Do purists really exist?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:08 PM

Jim,

I'm interested in your blurring of the lines....... you have previously maintained that folk and trad are synonymous (1954 definition and all that)but your post above says that "We were a FOLK CLUB; we believed we knew what folk music was (still do)" but then you talk about the STYLE of the music and that (newly written) songs that matched this Folk style were also acceptable.

I think this is very interesting and highlights the problem of defining what music should and shouldn't be performed in a "FOLK" club and the club still doing "what it says on the tin". It makes it difficult to argue with the anything goes crowd, because just how far can those lines be blurred........

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,colin holt
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:06 PM

(Guest) Banji man... Now I know its you,!!!! sorry

I agree totally with your comments above

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,colin Holt
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:03 PM

Shimrod wrote

"I can't see anything wrong with any of that - it's just a specification for a particular type of music club - in this case a folk club. I'm sure that one could write a similar specification for a jazz club - and, of course, no-one would object or even raise an eyebrow."

I agree totally . But within the overall discussion of clubs fading numbers and lack of interest ( which linked threads earlier, Such a Fine, (I would say Purist) approach/ specification could be perceived as... "specialist" .... read... "not accessible to the general public.".....read... don't bother going !!

Jim
You seem to have a thing about singer songwriters..turning up at clubs. you've referred to it many times. I was involved in folk clubs in the late 70's in Sheffield area. It was in this environment that I was really well supported through my early naive fumblings... (embarrassing looking back.).. However the artists I remember.playing at clubs around there at that time, Dave Burland and Hedgehog Pie, Martin Carter & Graham Jones, Squire & Jones, Rosie hardman, .. they were people I admired and were taking as much from the new, as the old.... Surely its a balance.

Finally Will someone explain what you mean by "A traditional style" ... !!! It remains a perplexing mystery to me !!!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Banjiman
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 02:58 PM

Sorry anonymous guest 4 above was me.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 02:55 PM

THank you GG - I really do wish I'd said that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 02:38 PM

Sub, lots of mudcatters have tried to explain what is meant by the heuristic term folk process (not Folk Process) and have given examples of how it works. Those of us who use this term know what we mean we use it. You have chosen repeatedly to muddy the waters with claims that 'all music is traditional'; 'all music is processed', etc., yet you yourself essentially understand what we mean when we use this term:

" . . . just a cultural idiom of song making & remaking in an largely working-class oral culture which may have preceded or succeeded the Broadsides."

Yes, a very different millieu than that in which classical music is composed and performed (for example), and one with parallels in many cultures. Blues is folk music, so are corridos, so are Appalachian mining songs. Plenty of other examples can be provided.

"The thoughts that the working-class could have created anything was a complete anathema to the early collectors, who came up with Folk to account for what is only common to all humanity after all."

This is quite a sweeping claim. Can you provide some specific examples? It would be helpful if you could name such a collector and cite his words on the subject.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 01:46 PM

I thought any style of song could be "folk", as long as it had gone through the process?

Trouble is, Guest - no one can say what The Process is, much less how it works; they can't even tell you what came first The Broadsides or the Oral Tradition (so-called). My feeling is The Process is largely folk myth; an article of a very uncertain faith - at least uncertain to those who aren't inclined to fundamentalism folk exclusivity in their musical world view. You can trace any amount of processes in Popular Song (etc.) but that doesn't make them Folk Songs. My feeling is Folk Songs are the specific product of particular musical tradition and style which is what the early collectors were looking for. They then had to justify that interest by according them an almost heremetic significance, but there's no mystery here, just a cultural idiom of song making & remaking in an largely working-class oral culture which may have preceded or succeeded the Broadsides, or been an integral part of it, depending who you talk to. The thoughts that the working-class could have created anything was a complete anathema to the early collectors, who came up with Folk to account for what is only common to all humanity after all. Unfortunately, the later Folk Left suffered from a similar fantasty of proletarian collectivism.

Now if that doesn't bring Brian back into this merry summer fray I don't know what will!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 01:32 PM

"You confined yourself to one type of music"
Of course we did - shouldn't all folk clubs, jazz clubs, Irish music sessions.... confine themselves to what they claim to be?
The music we presented was varied enough to be interesting and to draw in regular and sizeable audience for the period of its existance - our guest included English, Irish, Scots, American, Bengali, Italian.... any music which we felt fitted our job description.
We used the tradition as a base for what we did - as did most of the clubs right up to the eighties.
Unlike a few of them, we included accompanied songs and newly composed songs in a certain style - as did most clubs right up to the eighties.
We were a policy club which had a clear enough idea of what folk music was, if not by definition "we recognised it when we heard it", as did most of the clubs right up to the eighties
We didn't include "talking horse/snigger snogwriter" singers among our guests or residents and if they came looking for bookings we expected them to take the trouble to find out what kind of club we were to make sure our audiences would appreciate what they did - for their benefit as well as ours.
We were a folk club; we presented folk songs and our audiences turned up to hear what we put on in large enough numbers to make what we did worthwhile.
We certainly didn't dicourage anybody who didn't conform - we encouraged them to do it somewhere else.
Can I assume from your rections that if somebody came along hauling a Steinway and asking to be given a booking for his performances of Rachmaninov, you'd all be dragging out your booking forms and begging him to sign on the dotted line - if not, why not?
Shimrod's last line sums it up far more economically than I could.
"I would expect such a song to be inspired by tradtional songs and not by modern, commercial pop/rock songs."
We were a FOLK CLUB; we believed we knew what folk music was (still do) and if ever we were ever in doubt we could drag a book off the shelf and double-check, or compare what we did with recordings of Walter Pardon or Belle Stewart or Joe Heaney or Kali Das Gupta or Willie Scott or - or - or.... or any of the many hundreds of singers who sang what we believe to be folk song.
When clubs stopped honouring their committment to the audiences and took away their right to choose what music they wished to listen to, that's when the audiences, media presence, literature, specialist shops and record companies... everything we had worked to achieve, disappeared like a puff of smoke.
Can I also presume that if you object to what we did, you also disgree with companies like Topic, Free Reed, Folkways, Argo, Blackthorn... were also doing? More or less the same as we were as I remember.
If anybody can offer an alternative "folk music" to the one we were presenting - please feel free to do so - nobody has so far.
Jim Carroll   
PS I must apologise for my delay in replying - got trapped in a session full of young pipers, most of them in their teens, playing music that would stand yor hair on end - do you have any message to pass on regarding what they should be doing rather than wasting their time playing purist crap?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 01:28 PM

"As for new songs which don't diverge too far from traditional styles - of course I can't speak for Jim but I would expect such a song to be inspired by tradtional songs and not by modern, commercial pop/rock songs."

So that's a style thing then. I thought any style of song could be "folk", as long as it had gone through the process? I'm getting more confused than ever now!

I'm not against any club setting rules about what can & can't happen within it's own 4 walls (amongst consenting adults, obviously), but there is no objectivity here, it's all just a matter of taste.

To say "such a song to be inspired by tradtional songs and not by modern, commercial pop/rock" is really just another way of saying it has to be something "I" like.

And that's fine, but a bit of honesty about this would be refreshing.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 12:41 PM

I'll repost that so it at least makes grammatical sense (I'm writing on a taptop with a new keyboard balanced over the old which went on the fritz. Haven't figured out a way disabling it altogether so things can a bit muddled up.)

*

In those endless 'what is folk?' threads we've surely established that any kind of song can be 'traditional', at least in theory.

Indeed, just as all of them can be said be traditional, if not directly in an of themselves (though I might argue otherwise) then as products of any given musical Idiom which is Traditional by default, just as people write new songs in Idioms old & new today -be it new session tunes, or the Tradition of Northumbrian Pipe Music in which composition played a huge part and continues to do so today.

How does that affect the argument?

Less of an argument - more of a celebration. People are more important than the music they play. One wonders how much of The Tradition was shaped by the selective agendas of the revivalists - one does, after all, hear such tales.*

Enough. I'm verging on heresy here which is never a good thing on open forum.

*

To which I'll add that the breadth of repertoir of any given Traditional Singer / Storyteller - Jane Turriff or whoever - is more interesting than its degree of purity, which is what most interested Folk collectors who had very definite ideas about the sort of thing they were looking for.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 12:40 PM

Gordon bloody Bennett, here we go again. Do you know how bored shitless I am...
So much for trying to add a bit of light-hearted banter.

So much for trying to add a sympathetic comment to the verse you quoted.

The Coppers are (in Bob's case, were) unpretentious, modest and very affable people and don't deserve that kind of diatribe.

I'm out.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 12:29 PM

Guest, Colin Holt wrote:

"Jim

You state that your club was never "purist"
Yet.....
You confined yourself to one type of music
Discouraged people who didn't conform
Encouraged the production of new songs as long as they didn't "diverge too far from traditional styles "??.. whatever that means..."

I can't see anything wrong with any of that - it's just a specification for a particular type of music club - in this case a folk club. I'm sure that one could write a similar specification for a jazz club - and, of course, no-one would object or even raise an eyebrow.

As for new songs which don't diverge too far from traditional styles - of course I can't speak for Jim but I would expect such a song to be inspired by tradtional songs and not by modern, commercial pop/rock songs.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: goatfell
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 11:47 AM

yes they do you'll find them on this website

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 11:28 AM

"Yes, as in: "It's just what we do", as someone else (possibly the Coppers) said of singing their old songs."

Gordon bloody Bennett, here we go again. Do you know how bored shitless I am with the fucking sainted Coppers. I'd rather eat my own liver than listen to half an hour of the Coppers. Yeah, I come from a family of farm workers. My grandfather was a ploughboy at 12 but he spent his whole life reading and learning, improving his mind and helping people as a magistrate, chairman of the council, churchwarden, chairman of the watch committe and dozens of other things including serving in two world wars. He was a modest, quiet man who didn't say much but I tell you what, I'd much rather listen to him talk than listen to the bloody Coppers.

So much for trying to add a bit of light-hearted banter.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 10:30 AM

In those endless 'what is folk?' threads we've surely established that any kind of song can be 'traditional', at least in theory.

Indeed, just as all of them can be said be traditional, if not directly in an of themselves (though I might argue otherwise) then as products of any given music Idiom with is Traditional by default, just as people write new songs in Idioms old & new today, and new session tunes, or the Tradition of Northumbrian Pipe Music in wich composition played a huge part and continues to do so today.

How does that affect the argument?

Less of an argument - more of a celebration. People are more important than the music they play. One wonders how much of The Tradition was shaped by the selective agendas of the revivalists - one does, after all, hear such tales...

Enough. I'm verging on heresy here which is never a good thing on open forum.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 10:06 AM

"Like last year and the year before
Who remembers what it's for?"

Yes, as in: "It's just what we do", as someone else (possibly the Coppers) said of singing their old songs.

"It's just music, Brian - what human beings have always done through the generations. To pull it apart and favour one type of song over another all and call it The Tradition is divisive and inaccurate."

As I was trying to say before, 'traditional' means 'handed down', not 'one type of song'. In those endless 'what is folk?' threads we've surely established that any kind of song can be 'traditional', at least in theory. If songs of a certain era - mostly created between say 1700-ish and 1850-ish - form a large part of the traditional repertoire, that's because the conditions for active singing and generational transmission declined as mass entertainment grew in availability. As I'm about to post on your 'Steampunk' thread (I'll be brief, honest), there's a huge difference between sharing home-made music and receiving music from elsewhere.

Exhibit A was very enjoyable, but already I knew that Jane Turriff had a liking for Jimmie Rodgers (I was lucky enough to hear her, once). No reason at all she shouldn't want to sing his songs, just like Jeff Wesely fancied singing 'Ninety-Nine and Ninety' after hearing it through the folk revival. How does that affect the argument?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 09:50 AM

"What? Already? I only thought of it on Saturday..."

Of course - it's the steam-powered folk process - much faster than the traditional way (watch out for the neo-Luddites!)

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 09:40 AM

could you now clarify what you would call the domestic, participatory singing culture, handed down through generations,

It's just music, Brian - what human beings have always done through the generations. To pull it apart and favour one type of song over another all and call it The Tradition is divisive and inaccurate. The condition of Human Music Making is always far bigger than that - it is now, and it always has been. Exhibit A:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn2UTXDIDCA

I'm not sure what 'the Colonial Revival' is (I presume you've invented the term)

Maybe I did, but I'm thinking of English speaking former colonies (Australia / America) where the old songs took root and thrived and morphed along with pretty much everything else. I'm also thinking of an inner sort of colonialism too, implicit in the paternalism of the revival and its well-heeled origins.

*

post-Steamfolk

What? Already? I only thought of it on Saturday...

er..... or should that be "neo-Steampunk"?

Neo-post-revival-Steamfolk sounds about right to me. I've always loved the idea of Post-Revival Folk - and hope that a new breed of rigorous academics are poised to begin collecting what happens now in The Name O' Folk and putting it into cryogenic storage for another projected Golden Age, say maybe 1,000 years hence when it'll burst forth its pristine magnificence and Folk Purity to educate our unenlightened descendents on how to things right. Maybe a new breed of Folk Missionaries will emerge to take Folk to other planets, then on Mudcat circa 3,011 AD we'll be seeing threads like How can we convert the Zaarghans of Planet Zaargh X to Folk? For sure, if they do have their own musical traditions, they'll be of little interest to deaf-assed future folkies (who'll have evolved so that they only hear Folk Music) though hopefully some of those sexy Zaarghan dance-beat stars will make it onto the cover of Froots, which by that time will be purely telepathic.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Colin Holt
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 09:29 AM

I've followed this thread itching at intervals to put finger to key but feeling very unqualified to enter such a debate. However one thing strikes me...

Jim

You state that your club was never "purist"
Yet.....
You confined yourself to one type of music
Discouraged people who didn't conform
Encouraged the production of new songs as long as they didn't "diverge too far from traditional styles "??.. whatever that means...

This kind of stuff basically confirms what I really already knew, that I'm really not a folk person.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 08:36 AM

er..... or should that be "neo-Steampunk"?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 08:34 AM

All traditions are retrospective, aren't they? It goes from single action to repeated action to way of life to tradition. I like the verse in Beating the Bounds from Jon Boden's Songs From the Flood Plain (a definitive post-Steamfolk masterpiece):

Dressed up in our Sunday best
Canon Davis leads the rest
Like last year and the year before
Who remembers what it's for?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 08:24 AM

The Tradition is only a backwards projection of The Revival. It didn't exist before The Revival said it did

[mimes cranking motion with right arm]
We were here only yesterday, but since this wild statement has surfaced again on this thread, could you now clarify what you would call the domestic, participatory singing culture, handed down through generations, that existed before the Revival did, and why the word 'tradition' is inappropriate to describe 'that which is handed down'. Or do you just mean it in the sense that a cat is not a cat until somebody calls it 'a cat'?

One wonders how the Old Modal Song & Ballad Idioms might have fared had they not been so favoured by the Colonial Revival, or if The Revival had never happened

I'm not sure what 'the Colonial Revival' is (I presume you've invented the term) but I guess they would have gradually died out in England over the course of the 20th century as the singing tradition itself died out, but possibly have lasted better in the Appalachian mountains (although Sharp's collection casts a long shadow over there too). Others can speak for Ireland and Scotland.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 08:02 AM

Meaning, of course that The Tradition is only a backwards projection of The Revival. It didn't exist before The Revival said it did, so whatever the Revival does therafter is BOUND to be a continuation of what they perceived to be The Tradition, rather than just a bunch of old songs. Meanwhile, most other Folk / Popular Musical Idioms of 100+ years ago morphed into the living forms we know and love today (rock / pop / r&b / du step / hip hop / drum and bass / C&W etc etc). One wonders how the Old Modal Song & Ballad Idioms might have fared had they not been so favoured by the Colonial Revival, or if The Revival had never happened...

Personally, I'm glad it did; I'm Folk and I'm Proud - and, for the most part, I'm Out...

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 07:51 AM

But I think the idea that revival & post-revival singers are keeping traditional song alive, or that the tradition is still being added to, is a bit of a mirage.

Then what you need is an optimistic over-dose of Steamfolk to disavow you of such a potentially dispiriting notion, especially if you're singing from the Kipling/Bellamy Songbook which stands as vivid testimony to the purely Idiomatic vibracy of the thing. For healing therapy and communion with angels, try singing Bellamy's setting of The Anchor Song as loud & fast as you can and your soul shall be cleansed! Get it right, then do it in front of an audience and they'll be buying you pints all night.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 07:36 AM

Stirling town, even. Folk process innit.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 07:34 AM

banning the word "I"

Who's going to do all the roving out and eavesdropping on heartbroken young maids? Even the big ballads have passages in direct speech -
Oft have I ridden through Carlisle town in the wind both and the rain
But I never rode through Carlisle town never to return again

I think banning the word 'you' would be more to the point. One of the low points of my time at folk clubs was the headlining act who told a long story about how she'd had a row with her (now ex-)boyfriend, walked out & snapped the wing mirror off his car; this was by way of introducing a song, addressed to the ex-bf, about how she'd snapped the wing mirror off his car and she wasn't sorry.

Seriously, I'm not sure it's possible to define what "new songs in the tradition" would sound like. Apart from anything else, which tradition? Is the model "Little Musgrave", "Searching for lambs", "The Grand Conversation on Napoleon", "the Greenland Whale Fisheries" or "Glorious Ale" - or do we actually mean "new songs like other new songs which we've already accepted"?

I don't think we should close the door on new songs, mainly because I think deciding to shut anything out completely is the wrong approach - but also because some new songs do fit into a singaround, to put it no more objectively than that. I sang nothing but traditional songs for a long time, but recently I've been doing quite a few songs by MacColl, Lal Waterson & Peter Bellamy, not to mention Kipling/Bellamy. But I think the idea that revival & post-revival singers are keeping traditional song alive, or that the tradition is still being added to, is a bit of a mirage.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 06:15 AM

who is the cyberspace poltergiest who is throwing the furniture about. the folk scene has[imo] a direction, that is as I described it before, most of the people who wish to use it as a vehicle to be a pop star leave it fairly soon , because it is a difficult way to make a living, but in the meantime it has enabled them to learn performing skills, I mean such people as barbara dickson, bob dylan, paul simon.
in some respects its rather like a football academy, with just a dedicaed few like myself who go on to be corinthian casuals

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 04:16 AM

I think Paul makes an interesting point.

"I'm rather taken with Steamin' Willie's idea of referring to himself as an "accoustic roots" performer"

Yes, I think that's a good definition (for me as well) although I might add "English" to make it even more specific.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Banjiman
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:52 AM

Jim,

So is there an approved list of newly written songs that "didn't diverge too far from traditional styles" or a specific definition of how these songs should be written available? (Clearly banning the word "I" and never looking at one's midriff would be important..... but anything else?)

Or even an "approved" list of songwriters who were OK?

I only ask as one of your constant criticisms is about the "folk" tag being diluted. It does sound as if your club may have contributed to this itself.

p.s. I have some sympathy with your point of view of the word "folk" meaning something but I think your own post demonstrates just how difficult this is to implement in practice.

Paul

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:01 AM

"There's room for, need for, and interest in venues that are for very specific types of folk music"
The term "folk" is in itself pretty specific, or at least, it was; it acted as an indicator to what we would find when we went to a folk club - it was the label on the tin.
It's when that ceased to be the case that the problems arose and we lost our audiences.
Sorry Cap'n; the folk scene is a directionless mess when we can't even discuss the subject without throwing the furniture about, and when we have to defend the music we listen to, sing, write about, archive..... from generalised nonsensical attacks like this one.
As worthy as that objective is, it has never been our job to provide an alternative to wallpaper music. If we have any 'grand objective' it is to present people with a specific type of music performed to a standard that they can enjoy.
Whether it is done accompanied or unaccompanied is entirely up to the people concerned, just as it is with a jazz band, a chamber orchestra or a rock group. Insisting on your own preferences is as bad as making claims that singers should no longer sing ballads because they are too long - as I have seen propose on this forum on a number of occasions.
As it happens, my own tastes are similar to your own; I would prefer a policy of using instruments to accompany songs, I was a member, organiser, and resident at a club in London which had some of the best accompanists on the scene, but that was our choice and nobody elses. The same club had an active policy of producing new songs, though we did attempt to see that they didn't diverge too far from traditional styles so our audiences knew what they were getting when they came through the door. We even held occasional songwriting competitions - John Pole won a first edition of Child for one of his.
While not being happy with the 'no instrument' policy that was adopted by some of the early clubs (I haven't seen it in the UK since the mid-sixties), I can understand the logic behind it.
I've witnessed on numerous occurrences singer songwriters turning up at clubs, giving their name at the door to sing, sitting at the bar until they were called to sing, then getting up and mumbling their way through a navel-gazing outpouring of angst - and then asking for a booking. The fact that they never got one was one of the reasons our club got a reputation as "purist".
It wasn't - we had an active policy of encouraging the use of accomaniment; our workshop at one time ran classes and we organised several public talks on accompaniment by IMO, some of the best accompanists on the scene.
We were a traditional-based club dedicated to presenting traditional and using those styles to produce new songs - but that was our choice and nobody elses - and that's the way it has to be - sorry.
As for "discouraging people" - you do that when you confine yourself to one type of music - and that's the way it has to be too - sorry again.
I'm rather taken with Steamin' Willie's idea of referring to himself as an "accoustic roots" performer - far more honest than calling yourself "folk" when you are not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: John P
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 07:06 PM

It Encourages the singing of both accompanied and unaccompanied traditional[not just british] and contemporary folk and roots music. that is not directionless

I agree. There's room for, need for, and interest in venues that are for very specific types of folk music as well as venues that are broader in scope. Neither are, because of what they put on the stage, better or more important -- just different than each other.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 07:28 AM

and ended up with what we have now in Britain, a largely directionless mess. quote
no I dont see the British folk club scene like that, The BFC scene offers performers a chance to perform and improve in a sympathetic acoustic listening environment, rather than wallpaper music.
It Encourages the singing of both accompanied and unaccompanied traditional[not just british] and contemporary folk and roots music. that is not directionless

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 05:10 AM

Nah! Don't worry Jim. Its my years as a inner city remedial teacher. Its left me psychologically damaged. I see anybody less than forty engaged in an activity that's not actually violent or anti social, and I want to encourage them.

Singing Dylan songs for any length of time would probably get on my tits too. It's just a leap forward from beating up people, recreational burglary, and TWOC-ing!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 04:37 AM

If I had a child who wanted to be like Bob Dylan I'd suggest that they learned to sing and play. Oh, and have the honesty to credit sources.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 02:28 AM

2Oh Jim.....that is so sad. If I had a kid who wanted to be like Bob Dylan "
Why - I'd be very proud if I had a kid who wanted to be like themself, no matter whose music they chose to play - wouldn't you?
People are entitled to listen to and perform any music they wish, good luck to them, but that does not mean you are going to adapt your own club policy to encourage them to do so - or are you against clubs that specialise in one particular type of music - no more jazz, blues, chamber music - just 'music clubs'?
Now that's sad.
I've no argument with anybody promoting any or all kinds of music - more power to them - but you also have to grant the right to anybody to specialise otherwise you have to stop giving your clubs descriptive names and making misleading claims.
My own musical tastes are fairly wide; jazz, blues, classical, light orchestral, swing, C&W (in moderation), but I have my dislikes as well, and if I am deprived of the right to choose what I want to listen to at clubs, I stop going, which is more or less what happened in the 1980s when we lost thousands of our clubs, specialist record labels, magazines, radio programmes, audiences...... and eventually our identity, and ended up with what we have now in Britain, a largely directionless mess.
I would certainly be proud that any child of mine took a serious, intelligent and active interest in any music, but I wouldn't want it to happen by conning them by telling them it was something it wasn't, or demanding that others did the same - I wouldn't want it be at the expense of others.
"More people listened to folk music......"
Did they?
I've heard the same claim made for the Spinners, The Clancys, The Dubliners, The Corries......
In my experience people may have started with any of these and moved on - I started at The Spinners club in the early 60s, and moved on.
You would deprive people of the right to make that move by not giving them anywhere to move on to.
Melting pot clubs might have their place, but, again from personal experience, it is a limited one and can be extremely restricting.
I could argue with your description of Dylan's music, but it's not what this discussion is about - but it's hard not to notice that even he got pissed off with it in the end and moved on - "It's all Over Now, Baby Blue" - as the man said.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 11:58 PM

john p, read jim carrolls post. quote
I'm afraid your argument appears to be based on the latter idea, which yo seem to be putting forward as a singer/instrumentalist, maybe out of self-interest. quote
Jim Carroll
for god sake, john p read other peoples posts.
I repeat, no one in their right minds would say to an unaccompanied singer you must not sing unaccompanied songs in this club if you sing you must accompany yourself or put up with one of our residents accompanying you.neither would you say to a reciter of monologues or a storyteller you must accompany yourself with music
another important point is this, everyone that runs a club should be hoping that every performer will attempt to sing to their best capability, to say to a singer who is used to accompanying himself, and who performs best that way, that you have to sing unaccompanied, is preventing the singer from giving their best performance.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 08:31 PM

'What do you suggest be done to discourage the wannabe Dylans ?'

Oh Jim.....that is so sad. If I had a kid who wanted to be like Bob Dylan - I would be SO proud of him.

More people listened to folk music - and listened to it more creatively because of Bob Dylan than anything else I have experienced in mmy lifetime.

How many people listened in the first place to his imaginative and wonderful re-workings of Franklin, Lord Randall, Nottanum Town, Scarborough Fair - all on the free wheeling album. Not to mention talking blues, cowboy song and jazz.

I don't what you've got going over in Ireland, but it seems to me if all you have is the wettest kids in the school lurching through fiddle tunes in a crude approximation of the Suzuki teaching method - YOU are in crisis. because you will not produce the artists with charisma that will excite anyone with a drop of haemoglobin still in their veins. It sounds to me like old men with not too much taste and not much intelligence with their foot on the throat of folk music.

James Joyce noted the phenomenon a hundred years ago - sounds to me like not too much has changed.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: John P
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 07:35 PM

GSS, your last post is somewhat opaque. I really don't know what you're talking about. Where did the whole self interest thing come from? Why did you, apparently, think I was talking about you when you and I were both, I thought, talking about someone you know who was put off by being asked to sing without his guitar? Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your comments.

If a performer shows up at a club expecting to play the guitar and is told that he can't do so, then there was a dismal lack of communication when the gig was booked.

Of course a strong tradition doesn't need rules. Why, then, are you proposing (if I'm following you adequately) a rule that all clubs should program anything? Why have you not responded to the multiple comments that a folk singer with an acoustic guitar would also not get booked into a hard rock or jazz club?

I've been innovating with traditional music all my life. The only rule I've ever applied is that the music sound good. Most everyone I've ever played with has been doing the same. That still doesn't mean I should expect to get booked to play instruments in a singer-only club. Why would I want to?

Why are you quibbling about me accidentally substituting "every weekend" for "most weekends"? Was that really enough to cause you to accuse me of not getting my facts straight? Does that really have anything to do with the discussion? Did it materially change the meaning of your comments or mine?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 06:07 PM

A strong tradition allows innovation, is confident enough that it does not have to create rules, preventing people from doing certain things with the music


But everything having to be open to everything would be enforcing a rule. Worse still, it would be setting a rule for all events rather than having each event free to set its own terms and have its own goals.

You would be reducing the diversity we have, not increasing it.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 05:47 PM

I'm afraid your argument appears to be based on the latter idea, which yo seem to be putting forward as a singer/instrumentalist, maybe out of self-interest.
wonderful, but incorrect, these same clubs ask me to sing[as I pointed out earlier]they ask me to sing unaccompanied, ,I DONT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I was referring to a complaint from a performer[JOHNP please note and get your facts right, before you misquote] who was gigging MOST weekends, who said I have had enough of that sort of crap from the christian brothers, telling people what to do.
no, I tell you why I am concerned, and it has nothing to do with self interest.
when a tradition is weak and under threat, it makes up rules preventing people doing this or that to the music, accompanying songs with instruments, not allowing singing with instruments or playing certain competitions in harmony[see comhaltas].
A strong tradition allows innovation, is confident enough that it does not have to create rules, preventing people from doing certain things with the music, like accompanying.
john p [quote]
1. If he's gigging every weekend, no "purist" has impacted his ability to perform.
to the contrary they have, because when he turned up at the club, he was not allowed to sing with his guitar,and this particular singer sings better with a guitar than unaccompanied, so he felt his ability to sing a traditional song as well as he could was hindered.
I saw something similiar when a well respected singer songwriter, was booked at a singers club, his songs were clearly better with an accompaniment, and he was clearly capable of giving a better performance with a guitar, than being forced to sing unaccompanied clearly a style he was not familiar with.
how would unaccompanied singers feel, if they turned up at a club to be told that they had to do the gig accompanied, the whole thing is ridiculous, and that comes from someone who is as happy doing an evening of unaccompanied songs as an evening of accompanied.here are some exerts of my unaccompanied singing http://www.youtube.com/user/dickmilesmusic#p/u/61/nnHxwZb_Highttp://www.youtube.com/user/dickmilesmusic#p/u/62/pJhyDS_jd3I http://www.youtube.com/user/dickmilesmusic#p/u/76/UUoZkOw02uE

a strong tradition does not feel threatened and does not feel it has to impose rules.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: John P
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 03:02 PM

so purists do exist, and they wish to exclude any singers who wish to accompany themselves with an instrument.

Nobody said that but you. That sentence, without any qualifiers, is incorrect. Some people start clubs that are devoted to one type of music. Anything goes anywhere else.

>i>for the record the singer who complained about being prevented singin with his guitar, is a very good semi pro singer who is gigging most weekends.

Three things:
1. If he's gigging every weekend, no "purist" has impacted his ability to perform.
2. Maybe he should also complain about not getting into a hard rock club??
3. Jerks, as described in my post above, can also be those who want to tell others what to book in their club. Sort of anti-purist jerks.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 02:58 PM

"so purists do exist, and they wish to exclude any singers who wish to accompany themselves with an instrument."
Not necessarily Cap'n - in my experience the ones that did it, certainly over the last thirty years, did it to discourage Bob Dylan wannabes, simply because that was not the type of song they wanted to be known for.
I've seen the opposite reaction from anything goes clubs when somebody gets up and sings a long ballad - it wasn't what their audiences were used to - simple as that.
There were clubs in England that actively discouraged instumental accompaniments, but I have never seen one of these for at least thirty years.
I was more than happy to listen to songs accompanied by Peggy Seeger or John Faulkner, or Sandra Kerr or Jack Warshaw, just as I was happy to listen to contemporary songs made in traditional styles.
None of this has anything to do with "purism", rather it is attempting to present a certain type/style of song to an audience who has come to expect such songs.
What do you suggest be done to discourage the wannabe Dylans (or Walthamstow cowboys, as I have heard them referred to) - audition them beforehand, or should they, as some clubs did, throw open your club to anybody who wants to sing, whatever the type of song?
I'm afraid your argument appears to be based on the latter idea, which yo seem to be putting forward as a singer/instrumentalist, maybe out of self-interest.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 01:43 PM

"so purists do exist, and they wish to exclude any singers who wish to accompany themselves with an instrument."

You should see them down the karaoke. Not only won't they let you play your instruments, you have sing to their backing tracks.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 01:40 PM

'Yes, and I've heard that they're sometimes mean to puppies and tiny kittens as well!! Outrageous!'

Ah! my favourite sandwich!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 01:33 PM

"so purists do exist, and they wish to exclude any singers who wish to accompany themselves with an instrument."

Yes, and I've heard that they're sometimes mean to puppies and tiny kittens as well!! Outrageous!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: John P
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 01:29 PM

Yes, purists exist. And they are not a problem. The problem is the people who set themselves up as the vocal guardians of some snapshot point in a tradition that doesn't need guarding. There's a big difference between them and a purist, even though they are usually claiming to be guarding the purity of the tradition. Often one of the biggest differences is that the guardian doesn't really have a very good grasp of the nature of the tradition.

A purist is someone who likes some particular type of music played in some particular way. That shouldn't bother anyone, even if they extend their tastes to a club that they organize. I don't expect to be hired to play Swedish dance tunes at a vocal only club, just as I don't expect to be hired to play them at a jazz club.

A jerk is someone who wants to vocally guard a tradition by telling other people, at inappropriate times, that they are doing something wrong.

A jerk of this type may be a purist, but a real purist is only rarely a jerk.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 10:38 AM

As Christopher Robin said to Pooh, Most people are all right......

I'm with CR on that one.

Great Gong clip - slight irony in finding it on a 'Folk Purists' thread...

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 10:24 AM

Never saw them, alas; I only started going to gigs in 75, and Magma didn't come close to Newcastle at that time, though my brother saw them the year before with the classic sextet of Vander / Blasquiz / Topp / Grallier / Olmos / Bikialo (as on the BBC sessions + Stella). Talk about purism though, I know Magma fans who regard this as the Classic line-up and reject pretty much anything they did after that. For sure it blurs into all manner of fusions and commercial uncertainties thereafter but I couldn't quite imagine life without the outrageous Kobaian discofever of Retrovision and their 2004 album Kohntarkosz Anteria is a belter. Interesting to read of Gong's relationship to Magma in the second volume of Daevid Allen's autobiographical Gong Dreaming; for sure, in a 1971 French TV clip he calls Kobaia the planet of paranoia...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT1In20u3jc

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 10:24 AM

yes of course, nasty people do exist. And they've always got terrific reasons for being nasty. John Wayne made a career out of those roles - the old sweat who kicks everyone else either downstairs or into shape.

But they're not the whole story - or even a big part of the story. As Christopher Robin said to Pooh, Most people are all right......

Now i suppose some bugger will say something nasty and prove me wrong. But i really believe it. Most people are all right. And the few self appointed dirty dogs.....well it gives us nice people a chance to be dramatically different. You do see awful acts of exclusion and cruelty in this music. You just have to shrug your shoulders and realise (as Hyman Roth said in Godfather 2) this is the business we have chosen to be in. Just feel sorry for the victims and the perpetrators, and get on as best and as kindly as you can manage. Anything else is just a waste of energy.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 10:08 AM

so purists do exist, and they wish to exclude any singers who wish to accompany themselves with an instrument.
for the record the singer who complained about being prevented singin with his guitar, is a very good semi pro singer who is gigging most weekends.