Moulettes - not folk say gatekeepers

Subject: Moulettes – not folk, say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,21st Century Bluesman
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 05:50 PM

Have had rejections from both fRoots and Songlines on the basis that Moulettes, a band I'm currently managing aren't really folk, or certainly folk enough. What do others feel? www.myspace.com/moulettes

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 05:58 PM

nah.. its Prog Rock.


But quite good, whatever they think they might be.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 06:12 PM

Now if it was the Moufettes........

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Tootler
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM

I agree, pretty good but not folk.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 06:45 PM

From listening to the tracks in that link, I suspect that if you gave a random selection of people a listen, and asked them "what kind of music would you say that is?" very few would say "folk".

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 06:54 PM

.. and bloody 'ell..

the term


"Art Rock"


has just popped into my head
for the first time in over 30 years...

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Howard Jones
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 07:05 PM

On what grounds do you think they're "folk" - or "folk enough"?

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Leadfingers
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 08:27 PM

Not MY idea of Folk - And I have fairly broad tastes !

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Leadfingers
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 08:36 PM

But here's a Clicky for any one else to give an opinion

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 09:33 PM

It appears to be all self-written. While it seems quite well done, and possibly even might pass the old grey whistle test, and indeed is somewhat sort of acoustic in feel, it does not even approach, much less pass the 1954 definition. I don't dislike it, but it is not folk.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Will Fly
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 03:31 AM

It reminds me a bit of the Puppini Sisters - I've enjoyed what I've heard so far, by the way - and it's contemporary song.

I wouldn't call it 'folk' but, what the hell, who cares? I understand the importance of genre labels when you're trying to market your production and get gigs but, in the end, it's more important to believe in what you do and enjoy doing it.

Forget the folk tag - get into pubs and other music venues like, say, the Komedia in Brighton.

Just my two-penn'orth. :-)

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,PeterC
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 03:38 AM

It doesn't fit any label that I would use to describe a musical style. I suspect that LJ is the only place that will give it air time.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: SteveMansfield
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 02:12 PM

Nice enough art-cabaret material, but I certainly wouldn't expect it to be covered in fRoots or Songlines, any more than I think you'll stand much chance of getting coverage in Kerrang! or The Wire.

I'm mildly interested to know why the OP thinks it *should* be covered in Songlines or fRoots, as there's no discernable 'traditional' or 'folk' or 'roots' or even 'Celtic' influence that I could put my finger on. It's well-produced and enjoyable, but (IMNSHO) folk/roots/trad it ain't.

PeterC's suggestion of Late Junction is a good one.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 04:13 AM

it does not even approach, much less pass the 1954 definition. I don't dislike it, but it is not folk.

The 1954 Definition is a fundamentalist fantasy so vaguely worded that it would either (according to the letter of interpretation) a) exclude 99% of the music accepted as Folk in folk clubs, folk festivals, folk on 2 or even here on Mudcat or b) include every music as folk according to its particular community and character. Folk is a recent concept of a music & as such it evolves with each new generation who comes to it. These days Folk implies a far wider aesthetic as it expands to absorb new nuances of meaning and musical possibility. For the orthodoxy, of course, this is heresy, but the reality is that right now folk means more things to more people than ever before and the music under discussion here is a perfect example of this. So yes, of course it's Folk - in both intention and inspiration, but it's a whole lot more too, but the best things usually are.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 05:22 AM

As I see it, the editors of fRoots and Songlines are not gatekeepers for folk, but they ARE gatekeepers for their respective magazines. They have some image of what they think the magazines should be like and believe it to be their job to accept or reject material that fits the image of their mags. And quite right too.

On the other hand the opening poster is the manager of the group and wants to do what he or she can to promote them. So I don't think the goal here is to discuss whether the music is or is not folk, as to bring the group to the attention to potential buyers. Again, that's his/her job, and once again, quite right too.

None of which has anything to do with whether the music actually IS folk ...

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,crowsister
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 06:00 AM

As far as I can tell, the band in question bare little or no resemblance to the type of trad/roots music Froots covers. But then I guess most of what is commercially labeled as 'folk' bares little or no resemblance to trad/roots type music either. In this respect the band in question is as 'folk' as anything else out there calling itself 'folk'. Though arguably Lily Allen and The Streets are more folk than most of them.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: theleveller
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 06:02 AM

I certainly wouldn't take Ian Anderson's definition of folk as anything but totally arbitrary. Interesting interview in this month's Acoustic magazine with Reg Meuross who had a very public battle with Anderson on this very issue after he refused to review 'Dragonfly' because it was 'not of a tradition'. Reg says, "This infuriated me as it was someone else carelessly deciding who I was...". The debate got very heated at the time with some rather unneccessary personal remarks from Mr Anderson about those who publicly disagreed with him (myself included).

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 08:24 AM

All music is 'of a tradition' - every single genre has 'roots', and not one is not Folk according to the Holy Writ of the 1954 Definition - from the most formal Gagaku to the most 'out there' improv. Folk is merely a random signifier of a certain aesthetic which is ultimately entirely subjective. That said, your average Folknik* is inclined towards a biased pedantry which doesn't bear to close a scrutiny, believing their arbitary construct to be of great substance, which is, of course, utter hooey. Moulettes come across as Harry Potter meets the Wicker Man in the Miranda Sex Garden; that's Folk enough for me, and in the ever evolving sense of a word (i.e. Folk) which has never meant anything anyway.

Anyone seen the new folk-filled Xmas video from Annie Lennox?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlsJD8RlhbI

Let nothing ye dismay!

* I believe Bert Lloyd coined this term; it seems appropriate!

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,I'll be your friend
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 09:02 AM

To me, this doesn't sound a million miles away from the am-dram folk of Loreena McKeenit or Jim Moray.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Folknacious
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 10:26 AM

Surely the Reg Meuros controversy was as much because he used some very sexist, misogenistic language to justify why he thought it unfair that certain other artists passed the Old Grey Froots Test and not him, adding to which he apparently went at it like a bull at a gate. I remember the story from the now closed but still readable BBC Folk Board and as far as I recall he didn't come out of it too well. I thought it was a good lesson about the perils which await people who make it too obvious that they think they're owed a living.

Calling people "gatekeepers" is the new cheap shot often used by those who may have been ignored for more obvious reasons - like quality or originality.

As for Moulettes, can't hear any real relevance. Isn't it interesting how everybody wants to be on the folk bandwagon in these days of mega-sales by bands who get called folk like Mumford & Sons. Whose betting that in 2 or 3 years time when the fashionistas have decreed that folk is once again as untrendy as can be, they'll all be distancing themselves from the folk scene as if it was a leper colony.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 10:27 AM

The 1954 definition is the only serious attempt (AFAIK) to give a meaning to the terms "folk music" or "folk song" that is harmonious with "folk art" "folk tale" "folk myth" "folklore" or "folkways" and indeed foreign expressions such as "volkslieder" or "folklorique".

Since a folksong may remain a folksong even if done in reggae or as folk-rock or as folk-metal (or some of those hideous versions of Barb'ra Ellen with tightly corseted contralto and grand piaaaaaano) it is plain that a meaning based on manner of performance, or style is untenable. The obvious other avenues to giving the word "folk" a meaning in this context are derivation and/or currency. It appears to me that the 1954 definition neatly uses both, and is more consistent with the term "the folk" as in "the people" which would tend to be backward looking (in a sense of time) and to include a sense of duration and history, so to exclude the flash mob (and purveyors of social worker psychobabble).

In short, it is the best definition of folk music and song of which I am aware.

Oh shit, another "what is folk" thread - but I suspect the OP intended that.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: NormanD
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 10:36 AM

I just scanned the sound clips, and it doesn't sound out of place from 'the new folk tradition' - lovely harmonies in British accents, use of cellos and beats, etc.

As far as fRoots is concerned, it's probably better they say now they won't review it (or don't like it) rather than including it in the round-up list at the very end with a one-sentence comment and a thumbs down. Songlines? Maybe they'd go mad for it if they sang in a non-English language. Maybe fRoots might as well.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: SteveMansfield
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 10:41 AM

Calling people "gatekeepers" is the new cheap shot often used by those who may have been ignored for more obvious reasons - like quality or originality.

Or, perhaps, just not fitting even the outer reaches of the selection criteria of the magazines?

Gawd forbid we should end up in another 'what is folk' MudScrap, but fRoots and Songlines have to draw the line somewhere or else they'd be reviewing the latest reissue of Barbarolli's take on Beethoven's 5th alongside news of the Take That reunion album. I'm very happy for The Moulettes to do whatever it is they do, but I don't hear anything in their sound or read anything in their biog that makes me think they've been done an injustice by being knocked back by fRoots and Songlines.

And if that makes me a Grumpy Old Gatekeeper then I'll happily wear the David Owen 'Folk Police' T-shirt.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Folknacious
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 10:43 AM

Reg Meuros controversy - - - I remember the story from the now closed but still readable BBC Folk Board.

The perils of procrastinating on a wet Sunday with bugger all else to do, I found the relevant topic.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 11:10 AM

close enough or too far from folk or not...

Moulettes would be a welcome addition

to the 'cabaret/music hall/variety' fringe stage

of many 'Folk' Festivals..

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Adam Smith
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 12:10 PM

That's a little harsh 'erbert!

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: treewind
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 12:37 PM

This is not about what is folk and what isn't. fRoots is not a public service nor does it claim to be a folk magazine, it's a business run according to the personal whim of Ian Anderson, and he's entitled to print or reject what he likes. His policy is quite clear and publicly stated, and makes no attempt to define what folk music is. His is a simple case of "I know what I like". It just happens to be commercially successful as well.

Criticising the magazine simply for being itself is like berating an oak tree for not being a rose bush.

A few years ago there was an additional problem that the British folk music world wasn't well represented by any national magazines, but we now have EDS and Living Tradition* filling that gap, with Rock'n'Reel covering an overlapping area (and incidentally looks like a magazine that would better serve the interests of Moulettes, from what I've read here about the band)

*yes, I know...

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Ernest
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 01:39 PM

Look at the influences they give on their meyspace site. Since none of those is what most people would consider folk, it seems to be quite clear that they wouldn`t consider themselves to be "folk"...so why should anyone else?

Bestwishes
Ernest

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 02:49 PM

I thought they sounded a bit PentAnglish (who were frequently tarred with the F word back in the day), and they're certainly a lot more 'Acoustic' and 'English' (both of which words are synonyms with "F" to many) than the Mumford (who are currently being classified as "F" in every media outlet on the planet). Plus they use classical instruments in a reasonably "F"in style.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for them to wonder why fRoots do not feel they fitted his category - assuming they do. If so, I'd suspect that Ian's reasoning might have more to do with the brevity of their 'Roots' than any signal failure to be 'f.'

Good stuff though - and if they get a bit more successful - or merely learn a couple of trad songs... [wink/devil]

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,cs
Date: 14 Nov 10 - 02:51 PM

"or merely learn a couple of trad songs..."

Yep, that'll do it!

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Bessie
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 07:31 AM

They do do a thoroughly enjoyable version of 'Bedlam Boys'. I would say their music tends more towards swing than anything else but probably are just as folky as any of the so-called nu-folk stuff that's around. Very good festival band anyway

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Clare
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 09:18 AM

My band Flaming June are supporting the Moulettes at Cambridge. We're kind of on the fringe of "folk" too as we have a fiddle & a tenor whistle & a lot of our songs tell a story. We go down well at Folk Clubs & have played at Ely Folk Festival. We're not just folk though, any more than the Moulettes are & also played at a Rock Festival in 2010. Some people always like to pigeonhole bands into a set genre. Shame they've been turned down for the magazines though. I really love their music and I know that a majority of "folk" audiences would love it too. Maybe not the traditionalists though....

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: greg stephens
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 09:36 AM

Well, they don't fit to any of the several different meanings of "folk" that I use. But they may well fit the meaning of "folk" that you use. That's all there really is to say on this topic that I can think of.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: doc.tom
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 10:11 AM

"Folk is a recent concept of a music" - so recent, if fact, that it appears in Anglo Saxon texts!
"it doesn't sound out of place from 'the new folk tradition'" could somebody please explain what on earth that means?
I'm with treewind!
Sometimes you get really fed up of people calling things "folk" not because they bear any relationship to folk but because it doesn't fit anywhere else. Why don't they go invent some new term for themselves and let the rest of us continue arguing about what it is we call folk - or perhaps that's the problem!
(Smile)
Tom

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: doc.tom
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 10:15 AM

Sorry. That was a totally gratuitous post. I aplogise.
Tom

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,21st Century Bluesman
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 02:56 PM

MOJO – "Auspicious debut from prog-folk quintet...complex and beautiful...intriguing and unique"

Daily Mirror – "A tastefully contrived blend of lacy chamber folk, racy cabaret and siren blues songs."

Independent – "Moulettes are an oddity even among the diverse ranks of the new folk boom, with the constant presence of Ruth Skipper's bassoon giving their sound a little of the flavour of 1970s early-music chamber-folkies Gryphon."

"The most ambitious folk album you'll hear all year" www.extremelisteningmode.com

"Bucking the trend for po-faced tweeness that characterises so much new folk based music, The Moulettes offer an appealing combination of quirky instrumentation and darkly comic fun." www.quietus.com

But these aren't from 'Folk' music publications or by 'specialist' journalists so whadda they know ;-)

And yes, they've been compared to Pentangle, Jethro Tull, Comus, Fairports, Unthanks. All 'folk' to a greater or lesser extent.

They may not be as folk as Bellowhead, but they're certainly more folk than Mumford & Sons. They sing in resolutely English accents; there's nary an electric guitar to be heard; the violin and cello play some distinctly English folk, Celtic, Balkan, Appalachian lines; lyrical matters often have archaic settings and could be described as ballads or story-telling songs; while the melodies and harmonies often have a folky modality.

Finally, they are still in their mid-twenties and the three core members have been playing together since 2002, well before the "new folk boom". They are certainly not bandwagon-jumpers. Just because they're not called Copper or Waterson or McCarthy doesn't mean they don't have a genuine love of folk music traditions.

This video to me sums up what a rollicking, modern folk-art-prog-swing-band should sound like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikdPbUotIKo

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Folknacious
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 03:00 PM

McCarthy? That'll be well-informed opinion then.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,21st
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 03:50 PM

Oops, Carthy. No, that'll be a bit of a brain scramble. Got all the albums, love...

Well-informed? Just like you wading in and assuming that the Moulettes had just been at it for a couple of years...

You spell it misogynistic, btw. And Reg Meuross. Oh dear, the perils of pulling people on spelling...

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 04:01 PM

"Folk is a recent concept of a music" - so recent, if fact, that it appears in Anglo Saxon texts!

What Anglo-Saxon texts?

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 04:51 PM

Surely you're familiar with the 954 Definition?

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Adam Smith
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 05:05 PM

To me, they sound like a competent student rag week "humourous" cabaret band. They're sort of folk - in the way that Timothy Claypole was sort of folk.

Some questions for their manager / apologist / publicist:

Do they want to be called folk? Are they actively seeking the word "folk" to be attached to their name somehow?

Surely, I would have thought, if they'd wanted to be considered a folk band, they'd be a folk band? Not a dressing-up am-dram student "ament-we-clever" band?

Are you also going onto specialist classical forums and complaining that the Moulettes aren't being featured in Classical Bollox Weekly even though they play 'cello?

This paragraph: They may not be as folk as Bellowhead, but they're certainly more folk than Mumford & Sons. They sing in resolutely English accents; there's nary an electric guitar to be heard; the violin and cello play some distinctly English folk, Celtic, Balkan, Appalachian lines; lyrical matters often have archaic settings and could be described as ballads or story-telling songs; while the melodies and harmonies often have a folky modality.

What a load of complete meaningless crap. Every single sentence means nothing whatsoever in regards to their "folkiness" and the sum total of the paragraph adds up to a steaming pile of cow diddle. Oh - diddle rhymes with fiddle - How Folky!

Really, why are you protesting so much? If you have to go to such lengths to point out how "folk" they are to people, surely that just goes to show how "not-folk" they are? Whatever the fuck that is. I mean - "There's nary an electric guitar to be heard" What a load of laughable tosh. Why don't you call yourself a brass band? After all, "There's nary an electric guitar to be heard"

Dull dull dull. Bog off.


Adam Smith

Subject: RE: Moulettes ñ not folk say gatekeepers
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 06:40 PM

Is MySpace the only place you can hear a sample?

I am not about to suck Rupert Murdoch's cock to find out what they sound like.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Folknacious
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 06:50 PM

Moulettes person he/she says: Well-informed? Just like you wading in and assuming that the Moulettes had just been at it for a couple of years...

Where did I say or assume that? All I questioned was whether they might still want to be on the folk bandwagon in another 2 or 3 years time when it ceases to have the imagined cash benefits it currently does. For all I know they may have been planning world domination since the last century.

Seriously though, as you seem to be rather outvoted in this discussion, I'd be inclined to remember old proverb 'when in hole, stop digging'.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 07:02 PM

Just out of idle curiosity. . . .

Can anyone explain to me why every bloody uncategorisable rock musician, pseudo-lieder singer, writer of songs and ditties about the contents of his or her navel, and people who otherwise can't put any kind of rational name to the sort of music they strive to wheeze out insist on calling what they do "folk music?"

Especially when it was cobbled together only last week and bears no resemblance whatsoever to any particular tradition.

Seems to be an international trend. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Howard Jones
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 07:15 PM

The band may have been around since before the "new folk boom", and may not be bandwagon-jumpers themselves, but this attempt to define them as "folk" definitely smacks of the bandwagon.

Two of the leading folk magazines have said "no thanks". Folk enthusiasts on a folk music forum have said, "nice, but not our sort of thing". Doesn't this suggest you might be barking up the wrong tree?

The problem is that, from a folk perspective, I don't find their music very interesting, whereas in a different context it no doubt goes down very well. Trying to promote it in a genre where it doesn't really fit in, and in particular trying to push it into the magazines, is likely to generate only luke-warm reviews, at best.

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Tootler
Date: 15 Nov 10 - 07:24 PM

Jack, there are plenty clips on You Tube. Just search for them by name.

Subject: RE: Moulettes � not folk say gatekeepers
From: Amergin
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 12:13 AM

Why worry about it? Just go to any trailer park in the world and you'll be able to hear some singing mullets....

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 06:40 AM

I quite liked their "Songs From St Margarets" mini-album on Manchester micro-label The Red Deer Club. A bit tame and mannered for my taste and not an album that left me wanting more, but am ok release none-the-less. I can see why some people would enjoy it.

Now, The Red Deer Club was a "nu-folk" label (though I doubt founder Dunk Le Chunk ever used that term) well before the label became popularised by the relentless rise of the Mumfords. RDC has released some good albums. The thing is, their output is only "folk" in the broadest sense of the word, in so far as that loose scene of largely acoustic groups and singer-songwriters attracted a "folk" tag in the absence of any better way of describing it. And in the sense that "folk" is used in the wider media as a catch-all marketing term for all sorts of acoustic music. Personally I don't have a huge problem with this, in that "folk" has long been a debased term that can mean anything the music industry wants it to mean. Citing the 1954 definition to support the notion that the Moulettes (or anyone else for that matter) are not "folk" is the last feeble grasp at a very decomposed straw. The stable door was opened long ago and the singing horse has bolted.

Personally (and notwithstanding the above) I wouldn't describe the Moulettes as "folk" - and I have a fairly undogmatic view about these things (when the UK folk scene has a decades-long tradition of admitting singing "comedians" with irritatingly unfunny songs, they're not exactly in the best position to make lofty "folk"/"not-folk" declarations). If the Moulettes or their manager want to categorise themselves as "folk", that's entirely up to them. But to then come on Mudcat pissing and moaning because fRoots and Songlines won't give them a review is a bit rich. fRoots will sometimes step outside of its core remit if it thinks the record in question is good enough to warrant it, but that's the exception rather than the rule. And as in all the things, including Reg Meuross's ridiculous fit of petulance referenced above, these publications do not owe these artists anything (no-one has a right to a review) and most importantly the editor's decision is final*. And thank god for that. Otherwise fRoots would be stuffed with reviews of every half-arsed singer-songwriter whose marketing people have attached the term "folk" to them imaginable and I'd have to cancel my subscription before I lost the will to live...

* If I was the fRoots or Songlines editor and someone posted their complaints about my not reviewing them on an internet forum, future press releases and promos would be filed in a very special place...

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 07:09 AM

makes ya wonder how many promising new music artists
have had their potential careers scuppered
by the 'well meaning' PR campaign strategies
of managers seemingly hell bent on antagonising
influential music-biz media channels & proprietors ????

.. all publicity is good publicity ???????

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Bounty Hound
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 07:36 AM

'The thing is, their output is only "folk" in the broadest sense of the word, in so far as that loose scene of largely acoustic groups and singer-songwriters attracted a "folk" tag in the absence of any better way of describing it. And in the sense that "folk" is used in the wider media as a catch-all marketing term for all sorts of acoustic music.'

Hit the nail on the head there, I was just about to comment on the original posters statement 'there's nary an electric guitar in sight', but Spleen Cringe beat me to it!

You can't define the 'type' of music by the instruments it is performed on. If The Moulettes are 'folk' because they do not use electric instruments, then the other side of that coin is that bands like Steeleye Span, Fairport, my own band The Bounty Hounds when they perform a traditional song with electric instruments are not! You could play a Black Sabbath song on an acoustic guitar, but it wouldn't make it 'folk' Perhaps the media need to be educated that just because it is acoustic music, or instruments like fiddles, mandolins etc are used it doesn't automatically make it 'folk'.

If I had to pidgeon hole The Moulettes I'd probably call them acoustic prog rock. That said, they have a very listenable sound.

John