help her organize the festivities, so what did Nancy do? She asked Mary Cobb to sing! Sure, Mary knows all the songs, but her voice sounds like a banshee. What can't these folks save their music-making for the fireside and let those of us who know what we're doing play for the public events? |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Jeri Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:17 PM 700 for goodness sake - and Conrad still hasn't got it. I would like you to consider something. Conrad is not responsible for all of these posts. There is a core of fuckwits who enjoy spending an enormous amount of time and energy ridiculing someone. You, fuckwits, are not invisible. There is a mob here who joins in on most threads where ridicule and humiliation can be heaped on someone because, frankly, nobody much likes the person they're ganging up on. The mob frequently includes such members as... well, anyone can read the threads and see whose name shows up again and again, mostly telling the target to see the light, find a clue, and stop posting, when they are obviously incapable of doing so. So why do you keep coming back? I think you like ridiculing people. I think maybe bullies picked on you when you were a kid, and you somehow thought abusing people was admirable. I see you, and I see what you are. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Smokey. Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:51 PM And yet you choose to come and ridicule the fuckwits ridiculing the fuckwits.. Face it, if someone makes ridiculous and insulting statements about musicians and music on a forum full of musicians and admirers of their chosen music, it's going to cause a reaction. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Howard Jones Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:56 PM Well, Jeri, this is a discussion forum, and people like to discuss things. I don't actually think there has been a great deal of personal abuse among those 700 posts, although I agree there has been some, mostly from the usual suspects. That's regrettable, but I don't think it reflects the majority of the posts. There are also occasions when threads can turn into bullying, but I don't think this is one of them - robust debate, certainly, but mostly well-argued rather than abusive. I certainly don't believe this thread has turned into bullying, the reason everyone is on the opposite side to Conrad is not us ganging up on him, it is simply that he has failed to persuade a single person that his views are correct. Conrad began this thread by making some strong criticisms of the way folk festivals and folk events are run and making some radical suggestions to improve them. Since then it has wandered around a variety of related topics. Most of the replies have been attempts to get him to put forward arguments to support his unsubstantiated assertions. We have also been rebutting them by pointing out that they are mostly based on invalid assumptions and explaining why his solutions would not have the effects he claims (and in some cases would make matters worse). In the course of this discussion we have had some interesting, passionate and well-argued explanations (from Don Firth in particular) of why Conrad is so mistaken. That's why this thread has continued for so long. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Jack Campin Date: 23 Sep 10 - 01:35 PM So why do you keep coming back? I think you like ridiculing people. Or maybe some of us have seen Conrad trying to pervert electronic forums to promote his own repulsive political agenda for nearly 20 years and aren't about to let him pontificate unchallenged on this one. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: The Sandman Date: 23 Sep 10 - 01:44 PM I agree with Jeri, Posts telling someone to Fuck Off are not permissible, neither should be bullying be allowed. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 23 Sep 10 - 01:54 PM Jeri yes you have a point. A large peanut galelry out there and has been and the same people for years and decades have nothing but crap to add and they keep doing it. I know who they are and that they are simply hate mongers but that is evident. The other group that are disruptive are those that spend most of their postage killing the messenger rather than attacking the issue. I dont care about them either as they show by attacking my personal choices in life that they have lost the debate! It is all just fun. But in the end ideas are refined and tested. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 23 Sep 10 - 01:57 PM Just as an aside, the last couple of messages I have posted have disappeared. Right after posting them, I checked and the posts were there. When I came back a bit later, they were gone. One person came on and asked what had happened to my latest post. A little bit later, that post was also gone. I am not being abusive toward anyone. There are a few others here who are far more personally insulting to Conrad than I have been. So if there is censorship going on, I would like to know why. And why I seem to have been singled out by whoever is doing it. So--what's going on, here? I'm a bit curious to see how long THIS post lasts. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:06 PM read this thread- those here have argued strongly that ordinary people do not good performers make and should be excluded in favor of the best performers. So you get performers without any but their own songs in their head- the rest are censored. No insult intended. I am fully tolerant of professional musicians. I think the wider folk community just needs to ajust its arrangement and priorities to allow for greater expansion than is currently going on. Dont confuse critique with insult. Yes the status quo will want to defend itself- but it is not always right to defend exclusion, artificially inflated prices and elitism. Yes the ideas put forth are radical. So where is the harm in implementation? the only answer is what we are doing now is fun, we like it and you cant change it. Most of my suggestions are concrete almost mathmatical. -lower costs and more people can attend -make venues more personal smaller and friendlier stages and people will be closer to the music -Encourage people to keep songs in their heads from the older tradition while allowing new ones and adaptation -Carve a little space from entertainment and allocate it for teaching. -Move professionals from center stage to a side stage. Let ordinary folk and more accessible venues drive up demand for the professionals. Why wont these work? Dont know. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:16 PM "those here have argued strongly that ordinary people do not good performers make and should be excluded in favor of the best performers. So you get performers without any but their own songs in their head- the rest are censored." Simply untrue, Conrad. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: John P Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:27 PM . . . those here have argued strongly that ordinary people do not good performers make and should be excluded in favor of the best performers. So you get performers without any but their own songs in their head- the rest are censored. Conrad, I think you're the only one on this thread that has mentioned singer/songwriters. I'm pretty sure everyone else is talking about traditional music. I'm a professional performer. I play almost exclusively traditional folk music. I don't like listening to performers who aren't very good, unless it's an appropriate learning situation and not a performance. I have been deeply involved in the folk community for more than 30 years. Where do I fit into your assumptions? Would you care to respond to my post of 23 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM about the difference between competent performers and the incompetent? |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:43 PM There should be no performer wishing to share a song judged incompetent. You are not running a business here or should not be. You might not like or prefer the sound of an ordinary voice but it still can convey a song that may otherwise never be sung. That is priceless. Don-you have said that you dont want ordinary voices on stages. Lots of singer songwriters doing purely new material going under the heading of folk. The category folk has limited resources. I dont mind if someone sings some adapted or original compositions that fit in a songlist-sound good together but to be under headding of folk they should also convey some of the older materials- the treasures, the legacy. We have a responsibility for that. Performers should also perform to audience sizes that are more suitable to teaching and not just ensure entertainment. I see no reason for pure entertainment when we wish to expand the tradition. As a certified teacher I know many ways that an audience can leave a musical event either knowing a song or closer to knowing a song. Pure performance should not take up so much of our resources or stages or venues. Its not about sounding good but about taking care of the heritage- Just think- We have folk music that perhaps goes back to middle ages 16th century 17th century 18th century 19rh century 20th century If a performer did a set with one from each period he could have sufficient space for two from 21st century. Seems easy to encourage more diversity in the exercise of the older materials. It is only a small departure from playing what you want. And one might find after exploring the legacy of music available that there is something one likes in every period. Then if you make the thing more teachable people will leave the event with more than just a smile but with a song in their hand to learn. Eventually once the people find the music there will be more demand for professionas at lifestage events. Weddings etc.... Easy! Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 23 Sep 10 - 03:00 PM "Don-you have said that you dont want ordinary voices on stages." Once again, Conrad, you LIE! I never said anything like that. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: John P Date: 23 Sep 10 - 03:17 PM Interesting. I do play music from medieval through the 21st century. I don't do it, however, as a history lesson. I do it because there are songs I like from throughout history. As a musician, I don't feel any need to be an educator at the same time that I'm entertaining people. You still haven't told me why I should. I am an important part of keeping the old songs alive, in that I play them in front of people. I have a lot of evidence that lots of people have been turned on to traditional music because of the way I conduct myself. I don't have any evidence that any of the things you are proposing would do the same; in fact, I have a lot of evidence that it would have the opposite effect. You haven't made your case. Continuing to make the same unsupported statements over and over again just makes you sound like a Republican or something. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too: you want a folk community that is acting like communities did in the past with regard to music making (although your assumptions are wrong) while at the same time wanting traditional music making to be an academic exercise. Academic study is pretty much the antithesis of traditional music making. I prefer to actually be a traditional musician in that I play the music that comes to hand on whatever instruments are available and in a way that can be understood and enjoyed by my community. Historical musicology doesn't enter into it. Would you care to respond to my post of 23 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM about the difference between competent performers and the incompetent? Especially as regards why "the folk" would want to listen to someone in a performance situation who isn't any good at performing? |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 23 Sep 10 - 03:45 PM ("Continuing to make the same unsupported statements over and over again just makes you sound like a Republican or something." Howling with laughter, John!!) ### Conrad, there are a lot of people with "ordinary" voices around who are excellent singers. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, the folk music should be sung only by singers with voices the caliber of Dmitri Hvorostovsky or Natalie Dessay. Or for that matter, Richard Dyer-Bennet, who was a cultivated tenor who had a quite successful concert and recording career singing folk songs and ballads. But he certainly didn't have the best voice in the world. It was thin-sounding compared to most tenors, and he could actually get a bit shrill at times. But he did have good vocal technique and excellent breath control. He said, himself, that he didn't particularly like the sound of his own voice, and if he was a successful performer, it was in spite of his voice rather than because of it. Both Pete Seeger and Peggy Seeger don't have extraordinary singing voices. Quite ordinary, in fact. But they know the material very well, and know how to present it in both an entertaining and an informative manner. This makes them very good singers indeed! You don't have to have a great voice to be a great singer. It's what one does with one's natural endowment that determines whether one is a great singer or not. Many singers you hear on field recordings—MOST singers you hear on field recordings—have quite ordinary voices, but their singing is often good to excellent. Conrad, you may have a very ordinary voice. But there is no reason you couldn't perform if you would learn to sing the songs well. And otherwise learn to behave yourself! Don Firth P. S. Richard Dyer-Bennet said the following, which is well worth noting, whether one has a good voice or a very ordinary voice. As most people do, even the vast majority of singers in almost all genres except for opera and lieder, which are very demanding and require special abilities that not everyone is born with: "The value lies inherent in the song, not in the regional mannerisms or colloquialisms. No song is ever harmed by being articulated clearly, on pitch, with sufficient control of phrase and dynamics to make the most of the poetry and melody, and with an instrumental accompaniment designed to enrich the whole effect."Read it. And think about it. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Smokey. Date: 23 Sep 10 - 04:12 PM I always think the effect of bad singing is so much more enhanced with poor accompaniment. For a genuine 'trad' effect though, it obviously helps if they are in slightly different keys and due consideration is paid to the avoidance of rhythmic synchronicity. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 23 Sep 10 - 04:36 PM Right, Smokey! I've been striving for that ideal all my life. Singing a song in, for example, a minor key when others do it in major—and with a whole lot more notes than I want to use—along with accompanying it throughout with only one chord, and that a Db diminished. And, of course, singing the verses in reverse order. And alternating at random between 4/4 and 6/8. Quite a challenge. Even moreso that trying to pat you head and rub your tummy while playing the vihuela and tap-dancing at the same time. But I persevere. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Smokey. Date: 23 Sep 10 - 04:46 PM There, you're getting the hang of it already.. all those years wasted, eh? A tip though: you can achieve some quite extraordinarily authentic olde worlde effects by the cunningly selective use of the old pitch standard of A=415hz. I've heard quite a few amateur folk performers who seemed to have a natural gift for singing like that. We can but envy such ability. You've either got it or you haven't, I suppose. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 23 Sep 10 - 05:12 PM Excellent point, Smokey. Singing while holding to the A=415 standard would certainly be more authentic for most older songs. And the effect might be quite interesting if one kept one's guitar tuned to A=440. . . . 'Course, I have heard some folks who seem to have mastered that. ### On "Classic Arts Showcase" on cable television a few weeks ago, I watched and heard a clip from a concert by the late, great Metropolitan Opera bass-baritone, George London. George London was the first American opera singer to be invited to the Bayreuth Wagner festival in Germany to sing the role of Wotan in all four operas in The Ring of the Nibelungen. He was also the first American to be invited to Russia to sing the leading role in Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov. Bloody brilliant singer and considered by many knowledgeable people to be one of the greatest singers of all time. On "Classic Arts Showcase," George London including in his recital a rendition of "Lord Randal." That magnificent voice, deep and rich, like dark chocolate, rumbled and reverberated through the concert hall. But he gave the ballad the full operatic treatment, gasping and chest-clutching, much as he had sung, quite appropriately, the death scene in the final act of Boris Godunov. It was bloody GAWDAWFUL!!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 23 Sep 10 - 05:21 PM Just a quick note to Jeri, who took us to task for spending so much time and energy beating up on poor bewildered Conrad. ("Fuckwits," Jeri? Now, REALLY!) It may appear that everyone's here to try to poop all over Conrad's Great Plan to Reorganize the World in his Own Image. But not so. I mean, wotthehell! It'll never get off the ground anyway, so why should we bother? Conrad is merely providing us with an excuse to chat merrily among ourselves. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Sep 10 - 05:42 PM There is another possibility, Jeri, that I am slowly coming to believe: Conrad has found people's buttons and he is playing them, just like Martin used to, some years back. And the rest of us come and blow, come and blow, like an obedient concertina... |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 23 Sep 10 - 05:49 PM No, George, I'll stick with what I said just above. Nobody here is thick enough to believe that anything anyone says will ever change Conrad's mind. As I say, an excuse to chat merrily among ourselves. Shall we all lighten up a bit? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Smokey. Date: 23 Sep 10 - 06:52 PM We're not supposed to have fun.. Perish the thought. I'm just off to fill the swimming pool with beer. By the way, can I take off these traditional astronaut trousers yet? They're getting a bit uncomfortable. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 23 Sep 10 - 07:40 PM Right. After all, we are informed that folk music is a serious study. People aren't supposed to enjoy it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 23 Sep 10 - 07:44 PM don you said that those who got access to stages had to pass professional or adequate muster. Sorry you said it. You did not want to hear hard to listen to voices. Discrimination pure and simple. If you "have" songs competance is not a matter for consideration. No it is painless to present songs in a way that is enjoyable and educational at the same time. Stop defending your right to ignore education. Think of the act as sharing and not performing. The concept is to have fun but to put it into balance. Fun is not the only reason. Much much more. Its work to teach easy to just entertain. but if we dont teach once the internet folds, libraries are neglected (as they are being already) we will have no oral tradition or hardly any to fall back upon. We need to grow the oral tradition each time folk is applied to an event. We also need maximum access. Its simple. You cant depend on recording or curation. Look to history if you know any. Libraries get burned, recordings get brittle or obsolete. But if a song is passed on in the oral tradition the worst is that it may have constructive modification. We by relying on professionals for the most part and recording are eliminating the means by which the tradition has survived. We need to re-cultivate the oral tradition which should be easy enough with a few tolerances and adaptations of the status quo Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 23 Sep 10 - 08:24 PM Conrad's Great Plan to Reorganize the World in his Own Image reminds me of the South Park Gnomes episode. It was the 30th episode of Comedy Central's animated series South Park. Wikipedia offers... Tweek's parents, who own a coffee shop, give the boys coffee to help them stay up. The boys drink too much coffee, and end up wired, bouncing off the walls of Tweek's bedroom. Tweek sits on his bed watching. The boys finally come down from their caffeine rush in a hard crash, and are finally ready to start working on their project. While they argue ideas, Tweek notices the underpants gnomes walking single file into his bedroom toward his dresser. After stealing several pairs of Tweek's underpants, the Gnomes walk out of his bedroom, unnoticed by the other boys. Meanwhile, Tweek is freaking out and trying to get their attention. They finally stop arguing and tell Tweek to shut up. Later, the boys see the Underpants Gnomes for themselves, following them to their underpants-processing underground lair out of curiosity. The Underpants Gnomes are businessmen of sorts, and they claim to know a lot about corporations, so the boys eagerly ply them for answers. The Gnomes explain that their business plan is as follows: Phase 1: Collect Underpants Phase 2: ? Phase 3: Profit Following the episode's release, the underpants gnomes and, particularly, the business plan lacking a second stage between "Collect underpants" and "Profit", became widely used by many journalists and business critics as a metaphor for failed, internet bubble-era business plans[2][3][4] and ill-planned political goals.[5][6][7] Paul Cantor, a literary and economic professor who uses South Park episodes as teaching aids, said "no episode of South Park I have taught has raised as much raw passion, indignation, and hostility among students as 'Gnomes' has."[8] Conrad has worked out parts 1 & 2 but has no idea (which others have brought forth useful tried practical suggestions based on their real world experiences, yet Conrad rejects them all) about Part 2. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 23 Sep 10 - 08:44 PM The sad thing about Conrad's thesis as expressed here, is that while there a few good germs of ideas, such as 'preserving traditions by performance', 'teaching rather than just performing (for money)' and so on, but they are put together and expressed in such a bizarre and irrational way as to sound ridiculous and as expressed even counterproductive. Also, people what have DONE these things for decades, point out the fallacies, they are ignored by Conrad. Consequentially, many are provoked into rebuttal, as am I when some ignorant clown tries to tell me that Helholtz resonators produce NO overtones which is why they are 'brilliant for scientific research'. Rubbish - they produce overtones at above 10 times the fundamental (so 200-400 Hz fundamental will produce overtones at 2-4 Khz!) - unlike tubes and rods which have ratios of 2x 3x, etc AND every side blown flute and end blown fipple whistle has a Helmholtz resonator at the 'cork end' which if not properly tuned will give the instrument poor performance, especially at higher frequencies!!! The experienced intelligentsia just CAN'T let such foolish ignorance go unanswered! |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 23 Sep 10 - 08:46 PM Correction top previous post: Conrad has worked out parts 1 & 3 but has no idea (which others have brought forth useful tried practical suggestions based on their real world experiences, yet Conrad rejects them all) about Part 2. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 23 Sep 10 - 08:56 PM "don you said that those who got access to stages had to pass professional or adequate muster. Sorry you said it. You did not want to hear hard to listen to voices.." NO, Conrad. I did NOT say that! All anyone has to do is go back up the thread and re-read what I actually DID say. And as far as "hard to listen to voices" are concerned, such as people who don't know the tunes of songs and simply sing random notes, or who sing off-pitch—NOBODY wants to listen to that. Not just me! If someone sings in a monotone so you can't distinguish an actually melody and/or mush-mouths the words so badly that you don't know what they're singing not even academic song collectors will waste their time trying to record them!! Of course, if you can bring it off, Conrad, no one is stopping you from trying to be the Florence Foster Jenkins of folk music. Florence Foster Jenkins had a truly unique singing career. Possessed of no ear for music whatsoever and more money that brains (curiously enough, but undoubtedly with compete innocence on her part, people around her kept dying like flies and leaving their money to her; perhaps the reason they died was that it was the only way they could escape listening to her sing), she regularly hired Carnegie Hall and gave recitals. The recitals were usually sold out. She also made a number of records, and managed to sell quite a few. But what drew people to her concerts and had them buying her records was that people were absolutely astounded by her totally gawdawful singing voice, her cpmplete lack of ability to assess her own singing, and her sheer audacity. The audience came to laugh at her. She was so bad that she was hilariously funny! Now this may seem very cruel on the part of her audiences. But she was happy. She had the singing career that she wanted so badly! Here's a sample of her work: The Queen of the Night's aria from Mozart's The Magic Flute. CLICKY. Good luck on your singing career, Conrad! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:26 PM The of course Don, there is The Portsmouth Sinfonia, a whole orchestra of barely competent instrumentalists - and they did issue a recording (with vocalists) of 'The Messiah' too.. .... |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Smokey. Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:39 PM Pah - southerners. try this |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:59 AM "Stop defending your right to ignore education." We have free amateur folk sessions in UK - fully open to the public - people run them in pubs. But they're not good enough because there must be a free festival with free beer with the free folk. We have near to nothing folk camps too - 'mini fests' in fields where there is even free beer. But *they're* not good enough because they are word-of-mouth and the people who go to the trouble of arranging them prefer the people attending to actually be interested in folk music. We have big folk festivals with amateur fringe activities that are fully open to the public and *free* in return for helping out (that's known as bartering services - now there's a traditional concept). But that's not good enough, because no-one should have to so much as help out in return for a free festival. We have absolutely free folk festivals like Leigh-on-Sea fully open to the public where you don't have to do anything at all whatsoever but get hammered on vodka in coke bottles (as I've observed). But they're not good enough either because they're funded by local councils. And that's all wrong too for some other reason I can't recall. Lots of people already doing free folk, lots of different ways to do free folk currently going on, lots of choices available to anyone wanting to get involved for free. None of them involve pooping in hedges though, so they're simply not good enough.. Damned elitists! |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Howard Jones Date: 24 Sep 10 - 03:49 AM Foulestroupe is right, there are the glimmers of some good ideas in there. However, despite repeated prompting, Conrad has failed to produce any evidence or examples of the problems he believes he has identified, and ignores all the evidence put to him that people are actually doing most of the things he wants, and have been for years, and that these problems are more imagined than real. Perhaps he has limited experience of only a few folk festivals and assumes these are typical, in which case he should get out more. Or perhaps he is one of these people who gets an idea in their head and doesn't want to be troubled with the facts. Conrad has produced no arguments to support either his analysis of the 'problems' or how his proposed solutions will work. He has refused to engage with any of the arguments to the contrary. He simply keeps repeating his unsubstantiated assertions as items of dogma. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:08 AM Don I never said that people who dont know the words or tunes should sing of course not. But you mentioned quality as being important. In the grand scheme of things the songs are important- you do have to know them but the singing quality is not important. Many great singers only sing a few songs. Many ordinary singers can sing thousands. I know all about sessions in pubs. If you want to know about them just listen to the gig guides on the BBC folk radio programming. Wonderful. I have never noticed anywhere in them the USA tendancy of holding open sings or folk song performances in only the most expensive bars in town. This is what happen here. The best Irish venue in baltimore raises its prices drastically for music. The chanty singers go to expensive places in silver spring and baltimore. The warf rat is very high priced. That simply is elitist and locks anyone out who wants to have a night of drinking and song. There are plenty of beautiful corner places with ancient woodwork in baltimore that one could select. They dont and it is clear that they are just being elitist. While I appreciate the good feel of word of mouth insider events such as house concerts I want the openness to be on the same level as other venues. Fully advertized for everyone to come. You have to invite new people who havent even heard folk music or you are just doing inbreeding. Like the shakers! I can not agree with the concept of taking money from the poor, the unemployed and those who are ill to fund a free folk festival. it is just not really free. When all can donate what they do for a day or two it can be free therefor it can be done - why not? Never pooped in a hedge. In the scouts we were taught to dig holes in the ground-nothing wrong with that. One could pee in a hedge. The hedge would be greatly appreciative. But I never advocated that either. Just another of the growing number of urban myths about me. I enjoy it keep em coming. Yes people are doing some of the things I advocate and others are coming close. But, the problem is that it needs to be much more widespread and it can be but isnt. Too many false excuses for not making it happen. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Howard Jones Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:10 AM We seem to be back where we started. I don't know how you can tell from the BBC listings whether sessions in the UK are held in expensive venues or cheap ones. You'd find they're held in all types of venues, from expensive hotels to basic pubs. I will agree with you on one thing: organisers probably do want to lock out those who are there for an evening of drinking and song - they tend to make an unpleasant audience themselves and spoil the occasion for others. Anyone who is there primarily for the music will find the price of drinks to be less of a factor. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Will Fly Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:22 AM people are doing some of the things I advocate and others are coming close. But, the problem is that it needs to be much more widespread and it can be but isnt. Too many false excuses for not making it happen. You appear to be the only person here who thinks your beliefs should be more widespread - can't you see that? And the "false excuses" you keep quoting aren't excuses at all - just common sense, which you appear to be devoid of. By the way, I'm still curious as to what you actually consider to be folk music, and whether you can quote us some examples of the music which you consider fit this category. Why no answer? Why consistently ignore this and other pertinent questions? Why no provenance or any evidence for the validity of the things you advocate? All you've done, throughout this whole thread, is make unfounded assertions, insulted good musicians who've dedicated a whole lot of their time to spreading music - most of the time for peanuts - and attempted to advocate a ludicrous and unnecessary straitjacket in which you think the music will flourish. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Bettynh Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:39 AM "Never pooped in a hedge. In the scouts we were taught to dig holes in the ground-nothing wrong with that. One could pee in a hedge. The hedge would be greatly appreciative. But I never advocated that either. Just another of the growing number of urban myths about me. I enjoy it keep em coming." On August 24, 2010, you wrote:"People exist on a daily basis in great numbers without hauling toilets around with them or renting them to take along. Why should festivals have such difficulty? Especially in urban areas. People find a way. Yeah bushes have worked for centuries anyway." Do you have a particular spot in Baltimore in mind? Is carrying a shovel another prerequisite for entering one of your festivals? "you are just doing inbreeding. Like the shakers!" You claim to be a historian of sorts. Shakers didn't breed. If you don't know American history, don't use it for argument. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:39 AM ... Ok, Conrad, what do you think of this? I didn't particularly want to get involved with this thread, but I think you possibly have an overly pessimistic view of what is actually going on out there, so I wanted to present you with a concrete example of free and free-ish folk music in one small neighbourhood. Within 10 minutes walk of my house (so no transport costs) there is: - A mainly traditional singing session every two weeks open to all regardless of ability or experience. - A mainly traditional tune session every two weeks open to all and pitched at beginners so as not to exclude people who want to get involved but have limited instrumental skills and experience. - A weekly Irish tunes session - you have to be a pretty decent musician to keep up, but that's the only limitation. All the above take place in an old fashioned pub with normal everyday beer prices. The landlord is very supportive of the music sessions that he hosts, all of which have been set up by enthusiastic amateurs who are doing it for the love of the music. All are free to get in, but as they are in a pub there is an expectation that you buy yourself a drink or two. Plus we have a weekly folk club - this is in the local cricket club so the beer is cheap. It costs a whole one pound to get in (which goes to keep the club going rather than into anyone's pocket) and anyone can put their name down to sing or play - it's done on a first come first served basis. Traditional and contemporary music are both represented. Again its run by enthusiastic amateurs on a not-for-profit basis. This is in one small suburb of one provincial city. Other stuff happens in other parts of the city. I trust this would meet with your approval? Oh, and the singers and musicians from the singaround and beginners sessions have started to go out to local festivals and events to sing and play and take folk music out to the local people... None of this is done out of a sense of duty or mission but because its all great fun. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:58 AM 739! Attaboy Conrad! Go for the 1,000! |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Howard Jones Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:55 AM A whole pound to get in? That's outrageous! How do you expect to spread folk music to the drunks, winos and car artists at that price? |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 24 Sep 10 - 02:16 PM When the gig guides are broadcast the programmers give the price of admission and often food as well. So far and I listen to three shows each week at least the prices are real bargains real good bargains. So you see in the UK you have a better situation. Here the singers are all yuppies and they always meet in expensive places. My suggestion to performers- dont play at places which rip off your audience. Get yourself into the cheapest places where those visiting you find bargains. Dont worry competition dictates that the more expensive places will come down in price to get you back. Oft times musicians are given free food and drink so they are often not aware of how ripped off their audiences are being. The more who can afford an evening out the larger your audience. Not falling for the definition of folk music thing here My point exactly I know the shakers did not breed- breeding like the shakers is worse than inbreeding in general. Exactly spleen that is how it is to be done. There are indeed some and the fact that they are doing it speaks well for the concept that it can and should be expanded. Again until you have seen the cost inflation from greedy publicans and venues you dont know. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: John P Date: 24 Sep 10 - 03:37 PM Here the singers are all yuppies and they always meet in expensive places. Wrong again. Please stop insulting folk musicians. I'm about as far from being a yuppie as it's possible to be. My suggestion to performers- dont play at places which rip off your audience. According to your definition of "rip off", this would leave no local venues for folk music. Reality flash: we play where we can. A vast majority of places that want to have music don't have any interest in folk music, especially traditional folk music. And, at the risk of being called elitist again, I have no desire to play at the really cheap dives in town, since whores, bikers, and broken-down drunks also don't have any interest in folk music and make lousy audiences anyway. Would you care to respond to my post of 23 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM about the difference between competent performers and the incompetent? Especially as regards why "the folk" would want to listen to someone in a performance situation who isn't any good at performing? |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 24 Sep 10 - 04:27 PM "But you mentioned quality as being important." Yes, it is, Conrad. VERY important, for reasons I have already stated. AND as I have already said several times, poor voices and songs badly sung usually drive away people who might otherwise develop an interest in folk music (I have a specific example of someone who developed an interest in folk music by listening to a couple of reasonably compentent singers, which I will add below). There are a couple of factors which go into making a "good" singer or "quality" singer: an outstanding voice helps, but it is not necessary, as long as the voice doesn't grate on people's nerves. Being able to sing on pitch and with relatively clear diction is essential. Many people with "ordinary" voices can do this quite well. What IS essential, and the most important factor in being a good, quality singer, is not so much that the singer have a beautiful voice, but that the singer understand the song and convey his or her understanding of that song to others. And the vast majority of people CAN DO this, provided they take the time to learn about the background of the song (especially important in folk songs and ballads), and project that to listeners. "In the grand scheme of things the songs are important- you do have to know them but the singing quality is not important." I have just addressed that. But singing quality IS important in that the quality must be at least adequate. Again, on pitch, clearly enunciated, and with understanding of the song. "Many great singers only sing a few songs. Many ordinary singers can sing thousands." Not true within my experience. Most "great" singers are great because they have worked with the songs for a long time, have learned many songs, and there is a lot of "carry-over" from one song to another. How many songs do you think Pete Seeger knows? Joan Baez? Frank Hamilton? I don't know of very many "ordinary" singers who know "thousands" of songs. My friend Bob Nelson? He knows many hundreds of songs. HE probably doesn't know how many. He just keeps on learning them. As do I, and the really interested and dedicated singers that I know—and know of. And this bit of nonsense: " Oft times musicians are given free food and drink so they are often not aware of how ripped off their audiences are being." Although I didn't make a point of it, I always knew how much was being charged for food and drink in the places I sang. All I had to do was look at a menu. And back in the days when a cup of coffee in most restaurants cost a dime (maybe twenty-five cents in really upscale eateries), the fact that The Place Next Door charged 75é for a two-cup carafe of regular coffee (specialty coffees like Turkish, Swedish blend, of coffee-chocolate combinations might run to $1.50), that didn't keep people away. The place was packed every night. As were most of the other coffeehouses in this area. I rarely sang in places that served beer or other alcoholic beverages. Not that I'm any kind of "temperance" nerd. I enjoy a drink now and then myself. But I found the audiences in non-alcoholic venues far more attentive and appreciative. Even though the boozers paid a lot better than the coffeehouses! If things are as bad as you say they are, Conrad, that is strictly a local phenomenon and doesn't apply to most of the rest of the country. Or world. Now. As to the matter of spreading interest in folk music: Bob Nelson's voice is not in the same league as, say, Dmitri Hvorostovsky's, but it is quite pleasant and listenable. And his diction is impeccable. Something he has always been quite careful about. I am no Ezio Pinza in terms of voice quality, but I've been told I have a pretty good singing voice, even though I have a somewhat limited upper register, with a tendency to squeak on high notes if I'm not careful with my breath support. I can sing Gordon Bok's songs in the same keys that he sings them in. In October of 2007, Bob and I did a concert together on Sunday afternoon at Central Lutheran Church on Capitol Hill in Seattle, alternating solos and doing occasional duets. The following is a review written by a young man who, although his grandfather was a very good local singer of folk songs, hadn't really paid much attention to folk music before. He writes The light from the stained glass windows washed the little church with an autumn glow as we filed into the pews, excited murmurs filling the space where we waited for the music. As Bob Nelson and Don Firth were being introduced, I felt like I was looking in on a closely knit family joining in reunion: the audience, the announcer, the performers- there was an intimacy that truly surprised me. As they began, a complete hush fell over the crowd, allowing their voices and the sounds of their guitars to fill every corner of the room.(WOW! Jordan Myers can write my reviews any time he wants to!!) So you see, Conrad, laying down a good performance, especially if you know your material and enjoy singing the songs yourself—and without blatantly trying to "educate" your audiences, but just briefly putting the songs in context—can go a long way toward spreading interest in folk music. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's the best way. As is stated quite plainly in Jordan Myers' last paragraph above. So, Conrad, just stuff your goofy ideas and let those who've been at it for decades and know what they're doing just get on with it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: jeffp Date: 24 Sep 10 - 07:21 PM Don, let me say that your writing is a major highlight of this thread. Not to denigrate others' contributions, but yours shine in the darkness. Thanks for sticking with it. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: Don Firth Date: 24 Sep 10 - 07:49 PM Thanks, Jeff! I sometimes wonder why I stick with this thread. Conrad will never get it (he doesn't want to) and I've been this close —>||<— to thinking "To hell with it!" and just quitting several times. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 24 Sep 10 - 07:58 PM When you concentrate on the music quality does not matter assuming that minimum requirement would be knowledge of the tune and lyrics but modification in both to a degree is permissible. Dont run down local cheap places. I know many (I was consultant for Voice of Amerian Television for a piece not too long ago we visited about 60 of the best over a two night shoot.) There are good people out there everywhere. You are probably suffering from master race paranoia. No you dont need to lecture people about songs. I hate the ten minute presentation for a five minute song. That rips appart the context. Do you really think two hundred years ago that was the way songs were presented. Remove the museum atmosphere. Don- quality of singing does not and will not matter. Again you would toss out a person with hundreds of songs who did not have perfect pitch. Sound elitist to me and a big barrier to extending the folk to all who can sing and play. ALL Again performance is ok but when that is virtually all we get it is time for an adjustment. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:35 PM "Conrad has failed to produce any evidence or examples of the problems he believes he has identified, and ignores all the evidence put to him that people are actually doing most of the things he wants, and have been for years, and that these problems are more imagined than real." Life is in shades of gray, with occasional tinges of colour. Some people can only see it though in pure black and white, pure monochrome. That's consider acceptable in Religion. Conrad has Found Religion! Pointless arguing... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: frogprince Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:24 PM "You are probably suffering from master race paranoia" That has to be about as absurd, and utterly groundless, as anything I've ever heard. |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:28 PM The new paradigm being proposed is just too radical for comprehension by those defendant upon the status quo- especially professional musicians. In the short term they might loose but in the long term they would do much better. They suffer from poor long term vision. Again while you can always find an instance of someone getting it right getting it right is not widespread or as widespread as it needs to be. The point is that if the status quo prevails it will continue the limiting of the expansion of folk music additionally the number of songs in peoples heads will decline and the resource will be degraded or fail to reach its potential. Sure folk pros strutting around, dominating festivals and excluding imperfect performers and making sure their audiences are being ripped off like the situation. And it is true that most responding here have some professional connection. Of course they cant see the point! They are dependent on the status quo. We like it so it must be good. One or two people do the right thing so that is enough. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: The Concept of FREED Folkmusic From: the lemonade lady Date: 25 Sep 10 - 04:02 AM let's have 'festivals' in our back gardens and pass a hat around to help the artists with expenses. like house concerts, i'm sure there are artists out there who would call in on their way to bigger events. time to get back to our roots. sal |
| Share Thread: |