Do purists really exist?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 01:26 PM

Sorry, Bert! I was, of course, referring to a fictional 'Bert' wot I just made up ...

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 01:21 PM

I would be happier if I knew what a "purist" was in the present context

In my experience Purist is a) something people of little knowledge call themselves b) something people of maybe less knowledge call me. The truly learned wouldn't stoop so low.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 01:13 PM

I would be happier if I knew what a "purist" was in the present context although I fear any reply might be circular.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 01:05 PM

"Chris Spedding was a very fine guitarist."

Indeed. I was a big fan. Just trying to give you a flavour of the recording in question.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 01:04 PM

Secondly, many folk guitarists use a percussive style for some of their accompaniment, not altogether easy on an electric guitar.

Exactly, which is why I prefer the electric guitar played as pure noise in the manner I described earlier. The Folk Revival has its own Conventions, which is only natural but none of them relate to The Tradition per se. In Folk Clubs I mostly use fiddle / kemence and electro shruti box these days; if we've got an amp around I'll augment the drone with a few random modal-loops on the Kaossilator (like THIS - Childe Owlett, which I learned by osmosis from a session we did with Sally Bee).

*

Purism seems to afflict those who have been drawn into the Religiosity of Folk; those who are looking for rules, relulations, meaning and belonging. Maybe they're religious too, unable to cope with the beauteous randomness and perfect common chaos of reality.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 12:47 PM

Chris Spedding was a very fine guitarist.

But surely it is pretty rare for "purists" to try to stop people doing impure things in folk clubs or singarounds - whether the impure things are arrangements of folk songs, folk songs done so that they do not sound like folk songs, or things that are supposed to sound a bit like folk songs, or blues or ragtime (much of which does fit the definition of folks song) or country or new country or country and western (which mostly don't).

However, even if "Gallows Pole" is a folk song, singing it does not make Mr Page (another excellent guitarist) a folksinger, although it might make him a folksong singer. Contrariwise the Led Zep reggae satire "D'yer Make 'er" while sort of reggae style proved beyond doubt that they could not play reggae worth a damn!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Bert
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 12:47 PM

..Then again perhaps we don't see them again because Bert has chosen that night to mumble, moan and groan his way through a 20 verse ballad that he 'learned' (i.e. copied down the words in an exercise book) from a June Tabor CD...

LOL Shimrod. OK hands up Mudcatters! Who has ever heard Bert sing a ballad. Except maybe The Ballad of Bethnal Green. Or for that matter mumble, moan or groan a song.

The purists who try to stop people are like that Guy at The Philadelphia Folk Song gang who told me that I sang "The Barley Mow" wrong. I guess the ignorant fellow had never heard that there is more that one traditional version of that song. And I learned that song years before anyone had heard of June Tabor.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 09:40 AM

"So "purist" has become a default catch-all for lazy hacks then?"

Lazy hacks are some of the worst offenders in bandying 'purist' about, particularly the writers of promo puffs desperate to convince us that their act is new and exciting, and constitutes a sorely-needed antidote to all that dreadful old-fashioned stuff that went before. I am just now reviewing a CD of Zydeco music in which the blurb talks about the artist "dragging [Zydeco] by the scruff of the neck into the 21st century". Another classic cliche, of course, but Zydeco?? A music that's embraced change so enthusiastically over many decades? The joke in this case is that "dragging it into the 21st century" apparently involves smearing it all over with 1970s Chris Spedding-style electric guitar licks.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 09:38 AM

"[The term purist is] ALWAYS derogatory, and gets used by embittered failures who want to look for a conspiracy to explain why nobody's interested in their music."

I suspect there's some truth in this. I've lost count of the number of times that a lad with a guitar, or group of lads with guitars, have turned up at my local folk club or singaround and sung a floor spot, or taken a turn, and then disappear, never to be seen again (often directly after they've done their bit). They are usually treated politely and their performances met with the usual ripple of applause (I've never known any fiendish purists to be mean to them). Usually they sing self-penned compositions that have little to do with Folk Music ("We do acoustic stuff - that's folk music, innit?"). I think that we never see them again because they're not greeted with the wild adulation that they think that they deserve and no-one rushes to offer them lucrative gigs.

Then again perhaps we don't see them again because Bert has chosen that night to mumble, moan and groan his way through a 20 verse ballad that he 'learned' (i.e. copied down the words in an exercise book) from a June Tabor CD.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 09:19 AM

do all the suspecting you want, however it is a fact, granted some music crosses over boundaries, but boundaries do exist.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Silas
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 09:18 AM

"I would have though a Les Paul would make a far better instrument for accompanying Folk Songs than an acoustic guitar."

Well, two things here - firstly, you are going to need somewhere to plug it in! Jim Morays first ever Bromyard Festival Gig found him in a room without a single power point - not a lot of use to a musician who is renowned for some hi-tec effects! Secondly, many folk guitarists use a percussive style for some of their accompaniment, not altogether easy on an electric guitar. Thirdly, I hate electric guitars, which is all the reason I need of course.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Folknacious
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 08:55 AM

musical boundaries do exist

Far more in calculated revivals, academic circles and outsider-adoption than in actual unmolested living traditions, I suspect.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Folknacious
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 08:52 AM

It gets stickier when we begin announcing that our own personal preference is the 'right way to do it' . . . the 'Folk Purist' who goes around ticking people off for performing in an inauthentic manner is a far rarer species than some 'modernisers' here would have us believe.

Yes, that all has the ring of truth. So for "purist" you could perhaps substitute something more precise, like "egotist bigot". Referring back to my original query, though, I can't see many journalists adopting "the egotist bigots will probably hate it" as a cliche. So "purist" has become a default catch-all for lazy hacks then?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 08:23 AM

musical boundaries do exist, jazz is defined by improvisation, that is a pretty elastic boundary, but it does not include this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_PoPY-mDpA
likewise this is folk music.http://www.youtube.com/user/dickmilesmusic#p/u/12/YytajAIlJ2w as is thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-GN-BP_Qlk

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 07:43 AM

I would have though a Les Paul would make a far better instrument for accompanying Folk Songs than an acoustic guitar. I often use my wife's Daisy Rock Purple Heart which has a similiar feel to my old CSL Les Paul copy (1976?), which I never used for folk. Hooked up through various sustain, distortions and echoes you can create a fine wash of melodic drones over which any ballad is just pefecto! Using the Daevid Allen / Gong glissando techique (originated by Syd Barrett) it's even better. Thing us, I know if I did this in even the most liberal of Designated Folk Contexts I'd be looked at askance and whispered at behind by back. These days more for daring to sing Ballads and Traditional Songs than my choice of accompaniment, alas...

Regarding Brian's post - I have no understanding or love of cricket, and only an A-level residue of Shakespeare, but when it comes to Period Instrument Classical / Early Music I listen to little else around the house. I do accept, however, that Purcell can sound nice on modern instruments and the Naxos CDs of Albinoni Oboe Concerti are divine. I'm a big fan of Sarah Francis too, who used a modern instrument on her superlative renderings of Baroque sonatas, though to hear (say) Paul Goodwin covering the same material on his period oboe is utterly stunning.

As Crowley said after a visit to his local Folk Club: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 07:12 AM

But it's fun, which should be the main criteria for making music!!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 07:05 AM

Purist as a term tends to be derogatory.

It's ALWAYS derogatory, and gets used by embittered failures who want to look for a conspiracy to explain why nobody's interested in their music. The reasoning is the same as "Pakis are taking our jobs" and "the Yids control the media".

Trying to identify who is really a purist is like trying to prick witches or list the Elders of Zion.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 06:41 AM

'Purists' do exist. Someone who prefers to see batsmen score with strokes from the coaching manual (rather than the reverse sweep), who doesn't approve of Shakespeare in modern dress, or insists on hearing classical music played by a small orchestra of period instruments, might be so described. In our world there are folk song enthusiasts who prefer to hear their ballads sung by an unaccompanied voice, and Irish music fans who can't bear guitar accompaniments - and of course they're entitled to those preferences. It gets stickier when we begin announcing that our own personal preference is the 'right way to do it' (elevating personal taste to the status of High Principle is a not uncommon human failing), but 'authenticity' is an elusive beast, and the 'Folk Purist' who goes around ticking people off for performing in an inauthentic manner is a far rarer species than some 'modernisers' here would have us believe.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 06:23 AM

Good! Violence is strictly forbidden at the Sutton Folk Club. ;-D Had you struck him, you might have been banned for life.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 06:20 AM

At a time when I did not have an accoustic guitar, I played an electric - a Les Paul Junior I might add, at what was Sutton Folk club back in the 1990s. Some holier than thou prick announced after playing that "we know what an accoustic guitar is here don't we". I managed to stop myself from hitting him.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 06:15 AM

"It seems to me that "The Purists" are the ones who want to stop it. You are not allowed to call it Folk Music if it doesn't fit into their definition."

Weird, isn't it? The people who don't want Folk Music in folk clubs (the 'non-purists') are always stating that the people who like Folk Music, and have the temerity to think that it is the primary reason for the existence of folk clubs (the 'purists'), are stopping the 'non-purists' from doing this and not allowing them to do/think/say the other.

In fact there is no coercion involved - how can a 'purist'like me STOP anyone from doing or saying anything?

But what I can do is to DISAGREE with the 'non-purist' position and I have a perfect right to do so!

As I asked a few posts ago - why are 'non-purists' so sensitive about this issue?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 05:57 AM

Substitute Irish dance tunes for songs above to get to where I prefer (I do other things too) to be.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Musket
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 05:56 AM

Spence, Spense, Spens.

The official one is that one there...

Or is it the other one?

You know, since hearing Martin Simpson's latest version, I have changed "young man" to "aged Lord" hence perpetuating the oral tradition.

Mind you, even that term meant something else when I was a teenager.

I like the bit above about two songs on a stage. When I started in folk clubs, all the local ones did that. I had been going to clubs for a couple of years before encountering a more singaround club. So if I were being purist, I would say that if you don't do two songs on a stage, it is not a folk club. Yet others may say that a folk club is about playing where you sit, one at a time going round in a circle.

Got it! Purist means pandering to your own nostalgia.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 05:41 AM

I think we're back the old question What is The Tradition? Or what does The Tradition mean to you? In this case, it seems to be synonymous with The Revival, which isn't, strictly speaking, The Tradition, rather that which first perceives, then claims to represent, The Tradition. It all gets a bit fundamentalist really, but that's what drew me into folk clubs when I was 14 or so and keeps me there now some 35 years on (and, as I keep saying, I'm still invariably the youngest in the room!).

Of course there are younger Folks who see things very differently and are doing amazing things as a consequence, but what I like by way of social joy, is the filthy pub scenario described above which, I admit, has limited popular appeal. I do other things too of course, but to me the Filthy Trad Folk Song Seance empowered by Pints of the local brew in a pub where the landlord will pull a tooth for the price of an anaethetising Talisker in my idea of hardcore folk heaven.

It all begins in the barley temple in the Holy Name of the Come-All-Ye where no one is calling the shots; where egos are checked in at the door and even a singaround would be too rigid a concept to abide by, let alone booked guests or the dreaded two-song floor spot and (God forbid) introductions and comedy. Here no one sits twiddling with the guitar tuners whilst another is singing, for here we raise Ghosts and Spectres; here we dissolve into the collective potency that is the heart of Traditional Folk Song; here we commune with the fundamentals in common awe at the vivid joy that will always drive sorrows away.

Purist? Moi? Not a bit of it!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 05:10 AM

It seems to me that "The Purists" are the ones who want to stop it. You are not allowed to call it Folk Music if it doesn't fit into their definition.

You are allowed to call anything you like folk music. Just be prepared to accept that what you consider to be folk music may not be what someone else considers to be folk music.

"The tradition is moving by itself". When you are picking the bits that you like, then you are moving it in a direction that you would like to see it go.

And picking up bits that fit in with what you are doing and that others you are with enjoy and find fit. And perhaps others hear it and find it works so over time it finds its way into the tradition.

This is a different process to declaring "this is the new direction of folk" and expecting this is the route that must be followed.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Bert
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 04:54 AM

...It's more a question of how we see the tradition moving...

The tradition is moving by itself. It seems to me that "The Purists" are the ones who want to stop it. You are not allowed to call it Folk Music if it doesn't fit into their definition.

But definitions or not "The tradition is moving by itself". When you are picking the bits that you like, then you are moving it in a direction that you would like to see it go.

When Suibhne Astray sits down for a good old roll and blow in a pub then it is headed in that direction.

...do we only truly become Folkies when we walk into a Folk Club... that is a very good point. I like to think that we become folkies when we go to a party or a pub and sing something that we learned from someone else.

We also become folkies when we visit Bruce Olsen's web site and learn something from there.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Musket
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 04:35 AM

Hard core purism? Steamin' Willie mentions retired social workers singing about herring fishing. My hard core bit was many years ago, when I was singing about love, war, whatever and a mate who was such a social worker sang about mining. The following morning, I went down the pit....

Yes, Willie and I did discuss musical bigotry over a pint last night. I recall we also discussed Nigella Lawson's two biggest assets, whether Gary Megson will be given enough money for some more key players before the opening game, whether the new landlord of the pub will make a good go of it, whether Elixir strings are worth the money and why Willie always says its time to go when it is his round next.....

Sorry to those who saw themselves in my criticism at the top (ish) of this post. I have a cap if you wish to wear it, but to be frank, some of it reinforces what I put and so I sadly stand by it all. Sadly because I want folk clubs to thrive, and a full club of the same people who were there thirty years ago isn't thriving, it is perpetuating, and that has a shelf life.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 04:16 AM

Here's a thought - do we only truly become Folkies when we walk into a Folk Club, or some other Designated Folk Context, thus, like the hitherto invisible Mason, becomes visible upon entering the lodge? Is it possible to Folk on your own? Of course much research & rehearsal goes on in private, but that's merely by of of preparatory tactics so you'll turn in something good on the night.

Mention was made of the purism of war re-enactment groups and their fidelity to detail, but as accurate as they are none of them will ever be posted Afganistan, much be prepared to really fight in battle or else die in the fray. If they really were Purists, they wouldn't flinch; and their fidelity to historic detail would be such that the wounded would refuse all modern medicines, antiseptics and anaesthetics. Hard core Purism; not for the faint hearted.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 04:09 AM

A lot of attitudes seem to depend upon whether you want your traditional songs to be museum pieces or part of a living tradition.

That's often suggested but I don't think it's usually true, Bert. I think most of us who can be called "purists" do consider themselves to be part of a living tradition. It's more a question of how we see the tradition moving.

Personally, I see it picking up bits it likes and rejecting others over time and moving along in that way. I don't really buy "this is the new direction of folk music" type pronouncements.

I think the term is also used for people who don't enjoy a particular style or direction although I don't understand why because I tend to enjoy music in a more traditional folk style it should follow that I should like it in any other style because it has the label "folk" attached to it.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Bert
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 04:02 AM

This is a Purist myth.???

Which?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 04:01 AM

Purist as a term tends to be derogatory. Hence so many people misconstruing some of the comments above. I don't think Ian Mather is setting himself up as an authority and bloody hell, I am almost agreeing with M'Unlearned friend Richard Bridge. Although in my experience people who reckon they are, even if they don't use the term, purists, certainly do make value judgements.

You could liken it to war reenactment groups where the more historically faithful, the more pure it is. Folk music isn't that though, it is a night out with a few beers or it is mastering an old reel on the basis of it sounding good (or sounding complicated if the performer is trying to impress) or it is collecting echoes of how society ticks or used to tick. All the above and more.

If Gallows Pole is a " folk" song, then Robert Plant is a folk singer. I sang a song in a folk club recently, "I don't like Mondays" making Bob Geldof a writer of folk songs. Got he idea from Dave Burland so that makes it official then.

Purist UK folk, played on purist American guitars.

Having had many discussions over a pint, including last night... Ian Mather and I just see too many examples of folk clubs dying out whilst people coming to a club for the first time have a habit of not returning for a second chance. Purists should indeed bugger off, but only in the attitude sense. We still need to hear a retired social worker stick his finger in his ear and tell us what it was like herring fishing off Dogger bank. All part of the tapestry, but don't get precious when people down their pint and go for a refill as you get into gear.

I'll come off the fence now. I love the weird beards and many are old mates but getting a bit fed up defending perceived stereotypes. I tell members of the human race I play acoustic roots so they don't piss themselves laughing because folk seems to infer musical bigotry by sad old buggers in fair isle sweaters, sandals and anger at anything not left wing clap teap.

There, said it.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 03:52 AM

A lot of attitudes seem to depend upon whether you want your traditional songs to be museum pieces or part of a living tradition

This is a Purist myth. The Folk Revival has nothing to do with a 'living tradition' - on the contrary. Perhaps the definition of a Purist is, therefore, one who believes that by singing these old songs (and ones fashioned in their likeness) they are continuing a living tradition rather than indulging in a minority hobbyist past-time; one who believes that it is somehow significant, and even superior to 'Rap Music'? To them I say, by all means enjoy your model railway, but don't expect the rail networks to be supplied by Horby 00 any time soon.

Maybe I should qualify that statement to add that I am one such hobbyist and like nothing better than gathering with a few like-minded souls for a good old roll & blow in the filthy back-room of a public house untouched by the ravages of commercialism, but as we've seen, once you begin to look into the songs and the tradition thereof, you realise that Purism has no place. Well I might balk at having to endure anything other that 100% Pure Traditional English Folk Song (or immitations thereof) when I go for a night out at my local Folk Seance, but that doesn't make me Purist. One is reminded of a slogan on those awful Folk T-shirts which rings true for me: What happens in the Folk Club, stays in the Folk Club.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 03:35 AM

Shimrod has it exactly right for me.
"A purist is a person who believes that musical boundaries and categories exist..... "
We put labels on tins so we know which one to open, nothing to do with whether the contents are 'good' or not, as long as they are what it says on the tin; that is a different criteria.
The problems arise when the term is used as one of abuse, that's when the crassness and acrimony starts.
"They usually perform traditional songs with a "traditional" voice, and the obligatory "traditional" Martin guitar."
As English traditional music was almost certainly unnaccompanied, no self-respecting 'purist' would dream of using a guitar.
It's that type of uninformed generalisation that gets up peoples' noses; I'm sure 'snigger-snogwriter' or 'talking horse' each gives just as much offence.
It seems to me that the majority of 'anti-purists' are the ones doing the condemning here and castigating those who don't like the same things they do - mind your own ******* business.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Bert
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 01:37 AM

We are probably all purists in one way or another when defending our own beliefs.

A lot of attitudes seem to depend upon whether you want your traditional songs to be museum pieces or part of a living tradition.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 08:33 PM

It seems that the word "purist" has no generally accepted meaning - at least from the above.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 08:27 PM

Without some reference, whatever we sing has no meaning.

Think about that...

Sometimes the reference is a traditional ballad or a traditional tune of a particular singer.

If the reference is to something which just happened, the song is only good for that moment when everyone is riveted on the topic, such as Ex-Congressman Wiener's attachments!

I personally like the term "inspired by" and I generally know who I owe for my own creative efforts.

If you don't have a clue what I'm talking about, you probably don't have a clue about what you're singing.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Folknacious
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 08:18 PM

Suibhne Astray said I've met many self-confessed Purists who didn't come close; then I've met some seriously qualified people whose encyclopedic knowledge of Traditional Music was matched only by their love of it yet were not purist in the slightest. . . . The people who really know about this stuff always take a wider picture.

Yes, that's pretty much the point I was making in my original post. What I think I failed to make clear is that there ought to be another name for those people who get called "Purists" because - as you say - they usually lack the knowledge on which to base a justifiable stand - which is what I think Leadfingers said about his experience with jazz. Expecting to hear folk in a folk club doesn't make you a "purist", just someone who is likely to be regularly disappointed!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 08:04 PM

Who is Ian Mather ? he speaks like some sort of authority.

Anyome who does that isn't.

Dave H

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 06:38 PM

The problem with purists is that they have fixed ideas about what's bad and what's good, and they know it. The problem with people who hate purists is that they have fixed ideas about what's bad and what's good, but they don't know it.

My view is that we all have things that move us, things what we believe in & things we hate, but that it's very rare for them to line up at all neatly. I believe in keeping traditional songs going & maintaining a space where people will come & expect to hear them. I'm powerfully moved by "Waly Waly" and "The Unfortunate Lass", but also by Lal Waterson's "Child among the weeds" and Bellamy's "My Boy Jack". And I hate people singing stuff they've only just written, people singing from a crib sheet and (especially) people singing stuff they've only just written from a crib sheet. I could tell myself that all of this fits together perfectly and it defines what Folk means to me - I could even denounce people who have radically different ideas of what Folk means to them - but really, what would be the point?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 06:00 PM

Well, Shimster, I'm most certainly not a purist and I expect to hear folk in a folk club, but that rarely happens these days, alas. In such clubs, of course, self-confessed Purists thrive; in proper Folk Clubs purism is complete anathema to the beauty of Traditional Folk Song.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 05:50 PM

olddude... "Every performer interprets a song in their own manner. A song that doesn't become your own when you perform it is indeed boring. What makes a musician great instead of just good is the manner in which they interpret the song. That also includes classical or any form of music."

Right on cooldude.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 05:44 PM

A purist is a person who believes that musical boundaries and categories exist. He/she believes that he/she is entitled to hear folk music in a folk club, jazz in a jazz club, classical music at a classical music concert etc., etc.

A non-purist is a person who thinks that all music should sound like his/her favourite forms of pop/rock music.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 05:30 PM

I've met many self-confessed Purists who didn't come close; then I've met some seriously qualified people whose encyclopedic knowledge of Traditional Music was matched only by their love of it yet were not purist in the slightest. My conclusion is that Purism is unqualified fundamentalism founded largely on personal insecurity and a complete lack of understanding of cultural / musical process - let alone Folk. The people who really know about this stuff always take a wider picture.

So - sadly - Purists do exist; fortunately they're few and far between, but (as the saying goes) there's always one... I've had guitar-weilding Purists take me to task for using a Turkish fiddle for accompanying Traditional English Folk Songs; I've had technophobic Purists telling me they were personally offended by my use of an electronic Shruti box in an otherwise acoustic folk club, PA notwithstanding! Best of all was an irate Purist who took exception to me using a looping phrase-synthesizer (a Korg Kaossilator) as part of a ballad performance because he reckoned it was no better than using a backing tape. In all these cases they called themselves Purists; in all cases they were, of course, male*. Someday, they will isolate the Purist Gene. God knows life is too short.

* That said, I recall two highly educated & otherwise dignified lady singers of my acquaintance almost coming to blows over whose version of The Trees They Do Grow High was the most authentic!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: JohnH
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 05:08 PM

@ Ron Cheevers. I don't do guitar!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: JohnH
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:57 PM

Thanks, Lively Lass!
If songs or tunes get fixed by the media performance of "Stars" then the tradition dies! Think about Karaoke! It's not how you see the song or tune but how it was done by someone else. Folk is about individuality!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Jerome Clark
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:48 PM

Richard Bridge's definition of a purist is possibly defensible in some sense, though he is surely aware that judgments on form are made all the time. After all, that's what occasioned this thread. In any event, RB's definition isn't the one that comes to mind when most people encounter the "purist" bugaboo (tossed around prolifically and irritatingly, for example, in Sean Wilentz's Dylan in America; I would have thought that so eminent a historian would know better). It's also possible that when you get down to it, "purist" means not much at all; in discussions of folk-revival approaches, its true purpose may be simply to put somebody else down because his or her tastes in the presentation of the music are not exactly like our own.

In point of fact, of course, purity does not exist in the world. It's a construct like "authenticity." The past continues to influence us, but it is unrecoverable; we can't relive it, so we can only reimagine it and use it for our present purposes. Still, a Mike Seeger was closer to a kind of Platonic ("pure") ideal of folk music than, say, Bellowhead is. I love 'em both, and I am happily confident I am not alone.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Big Ballad Singer
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:46 PM

In my experience (and IMHO), a "purist" is simply someone who has adopted one particular viewpoint as their own to the (unfortunate) exclusion of others.

To be a "purist" is very, very difficult as far as I can tell. It seems as though everyone eventually has an experience in which their uniquely 'correct' or exclusivist position is shaken by the advent of another valid position.

Take religion, any religion, for instance. Claims of exclusivity are necessary, I suppose, on some level if the religion is going to claim to be relevant on its own merits. To go so far as to say that "only the TRUE BELIEVERS in OUR religion, who possess the (spirit, secret, code, handshake, apron, whatever), are able to attain to righteousness..." is not only hard to prove, but it's usually laughably easy to DISprove. All one has to do is locate someone who is kind, loving, or manifests whatever character the "true believers" have, only without being a "believer" themselves.

See? A folk purist, like any other purist, is only making a valid point (again, in my opinion) when they are preserving and cherishing a tradition, not insisting that their tradition is totally pure and sacrosanct and untainted and must be reverenced as such.

Except for MY tradition... mine's the pure one. ;)

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:31 PM

I am by no means clear JC that that is what a purist is. Since the forms of folk music are unlimited surely a purist cares only whether it is or whether it isn't and makes no value judgment based on form.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:21 PM

Everything really exists. The only question is...

When?

Where?

And how many of them? ;-)

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Jerome Clark
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:13 PM

"Purist" is a lazy word to characterize those who like their folk music as traditionally delivered as possible. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with interesting, even radical innovations in the performance of folk music either. Live and let live, and insist only that however it's done, it's done well. There's plenty of room for everybody, and without everybody, folk music would have been pushed so far to the margins that we wouldn't even be having this discussion.