Do purists really exist?

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: 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: theleveller
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 08:36 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: GUEST,Banjiman
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 02:58 PM

Sorry anonymous guest 4 above was me.

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,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
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,Banjiman
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:09 PM

ooops, that was me again.

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

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.

Nope.

Spend a month listening to nothing but traditional folk music. Then spend a month listening to nothing but contemporary folk music. There are noticeable differences, which I'm not going to try to quantify since the gray areas are so huge.

Saying you're confused about the issue and then making a judgment that demonstrates a lack of knowledge doesn't sit very well. Perhaps you should get more educated before making a decision for yourself about what traditional folk music is.

WARNING --- WARNING --- WARNING
None of this has anything to do with what I like, or what anyone else likes. It doesn't in any way address issues of quality, importance, or relevance. It doesn't address what anyone should play. It's just saying that traditional music, for the most part, sounds different than modern music. It came to be through a different process and that process leaves its mark, whether or not anyone else can recognize it.

To me, a new song that is composed "in the tradition" should be created, both musically and lyrically, as the result of the composer's deep immersion in whatever tradition he or she is writing in (or by one who is very clever at picking up the essentials and reproducing them). Anyone who has listened to enough traditional folk can tell the difference.

Almost the most important thing is that the gray areas are huge and very subjective. But that doesn't mean that the lines aren't there somewhere.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: John P
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:19 PM

More on what I like: I can enjoy an evening of listening to almost any kind of traditional folk music, from a wide variety of places and times. A whole evening of contemporary folk music, for the most part, leaves me cold, and in fact probably wouldn't happen. There seems to be a feeling here that I shouldn't draw distinctions between what I like and what I don't, and that I shouldn't have a club to go to that plays the kind of music I like. Why not?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:20 PM

John P wrote
To me, a new song that is composed "in the tradition" should be created, both musically and lyrically, as the result of the composer's deep immersion in whatever tradition he or she is writing in (or by one who is very clever at picking up the essentials and reproducing them). Anyone who has listened to enough traditional folk can tell the difference.
Almost the most important thing is that the gray areas are huge and very subjective. But that doesn't mean that the lines aren't there somewhere.

Thanks ... that explains that then ...!!!

Now could someone translate that into working class English!!!!!!

And its good to know that anyone who knows their stuff about traditional folk can tell the difference ..

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:23 PM

For those of us who don't understand, musical analysis (as well as, but not exclusively, lyrical) of specific examples of contemporary songs which are deemed as fitting the remit of "in the traditional style" or "in the tradition", would be welcomed?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Banjiman
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:24 PM

John P.

I listen to a lot of trad songs...... and I listen to a lot contemporary folk (and other STYLE) songs.

What I hear is a continuum ...... I really can't see a sharp line that "defines" one from the other.

And that really is my point.

If you as obviously the expert (assuming I'm completely unlearned, as you gently point out), can't tell where the line is, what hope have I got? Yep, I'm confused again.

As for getting educated, that is what I'm trying to do here. But I'm struggling to grasp any key learnings from the insults you're throwing!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,colin holt
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:27 PM

Sorry the guest was me..

Banji man.. we must be on the same drink !!!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: John P
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:35 PM

Colin, I'm sorry you are feeling insulted. I didn't intend it, and rather thought I didn't say anything as insulting as you saying that traditional music is defined by the tastes of the listener. But it's really not important. Without meaning to insult you, I really do think that education should come before judgment.

To learn the difference, I can only repeat what I said before: listen, listen, listen, listen. Then make your own decisions about what fits and what doesn't. Just don't try to tell me that there isn't a difference.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Banjiman
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:39 PM

"More on what I like: I can enjoy an evening of listening to almost any kind of traditional folk music, from a wide variety of places and times. A whole evening of contemporary folk music, for the most part, leaves me cold, and in fact probably wouldn't happen. There seems to be a feeling here that I shouldn't draw distinctions between what I like and what I don't, and that I shouldn't have a club to go to that plays the kind of music I like. Why not? "

That is certainly not what I said (or others from what I can see). I'm genuinely trying to understand the distinctions that yourself (and Jim) are trying to draw, so I can more accurately describe the folk/acoustic/roots events that I put on (and the kind of music that my wife play professionally) . This is so that I can attract an audience who will appreciate any particular night we pull together.

You're perceiving attack where there isn't any. But I still haven't seen any argument that persuades me that there is a clear stylistic line between trad/tradalike/contemporary folky style music. And the 1954 definition does not apply to STYLE does it...... so it's no good for describing to people what they are going to hear.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:40 PM

"Spend a month listening to nothing but traditional folk music. Then spend a month listening to nothing but contemporary folk music."

Yep! Perhaps all those on here who keep on whining, "I don't understannnddd!!" need to put some work in. If you really don't understand listen to the recordings, read the books and think hard about what you've listened to and read. If at the end of that process you decide that you don't like folk music - fine - it's your choice. But don't expect an easy ride when you demand that folk music be jettisoned (because you don't like it) and be replaced by music that you do like!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,colin holt
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:43 PM

John

I'm really not insulted.. honestly.. I'm just trying to understand , as a singer songwriter waht a "traditional style" is . I;m afraid your explanation went right over my head.
As a music lover, with a pretty tight quality control in built, however, I can assure you that I do listen and listen and listen

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: John P
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:52 PM

Sorry, I can see that you're not trying to attack. There are, however, a fair number of people here who seem to be mocking or denigrating or refusing to believe there is or should be a difference.

Ah, style. It's not about the style of playing. A traditional song played by a rock band still sounds, to me, like a traditional song. A modern song played on a solo bagpipe still sounds modern. It is only about style if you're including the actual composition in the definition of style. And, maybe even more so, the lyrics.

Listen to Steeleye Span (not the stuff they wrote themselves - most of it doesn't sound particularly traditional to me) and then listen to U2. Can you hear the differences in the construction of the melodies and in the nature of and words used in the lyrics?

Listen to Martin Carthy's traditional material and then listen to Joni Mitchell. Can you hear the compositional and lyrical differences?

Where did the songs come from? That is probably the easiest way to draw a line if you need one. My own line is a mile wide and isn't black, but many shades of gray. Did the musician write the song or did they interpret a really old song? If they wrote the song, can they play it in a set of really old music without having it stick out like a sore thumb? That's a pretty simplistic difference, but it's a place to start.

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

Jeeez,

Will the purists stop insisting I listen more! LoL.

I play and listen to far more folky music than is good for me, I still can't hear a sharp dividing line between trad/tradalike/contemporary. I just don't think it is there....... from a STYLE point of view. If you've got a sonic, lyrical or musical definition, try it on me.

BTW I love trad & tradalike and some contemporary folky stuff..... and I'm not telling anyone what they should or should not listen to.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Banjiman
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 04:00 PM

"My own line is a mile wide and isn't black, but many shades of gray"

I repeat, that is the point.

Of course I can hear the difference between an unaccompanied traditional ballad and say "The Bands Played Waltzing Matilda" (as a contemporary example) that's easy, they're extremes. But there is a whole lot of stuff in between these where drawing sharp distinctions as to the STYLE of the song is more difficult.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: John P
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 04:06 PM

Banjiman, I'm really not a purist in any pure sense of the word. A REAL purist wouldn't like trad music played by a rock band ;^)

I can, however, tell the difference quite easily. And I got there by listening and playing. If that method doesn't work for you, I don't know what else to say. I guess I'm not the person to delineate it for you, other than to fall back on the process thing -- where did the song come from?

There is no sharp dividing line. There's stuff that's definitely in one place and stuff that's in another, and there's even more stuff that's somewhere in between. The real purists might well disagree with me about that, but I'm not really part of the whole academic/musicology side of things. Just a musician who knows what I like when I hear it.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 04:27 PM

for fucks sake, john p, iknow nothing about you,but i will tell you a little about myself and also banjiman.
i have been playing traditional music and american folk music for over 40 years , i have a websitehttp://www.dickmiles.com, i have been involved with running folk clubs too ., i have written 2 concertina tutors, and a song book
Banjiman plays the banjo runs a club and plays with his wife who is an excellent singer.
I cant speak for banjiman,
BUT I DONT LIKE TRAD MUSIC PLAYED BY A ROCK BAND , BUT I AM NOT A PURIST. you see i dont attempt to stop rockbands from playing trad music, neither do i say to unaccompanied singers you must accompany yourself.
in my opinion a purist is someone who runs a singers club and refuses to let singers accompany themselves, the sort of people who you have given your support to, the sort of people who enjoy telling others you cant do that there here.
so we even have different opinions as to what constitutes a purist

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 04:31 PM

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:

All is music is traditional - the very term Traditional Music is essentially tautologous. And yes, I understand what YOU mean when you use this term - but I must point out that all music is the consequence of such cultural / musical process, what's so special about folk? The answer is simply one of folk faith. Tell you what, GG - by way of an example, show me one music that ISN'T Traditional.

Muddy the waters? Hell, I'm the one seeking some clarification here.

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

The very fact that Folk Song is seen as a collective product with the stress on The Anonymous and The Traditional is proof pure of this legacy. The very fact that The Revival has insisted upon a collective Folk Process to validate the authenticity of their desired is another. To reverse the old adage: Folk refuses to see the Trees for the Wood, and what trees it chooses to see are those rare and exalted specimens who are deemed worthy for the purity of the Folk aspects of their repertoirs, not the condition of their musical experience / creativity as a whole.

*

Can I just say to me Folk is Fun? The old songs, sessions, ballads and all sorts - we have a ball; we talk, we discuss, we play, we get pissed, we do gigs, festivals, we record, we collaborate, we have our Weekly Residency, and I regard discussions like this as all part of that. Folk is a Ball. 35 years and counting...

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 04:55 PM

Surely you perform what turns you on and what you believe is worth passing on. If you do it well enough you can only hope that you get an audience for it, but you can't guarantee that.
You certainly don't say 'nope, that's not working; let's try something else.
I believe/d that folk music was entertaining, satisfying, interesting and extremely important and worth trying to pass on - it worked while our club was running; we got an audience and we had some memorable and extremely enjoyable nights.
We didn't restrict our selves just to folk/traditional songs (two different aspects of the same genre, folk = people who gave us the songs, traditional = process that created, re-created and disseminated them), but we worked on the basis that new songs could be made using the old model (happy to go into detail).
What we didn't do was abandon the basis of our objective and take in material that was pop/classical/music hall, not necessarily because we didn't like them, but because it's not what we set out to do.
It was never about bums on seats - I've never received a penny in payment in my life as a performer, club organiser or even album producer.
Plenty of explanations (that satisfy me anyway) as to what I believe folk to be - Lloyd's 'Folk Song in England', Buchan's 'The Ballad and the Folk, Well's 'The Ballad Tree - or colloections like The Penguin Book of English Folk Song, The Greig Duncan Folk Song Collection, Bronson, Child..... must have a few hundred on our shelves to choose from.
If you want to hear the songs, 'Folk Songs of Britain' (12 albums), Songs of the People (20 albums) Joe Heaney, Sam Larner, Harry Cox, Jeannie Robertson..... long, long list.
You continue to use the word purist - perhaps you might explain what you mean, and let's see whether you have been listening.
And perhaps, if you think our 'purist' ideas are wrong put us right and give us your definition?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: John P
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 05:16 PM

BUT I DONT LIKE TRAD MUSIC PLAYED BY A ROCK BAND , BUT I AM NOT A PURIST.

I didn't say you did, or should, or whatever you're objecting to. Saying a purist might not like it doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't like it is a purist. That's basic logic and semantics. I have no idea if you are a purist or not. You say not, so that's good enough for me.

in my opinion a purist is someone who runs a singers club and refuses to let singers accompany themselves,

Yep, that is a purist. No arguments there.

. . . the sort of people who enjoy telling others you cant do that there here.

Yeah, yeah, you've said that. You also haven't said why you think everyone should run their club according to your rules. You haven't said why a folk singer should expect to get hired in a jazz club. If someone wants to run a club differently than you want to run a club, why does that bother you so? If you have spent time running a folk venue, bravo for you! And thank you! How would you like it if someone got really mad at you because you're not programming "their" kind of music? Would you book a heavy rock band into your folk club?

I had to talk a friend of mine into continuing to run a small concert series that was devoted to traditional music. A non-traditional folk singer came into her place and screamed at her VERY obscenely for half an hour because she told him she wouldn't book him, and why. This was, at the time, one of the very few places in town that focused on traditional music. There were numerous places for him to play, but he felt that any place that said folk music had to automatically book him because he played folk. Before I talked her down, she had decided to stop putting on concerts rather than subject herself to that again.

As I've said many times already in this discussion, it's not about whether or not someone is a purist, but whether or not they're a jerk about it. The same goes for non-purists.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 05:30 PM

whether on not they are a jerk, well depends how you define jerk?
here is a definition that is intersting in fact it refers to a jerk as a bore, so what you seem to be saying is that what matters is whether people are boring about their purism.
which i must say seems to reduce your attempted argument to the pinnacle of absurdity,
Jerk*

by Sidney J. Harris

I don't know whether history repeats itself, but biography certainly does. The other day, Michael came in and asked me what a "jerk" was--the same question Carolyn put to me a dozen years ago.

At that time, I fluffed her off with some inane answer, such as, "A jerk isn't a very nice person," but both of us knew it was an unsatisfactory reply. When she went to bed, I began trying to work up a suitable definition.

It is a marvelously apt word, of course. Until it was coined, there was really no single word in English to describe the kind of person who is a jerk--"boob" and "simp" were too old hat, and besides they really didn't fit, for they could be lovable, and a jerk never is.

Thinking it over, I decided that a jerk is basically a person without insight. He is not necessarily a fool or a dope, because some extremely clever persons can be jerks. In fact, it has little to do with intelligence as we commonly think of it; it is, rather, a kind of subtle but persuasive aroma emanating from the inner part of the personality.
in the USA it means something else a toss pot or wanker

I know a college president who can be described only as a jerk. He is not an unintelligent man, nor unlearned, nor even unschooled in the social amenities. Yet he is a jerk cum laude, because of a fatal flaw in his nature--he is totally incapable of looking into the mirror of his soul and shuddering at what he sees there.

A jerk, then, is a man (or woman) who is utterly unable to see himself as he appears to others. He has no grace, he is tactless without meaning to be, he is a bore even to his best friends, he is an egotist without charm. All of us are egotists to some extent, but most of us--unlike the jerk--are perfectly and horribly aware of it when we make asses of ourselves. The jerk never knows.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 05:38 PM

Banjiman, after much thought, this is it. If you write a new song with a tune half-nicked from an old song, use slightly archaic language and even better have an archaic subject matter, you've pretty much cracked it. Specially if it has a sing-along chorus. If you fail to jump through any of these three hoops, forget it.

This doesn't of course take into account the incredibly broad range of tunes, subject matter and linguistic styles found in traditional music. And the fact that some of it is absolutely jawdroppingly brilliant and some of it is (shhh!) trite, throwaway crap...

That Wendy's a good songwriter, mind...

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: John P
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 05:43 PM

some of it is absolutely jawdroppingly brilliant and some of it is (shhh!) trite, throwaway crap...

I'll say!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 05:48 PM

whether on not they are a jerk, well depends how you define jerk?

I'd have thought John P's US "jerk" to my UK would be "a right prick" or "a complete and utter arsehole".

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: John P
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 06:01 PM

here is a definition that is intersting in fact it refers to a jerk as a bore, so what you seem to be saying is that what matters is whether people are boring about their purism.
which i must say seems to reduce your attempted argument to the pinnacle of absurdity,

Well, GSS, if you are saying that musical purity jerks are often narcissistic, I agree. I don't really see that as being the same as being a bore, although I like to avoid both jerks and bores. Finding an internet clip that equates jerkiness with being boring is fun, but it doesn't mean that I made that comparison, or that you get to tell me I'm being absurd when I talk about people who are jerks. If you claim to not know what a jerk is, I don't really see any point in having a conversation with you.

You seem to be spending time deciding, without any evidence, that I'm really saying something other than what I'm really saying, and then arguing with me for saying what I really didn't. It's getting boring . . .

I don't get the feeling that you are spending any time actually thinking about what I'm saying. With all humility and respect, please back off.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: John P
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 06:03 PM

Yes, Jon, that's it in a nutshell. Thank you for the clarification.

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

Thanks Spleen Cringe, at least you've actually read my question and attempted a definition. It even sounds like a very honest description of some things I like...... a lot! Amongst other things of course.

Jim, does that fit with the tradalike you said you would have in your club? Or was it something different?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 06:08 PM

"The very fact that Folk Song is seen as a collective product with the stress on The Anonymous and The Traditional is proof pure of this legacy."

So in other words, no, you can't name any collector who believed that the working class was incapable of producing anything, and you certainly can't cite the offending words.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 06:12 PM

"Jim, does that fit with the tradalike"
Sounds like facile crap to me - if that's what you think folk song is you really haven't been looking.
A piss-taking parody rather than a definition which didn't eeven attempt to explain either "folk" or "tradition".
I gathered that SC was being facetious - you apparently took him seriously
Jim Carroll