Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]


Moulettes - not folk say gatekeepers

greg stephens 16 Nov 10 - 07:54 AM
Richard Bridge 16 Nov 10 - 07:59 AM
greg stephens 16 Nov 10 - 08:10 AM
GUEST,Tom Bliss 16 Nov 10 - 08:12 AM
Manitas_at_home 16 Nov 10 - 08:25 AM
GUEST,Tom Bliss 16 Nov 10 - 08:40 AM
Manitas_at_home 16 Nov 10 - 08:44 AM
GUEST,crowsister 16 Nov 10 - 09:05 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 16 Nov 10 - 10:07 AM
GUEST,Tom Bliss 16 Nov 10 - 10:10 AM
doc.tom 16 Nov 10 - 10:12 AM
GUEST 16 Nov 10 - 10:36 AM
GUEST,Working Radish 16 Nov 10 - 10:56 AM
GUEST,Spleen Cringe 16 Nov 10 - 11:07 AM
GUEST 16 Nov 10 - 11:08 AM
GUEST,Spleen Cringe 16 Nov 10 - 11:09 AM
Richard Bridge 16 Nov 10 - 11:48 AM
michaelr 16 Nov 10 - 11:57 AM
GUEST,Working Radish 16 Nov 10 - 12:00 PM
GUEST,cs 16 Nov 10 - 12:16 PM
GUEST,Tom Bliss 16 Nov 10 - 12:32 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 16 Nov 10 - 12:42 PM
Rain Dog 16 Nov 10 - 02:26 PM
GUEST,cs 16 Nov 10 - 02:31 PM
GUEST,Tom Bliss 16 Nov 10 - 02:34 PM
GUEST,cs 16 Nov 10 - 02:38 PM
Richard Bridge 16 Nov 10 - 03:01 PM
Ian Anderson 16 Nov 10 - 03:25 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 16 Nov 10 - 04:53 PM
Richard Bridge 16 Nov 10 - 05:23 PM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 16 Nov 10 - 06:51 PM
mousethief 17 Nov 10 - 02:03 AM
evansakes 17 Nov 10 - 02:44 AM
GUEST 17 Nov 10 - 03:38 AM
Will Fly 17 Nov 10 - 03:54 AM
Will Fly 17 Nov 10 - 03:56 AM
GUEST,cs 17 Nov 10 - 04:09 AM
Will Fly 17 Nov 10 - 04:12 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 17 Nov 10 - 04:27 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 17 Nov 10 - 06:27 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 17 Nov 10 - 06:35 AM
Phil Edwards 17 Nov 10 - 07:03 AM
GUEST,crowsister 17 Nov 10 - 07:20 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 17 Nov 10 - 07:57 AM
Brian Peters 17 Nov 10 - 08:05 AM
GUEST,punkfolkrocker 17 Nov 10 - 08:09 AM
GUEST,cs 17 Nov 10 - 08:17 AM
Folknacious 17 Nov 10 - 08:21 AM
GUEST,Suibhne Astray 17 Nov 10 - 08:37 AM
GUEST,Adam Smith 17 Nov 10 - 09:39 AM
Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 07:54 AM

The Moulettes are a very interesting group, and I like them. Undoubtedly, they are not "folk" in the sense in which I would normally use the word. Equally undoubtedly, they are "folk" in the way a lot of people use the word nowadays. If Ian Anderson doesn't want to cover this sort of thing in fRoots, that is fine, it's up to him, he's the editor. Though I fancy he would probably increase his readership a bit if he did cover this sort of area a bit more.Because, whether you like it or not, or whether you call it folk or not, this sort of music's lineage definitely descends from the 60's folk revival. The same remarks apply to the Mumfords.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 07:59 AM

The thing that sort of puzzles me is that pretty well everyone here says it's sort of nice - so why do they need or want to be called "folk" so long as people like what they do?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 08:10 AM

Well Richard, to be labelled "folk" enables you to access certain forms of public funding, audiences, publicity and venues that would otherwise be denied to you. Conversely, the label can cut you off from other audiences etc(not everyone thinks folk=good!). If you are on the borderlines, it's a decision you have to take(or it will be taken for you). In this case, they are going for the "folk" label.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 08:12 AM

I hate to see people being unfairly treated so I'll say this yet again.

Those of us who are over 50 would do well to understand that two, repeat two, whole generations of innocent babes have now grown to band-making age with a clear and universal understanding that this sort of music IS now legitimately called folk by most people who use the English language.

Why?

Because they (since upwards of forty years) they, and their parents and grandparents saw it called so in newspapers and magazines, on the radio and television, on the shelves of record shops, and latterly in the genre idents of websites.

(And 21st has provided incontrovertible proof of this at 15 Nov 10 - 02:56 PM)

It is perfectly reasonable for those of us who have a different, older, definition for this word to explain our understanding, but it is NOT reasonable or fair for us to complain that these younger artists are merely band-waggon-jumping, gate-crashing, party-pooping, selling-out, selling-in - whatever hyphenated word combination you prefer.

We do not own the F word. We can make a case for our claim, of course -and so we should, but we if we act as though that claim is proven we will only come across as insular, divisive, patrician and pedantic.

And even if we are happy to be those things we should understand that the only people who have any right to police the definition of words are lawyers (but only in court) and academics (but only in peer reviewed papers).

Web forums fall into neither of these categories.

This band has every right to term itself folk by dint of common usage, and fRoots and Songlines (and anyone else here) has every right to disagree.

And these two clauses are not mutually contradictory.

Tom


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 08:25 AM

if you're gonna jump on a band-wagon you need to be sure that it's going the way you want. There are 100's of rapper dancers out there who are not going to change the name just because most people think that rapper is a form of hip-hop ( believe me, I advertised our longsword and rapper team as a sword dance side and people just didn't seem to see the word sword). Similarly we who have been thinking that what we like is folk and is broadly represented by people as diverse as the Yetties and Oysterband and have been doing so for the last 50 years aren't going to be persuaded to relinquish our usage of the name easily.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 08:40 AM

I'm not sure on which side of the debate you stand, Manitas, but it's worth pointing out that no-one is being asked to relinquish anything.

We all merely have to accept that there are a now multitude of 'correct' meanings of this word, all reasonably acquired, and that if we wish to be understood by others who may legitimately have a different understanding to our own you we may occasionally need to take the trouble to add an adjective.

Rapper is a good example - though the derivation is of course completely different. Languages are brim-full of other examples, it's just what happens when people communicate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 08:44 AM

Quite, which is why the Moulettes' manager will have to suffer with someone else's (perfectly valid) definition.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,crowsister
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 09:05 AM

"the Moulettes' manager will have to suffer with someone else's (perfectly valid) definition."

Indeed. And as far as definitions or whatever go, unlike the OP, Froots don't in fact appear to be trying to assert what does or does not count as 'folk'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

oh and as for the facile boast

"there's nary an electric guitar to be heard"

BOO !!!!!!

http://www.rah3.com/


suck on that acoustic boy !!!!


.. and now back to complex reality,

my only traditional acoustic guitar is defiantly not a folk instrument

whereas my electric guitars, valve amps and analog synths

will fight any other instrument that says they aren't.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 10:10 AM

I think the OP's question was reasonable. People who operate in the outer bout of the venn diagram can't be blamed for failing to understand what goes on the the other zones, and particularly what happens in the grey curves that separate the sectors.

That said, if the thread title had been 'not folk say traditionalist gatekeepers' or 'not traditional folk say gatekeepers' then the tread would have been much shorter (and seen by fewer people).

Managers promote bands. And s/he has done that admirably.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: doc.tom
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 10:12 AM

"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?" "

No! - Which was really my earlier point, but much better put!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Managers promote bands. And s/he has done that admirably

Yes, up to a point... but going on line to whine about the editorial policy of fRoots and to accuse them of being "gatekeepers" is pretty dismal. And it does beg the question of why they need the patronage of relatively small scale specialist mags, when they are getting glowing reviews in the Mirror and Mojo...

There again, it is apparently an established scientific fact that fRoots readers buy their own bodyweight in CDs every year.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Working Radish
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 10:56 AM

It's an odd definition of "gatekeepers" that puts the Independent, Mojo and the Daily Mirror among the lowly rabble outside the gates. An equally accurate Subject line would have been

Moulettes - folk, say gatekeepers

I suppose Ian Anderson should be flattered.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 11:07 AM

Me above Pip - forgot to name and shame meself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 11:08 AM

Me above Pip

Obviously not in any pecking orders. Or literally.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 11:09 AM

Doh. Must become a member agin. Joe?...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 11:48 AM

Ah silly me Greg - I thought it was a matter of an issue of principle, not access to wealth, and I have obviously missed seeing all the rich folk singers and folksong singers.

Tom - that something is common does not make it correct, particularly when the misuse is by the inexpert. If the word was to have meaning and applied to these perfectly adequate performers as well as to you, there would be some element in common between them and you - and I do not perceive any such.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: michaelr
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 11:57 AM

Thank you, Tom Bliss. I wholeheartedly concur.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Working Radish
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 12:00 PM

The other point about "gatekeepers" is that it does this rather clever job of giving with one hand and taking with the other - it says "authority" and implies "illegitimate". I mean, Moulettes 'not folk', say recognised arbiters of what is folk and what isn't wouldn't make nearly as good a complaint.

Tom - can I quote you on my blog? I started writing a reply here but it got too long and involved for Mudcat, so I'm going for a blog post.

In other news, would Suibhne like to come in again and give me the line about Anglo-Saxon texts? I think people may have missed it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,cs
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 12:16 PM

"Moulettes 'not folk', say recognised arbiters of what is folk and what isn't"

Or:
'Moulettes 'not the type of music we tend to write about', say specialist music magazine.'


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 12:32 PM

Richard - with respect mate, in the matter of language the fact that a usage is common absolutely DOES make it correct. It is in fact the only criteria which matters.

Academics and lawyers make specialised definitions which they use only amongst themselves within their own spheres of influence. These have currency outside those areas, but no guarantee of permanency.

Language shifts, adapts, reverses, augments, erronialises (see, you can even make words up -c/f Lewis Carroll), contradicts and generally tumbles and eddies in beautiful confusion down the centuries.

English has done more somersaults then most - and is one of the most expressive and powerful tongues in existence as a result.   

Lexicographers merely do their best to keep up.

There is actually no such thing as correct language. Only better or worse understanding.

Pip - feel free old chap. Everyone else does!

Tom


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 12:42 PM

Someone said back there that Folk went back to Anglo-Saxon texts - whereas it's an invention of 19th Century antiquarianism; hell, even Child didn't use the word Folk. So, invented in the 19th century, predicated on grounds of class condescension by the early 20th century revival, reinvented as left-wing come-all-ye by the mid-20th century revival, and a free-for-all ever since basically. Folk can (& does) mean anything to anyone - the word is there for anyone who wants to use it, and those who do (Moulettes being a case in point) do so with respect & reference to a very particular aesthetic entirely consistent with previous usage.

Everywhere I look, Folk is evolving - everywhere other than Mudcat that is, where the toothless orthodoxy are gurning with cantankerous displeasure than anyone younger than 60 should dare intrude upon their precious (though entirely imaginary) domain. I have to say this has been the most dispiriting thread I've read in a long while.

*

Hardly youthful myself (though I often feel it in the old-folk world) I've just blogged my first release from 30 years ago; I called it folk then & I call it folk now. Check it out HERE.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Rain Dog
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 02:26 PM

Well if we are going to define our terms can someone please tell me what type of gate we are talking about exactly?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,cs
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 02:31 PM

"what type of gate we are talking about exactly?"

This one has a pleasantly rustic styling: http://www.cleftgate.co.uk/Oak%20Gate%20Hoggeston.jpg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 02:34 PM

'Gatekeeper' is a general term which, like 'punter,' seems to have negative connotations to some people, but not to all. I use both terms without implying any disparagement - the latter to mean merely 'consumer/buyer/audience,' and the former to mean someone who has access to promotional outlets. Consumers take a punt when they buy a ticket. Editors keep a gate against those who would seek access to their readership.

Nothing sinister in either.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,cs
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 02:38 PM

Or this one maybe: even more rustic


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 03:01 PM

Being common makes something - well - common.

Like 'ambag (around which, I believe, one dances in Essex).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Ian Anderson
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 03:25 PM

Hello, gatehouse here. Have come to this one late, and am pleasantly surprised by how many have come to our defence.

When Moulettes manager Joe Cushley pressed me as to why their album hadn't been listed in our "new releases received" news, I replied as follows:

I just checked the database. It's not listed because it didn't go through for review. That's not a quality judgement, it's a relevance to fRoots issue (the database entry says "quirky acoustic indie, Mumford & Sons meet Lily Allen") Sorry!

So to be clear, nobody said "it's not folk". I've not heard the record myself and had no influence over this particular decision (though by the comment logged, I'd probably have agreed). I did see them at a London club around a year ago though, where they and their chums made an intrusive and impolite racket all through the set by Sara Grey & Kieron Means, and then proceeded to be not awfully interesting when they got on stage so I didn't stay for the whole set.

And I can only echo others: if all those proper grownup mass-circulation publications say they're the bees knees, why care what little fRoots or S***lines thinks?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 04:53 PM

"Folk can (& does) mean anything to anyone - the word is there for anyone who wants to use it, and those who do (Moulettes being a case in point) do so with respect & reference to a very particular aesthetic entirely consistent with previous usage.

Everywhere I look, Folk is evolving - everywhere other than Mudcat that is, where the toothless orthodoxy are gurning with cantankerous displeasure than anyone younger than 60 should dare intrude upon their precious (though entirely imaginary) domain."

Well, Suibhne, still banging that old drum with your usual dispassionate objectivity I see! Has it ever occurred to you that making unsubstantiated assertions (i.e. "Folk can (& does) mean anything to anyone ..." etc.) and then insulting anyone who might possibly disagree with you, might not do an awful lot for your credibility?

Anyway, this 'old gurner' has to go now because he needs to sculpt a beehive for his sewing machine ... Oh! Sorry, I meant write an article for his blog! But then I'm just a toothless old pedant who happens to believe that words have meaning ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 05:23 PM

An illumination tonght on BBC2. Jools Holland and Robert Plant getting the usage of "folk music" correct - even if they did get the name of the EFDSS wrong). I think this has something to do with respect for our roots.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 16 Nov 10 - 06:51 PM

Has it ever occurred to you that making unsubstantiated assertions (i.e. "Folk can (& does) mean anything to anyone ..." etc.)

Seems pretty clear to me, Shimmy - likewise looking around Mudcat, festivals & folk clubs etc. I'd say Folk doesn't mean a fat lot beyond a vague commonality of interests largely determined by context. Everyone I talk to tells it differently - which is no bad thing, surely?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: mousethief
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 02:03 AM

But then I'm just a toothless old pedant who happens to believe that words have meaning ...

Words do have meaning. They mean what people use them to mean. That's what it means to mean. If enough people use "folk" to mean "music played on acoustic instruments" then that will be the -- or at least a -- meaning of the word "folk". There is no "right" definition of a word that gets locked in time forever. That's not how language works, except maybe the French who have language gatekeepers. The English language does not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: evansakes
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 02:44 AM

Is this the band at the centre of all this fuss ?

The Moulettes

Maybe the gatekeepers in question were making simple qualitative judgements above and beyond entitlement to the use of the F word ? Just a thought...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 03:38 AM

where the toothless orthodoxy are gurning with cantankerous displeasure

Pure poetry!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Will Fly
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 03:54 AM

Very early in this thread, I wrote:

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

I've just watched this YouTube video - which was filmed in the Marlborough Theatre in Brighton, as it happens - and see no reason to alter what I said.

Brighton is the scene for a fair number of new bands just like this to make their debut, at places like the Marlborough (ironically, the scene of a very good folk club for many years) and the Komedia. British Sea Power was another interesting new band from the area, for example.

You can see the difficulty they might have in pitching their style at a particular market sector though, can't you? It's not exactly the Trades & Labour Club/Social Club circuit, or the X-Factor audience. I wonder how they might have gone down in the Kursaal in Southend... The acoustic instruments, the rather fey costumes, the songs themselves - for them it might hint at folk festival audiences more than anything else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Will Fly
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 03:56 AM

Apologies for the endless italics! Should have stopped at "Komedia in Brighton"...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,cs
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 04:09 AM

Do they cite any skiffle artists as an influence? Next to the ren-fayre / caberet thing, that's the sound I hear coming through most strongly. In fact there's something of The Sensational Alex Harvey Band about it all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Will Fly
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 04:12 AM

Up to a point, Lord Copper...

The last time I saw the Alex Harvey Band - with Mox Gowland on blues harp - around 1966 or '67, they were playing high-powered, ear-blasting, full-blooded rhythm and blues. Several miles, musically, from the Moulettes. :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 04:27 AM

Of course words do have meaning, which is how language works. Some meanings are relatively fixed; if we say Dog we have a fair idea of the sort of thing we're on about (overly sycophantic quadroped noted for the stench and generosity of its faeces) - but if we say God, then we're apt to come unstuck. In the specifics of musical genres things are pretty clear too - if I buy a record of Gagaku I know pretty much what I'm in for, likewise Piobaireachd or Rebetika. Folk, on the other hand, like God, is a loose fitting mutable generality wide enough to accomodate a multitude of possibilities - including Moulettes, Marling, & Mumford, and a good deal more besides - all of whom clearly have roots in the Folk Aesthetic of the last 100 years (and all that involves) and are using that how they see fit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 06:27 AM

PS:

and then insulting anyone who might possibly disagree with you

I didn't mean to insult anyone here by the way, just reacting against the general tone of the thread which smacks of a Folk Fundamentalism that is hardly born out by closer analysis of The Scene as a whole. What is true for a you (or a me) isn't necessarily true for anyone else; so keep it real, objective & mutable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 06:35 AM

" ... where the toothless orthodoxy are gurning with cantankerous displeasure than anyone younger than 60 should dare intrude upon their precious (though entirely imaginary) domain."

No, not at all insulting that, Suibhne!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 07:03 AM

Words do have meaning. They mean what people use them to mean. That's what it means to mean.

Obviously true - things are named by the names that people name them with. And yet, and yet...

"That's a dog," says John. "Yes," says Jane. "You are right. That is a dog."

"That's not a dog," says Jane. "No," says John. "You are right. It is a cat, or it could be a small goat, or else it may be a beast the name of which we do not yet know to us. But dog it ain't."

"That's folk," says Jane. "Yes," says John. "That works for me. That is folk."

"That's not folk," says John. "What the-?" says Jane. "How dare you say that's not folk? Who died and made you King of the Gate? Clean out your ears! I say it's folk, they say it's folk, lots of us say it's folk! Of course it's folk! La la la la la, I can hear you not!"


Some kinds of naming seem to be a lot more controversial than others.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,crowsister
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 07:20 AM

I didn't like 'folk' music before I discovered traditional folk song (for all the reasons cited above), and after discovering traditional folk song I still don't like 'folk' music very much. So I really don't care what kind of music 'folk' is or isn't or who chooses to use the term. Even so, if people who actually consider themselves folk fans think Moulettes management were banging on the wrong gate, maybe they'd be better off banging on another kind of gate? They'd go down a storm at those kind of fests.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 07:57 AM

How's it insulting, Shimbo? I directed it against a general attitude of an apparant & ill-founded orthodoxy which mutters of correct usage in the face of overwhelming evidence that there is none. Like God, Folk is a concept predicated on a myth; unlike God, Folk is a useful umbrella term for various genres (musical or otherwise) sharing similar aesthetic roots, though I might be at a loss to discern a common link between Bert Lloyd's collection of Folk Music of Albania and Gary & Vera Aspey's A Taste of Hotpot, but both were released by Topic, and both remain very firmly Folk despite any perceived disparities on my part.

Meanings arise from common objective experience; no one will dispute the parameters of what is meant by Dog, Beehive, Latex, Teapot, Irish Jig or Skrimshaw - these things exist and are quantifiable in objective terms. Folk, on the other hand, doesn't exist - it is a redundant concept of a cultural condition that has given rise to a popular usage inclusive of many different styles, idioms, genres, approaches and, by jove, possibilities. Keep 'em coming that's what I say; the more the merrier!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Brian Peters
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 08:05 AM

Every specialist media outlet and every live event, across all musical genres, has a sense of its own boundaries, defined by an individual artistic director, a committee or a constitution. Those people are 'gatekeepers' only to their own productions - there are no gatekeepers, official or otherwise, to the world of folk music, and it's irritating to find the word coming up repeatedly in a pejorative sense.

Ian Anderson would be about the last person in the world to define 'folk', having invented the phrase 'roots music' specifically as an alternative to what he saw as a uselessly imprecise term.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 08:09 AM

since i first started buying records

[Chicory Tip, Lindisfarne, Alice Cooper... saving up 20 new pence a week pocket money for 7" singles..]

I've been quite comfy with the general usage terms

'Trad Folk'

&   

'Contemporary folk'

mix and measure as required with a few traces of 'soft rock' 'heavy rock' 'prog' 'punk'.. [and whatever else since 1977..]
and my musical cosmology has been reasonably understandable stable and secure for at least 3 decades..


So most of the time i really can't care what all the effin fuss is about...

but then i've never been much of an enthusiastic academic or grim faced obsessive pedant...

If, for example, Burnham on sea free Folk Fest were to book Moulettes, I'd go see 'em out of curiosity
[definitely if they played in one of the few pubs that still serve local rough cider on tap..]
cos its the sort of girly 'novelty fancy dress stage costume' music
the mrs is keen on, which would go down well at certain pub venues,
and she usually gets her own way at festivals..

..unless they clashed with a really good local band i enjoy,
like Surfin Turnips or The Cherry Pickers...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,cs
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 08:17 AM

"a popular usage inclusive of many different styles, idioms, genres, approaches"

As far as "popular usage" goes, I fear you're being a tad optimistic with all those delightful variables! For anyone not already a folk fan (ie: the vast majority of word users), it pretty much means two things ie: 'fiddley diddley' or 'girl/bloke sitting on a stool while strumming an acoustic guitar'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: Folknacious
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 08:21 AM

Ian Anderson said above: And I can only echo others: if all those proper grownup mass-circulation publications say they're the bees knees, why care what little fRoots or S***lines thinks?

Perhaps I'm being cynical, but could it be because so far they can't get arrested anywhere else? Maybe their manager thinks that the media fashionable folk scene will be a soft touch launch pad from which to propel them to fame and fortune? When the most high profile folk event to the general public is Cambridge Folk Festival who regularly book rock artists and American 'heritage acts', and who then get all the TV coverage, there's little surprise that uninformed managers start to see dollar signs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 08:37 AM

having invented the phrase 'roots music' specifically as an alternative to what he saw as a uselessly imprecise term.

Like Roots Music is any better! All music has Roots - it's in the nature of Music; just all music in being determined by a particular Tradition, is Traditional. Surely the imprecision of Folk (which was built-in from the word go) has become one of its abiding strengths, reflecting a diversity of approaches down the years each of which is very much down to the individual perpetrator and their own particular tradition.

Folk endures for the best - hardly unifying, but comforting in the wider sense of things, especially for we vagrant souls who enjoy that sense of belonging which the Folk Scene is both big enough & small enough to accommodate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Moulettes – not folk say gatekeepers
From: GUEST,Adam Smith
Date: 17 Nov 10 - 09:39 AM

What do you call "it" GUEST,Suibhne Astray?

Just curious.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

  Share Thread:
More...

Reply to Thread
Subject:  Help
From:
Preview   Automatic Linebreaks   Make a link ("blue clicky")


Mudcat time: 12 July 3:43 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.