Do purists really exist?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 01:17 PM

but I'm talking about a completely different class of variation

Even supposing every interpretation of any given classical piece was identical, the piece itself remains the consequence of the process and tradition which preceded it. Now, if all interpretations of that piece were the same, how come there are so many different recordings if only to prove that it's impossible to do anything the same way twice? Variation is variation, and tradition is tradition - both are inherant aspects of all music.

Which were the 'Folk Terms'? And why the capitals?

'Unselfconsciously in three or more different musical modes' seems to fit the bill. Capitals because I think such theological / theorectical terminology deserves respect. It only becomes unselfconscious when you apply an academic terminology to the material which would have been completely alien to the original singers. Like Linguists do in speech analysis. It's like saying such-and-such used different nown and verb phrases unselfconsciously because they didn't know what a noun or verb phrase was. Innocently would be more accurate.

More pejorative generalisations.

I'm not being pejorative here, just pointing out that what Folkies call The Tradition consists of so many isolated specimens suspended in formaldehyde far removed from any life they might once have had in the wild. A collected song is not a living entity, it is only an imperfect record of how such-and-such might have sung it on that particular occasion. One one hand we talk of Fluidity, on the other hand that Fluidity is measured by comparing collected non-Fluid versions assumed to be definitive in and of themselves. Anyway, I spend a lot of time immersed in that stuff; I know the differences and variations, just I can't possibly see how it could possibly be any different. Can you?

1970s jazz-rockers reprising their own back catalogues don't hack it either

I'm not talking about reprising back-catalogues, rather a living tradition of musical folklore that was collected at the time. For example - compare the famous recording of The Soft Machine Live at the Paradiso March 1969 with the studio versions on Volume 2 recorded around the same time.

Or this which is just mental & beautiful too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePF056VfC5k (The director preferred the demo; there are days when I do too...)

*

Love to chat. Off-line until tomorrow AM.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 01:30 PM

"but I would like to see on the IRISH singers clubs circuit a relaxation of the strict unaccompanied rule."
A couple of years ago the Frank Harte Weekend organisers announced a "mystery guest" had requested to perform as a tribute to collector Tom Munnely, who had recently died. The guest turned out to be Christy Moore, who had been told that they were happy he should perform, as he always did, accompanied, but he replied that as an acknowledgement to Tom's work of recording traditional singers, he would prefer to sing without accompaniment.
I am not aware of any "rule" saying singing should be unaccompanied, but I see no reason why any club should not adopt any policy they wish regarding who they book or what and how they sing - it is for neither you nor me to imose our tastes on any club - if you don't like it, stay away.
Whether it is to our own personal tastes, chacun à son gout.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 01:56 PM

no Jim, its not that i dont like it, as i said I do like unaccompanied singing, but rules like that it exclude.
I understand why they have that rule, I am aware of at least two clubs that have that rule, I tell you why i think it is amistake.
1. it is exclusive.
2. It can limit the repertoire of songs , not every song works best unaccompanied, some are enhanced by accompaniment.
lastly I am not trying to impose my tastes upon anyone, to the contrary it is the people who run singers clubs and insist that no one should use a musical instrument to accompany, who are imposing their tastes upon others and are excluding those people who may wish to accompany their songs with an instrument.
personally, I think it is complete bollocks that Christy Moore should be allowed to use an instrument but no one else, one rule for Christy another rule for someone else.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 02:45 PM

"some are enhanced by accompaniment"
In your opinion - the British and Irish traditions are basically unaccompanied.
I agree that some songs can be enhanced by accompaniment, but in my experience many that are accompanied suffer by being so performed. If some clubs wish to impose a non-accompaniment rule in order to maintain a 'traditional' policy, surely that is up to them?
Many organised sessions would resist adding bodhrans to their music because the organisers believe it changes the nature of that music; surely it is their perogative to do so, not yours or mine.
"who are imposing their tastes upon others"
No - they are imposing it on their club alone, nobody elses.
"I think it is complete bollocks"
It was a special occasion, Tom had long time connections with the Frank Harte weekend, the organisers were prepared to relax their policy on this occasion proving their practice was not writ in stone - what on earth can be wrong with that?
Personally, while I can see the reasons for running a non-accompaniment club I was moved by both the club organisers willingness to compromise and by Christie's decision.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 03:05 PM

" But I must confess that when I listen to Phil Tanner's Henry Martin alongside Sam Larner's Lofty Tall Ship - so different, yet so clearly the same"
You nailed it, Brian. The purist is the one too whom the sameness is clear.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 04:40 PM

Jim ,they are excluding people, that is the problem.
just because a tradition was once some particular thing, e g unaccompanied, it does not have to remain unchanged, that is similiar to preserving something and not allowing it to alter, a healthy tradition can accept change and evolve.
yes, they are imposing it upon others they are preventing singers, and excluding singers from performing with accompanying instruments.
I have no problem if I am asked to do a night of unaccompanied singing in a singers club, but I dislike seeing good singers who wish to accompany their songs being told they cant use a guitar, as one irishman said to me recently, when told just this, in a singers club"Ihad enough of that sort of thing from the Christian brothers, telling us what we should and should not do"

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: JohnH
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 05:28 PM

Provided that the song rules and tells the accompaniment what to do, rather than the meaning of the words being hidden by a fixed rhythm then do as you will! (But point to a source if you can so that others can do their own interpretation!)

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 05:32 PM

I don't think you will change Jim's mind. It is his privilege to see the tradition in the way that he does.

Doubtless, he has learned much from all his years in folk music - he has his story to tell.

Just be as true to yourself as an artist as you can GSS. performing how we want and what we want, and thinking our thoughts about the nature of folkmusic is our privilege.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 06:36 PM

no Jim, its not that i dont like it, as i said I do like unaccompanied singing, but rules like that it exclude.
I understand why they have that rule, I am aware of at least two clubs that have that rule, I tell you why i think it is amistake.
1. it is exclusive.

So is just having singing. They could have tunes too.

So are the sessions I go to. One is pretty strict on no songs and only allows tunes you'd find in an Irish repertoire.

We could have everything as a free for all and anything goes but I believe the scene (in my case UK) would be weaker and poorer for it.

There is plenty of room for people to go to more general and more specialised events or perhaps do both - you don't have to be one or other. It's not hard to find what suits you best out the events available to you and there is always the possibility of starting something else should nothing fit the bill.

The only way I can see a problem is if people were going around insisting that every event operated in the same way. This is something I've never encountered.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: ripov
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 08:04 PM

I don't know that there are more generalised events. Sessions at any rate tend to be advertised as Irish, English, French, Swedish, whatever. Most are flexible to some extent over nationality of the music, especially with visitors or inexperienced players, who may well have learnt a tune and have no idea of its provenance. Irish sessions do tend to be a little stricter!
Our English session is "English till 11 o'clock" after which anything goes.
And in a pub you can't expect your "audience" to be purists in this respect, they may not even like the music, so it's always good for public relations to play requests if you can (although you might want to leave songs like the (London) derriere till later in the evening!).

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 08:41 PM

I don't know that there are more generalised events.

Norwich at least had a session that was pretty much anything goes, the folk club says of itself it uses a broad definition of folk and the monthly move round the room events I could get to in North Norfolk are happy with tunes as well as songs and again broad in terms of "what is folk".

Our English session is "English till 11 o'clock" after which anything goes.

Half ten finish in the session pubs I get to - part of the music licence conditions.

I used to go to another one, a monthly Irish do. That mostly had Irish tunes until about 11 but broadened out with more songs and other tunes as the night progressed and I think as fingers became less able to get round the notes. That could go on to at least 2.30am - it got too much of a good thing for me. Most of the tune players in that one were the same people as in the "strict" session I mentioned before.

One that I sometimes toy with around Cromer that might be in with half a chance would be beginner friendly (but not a slow everything down) and mostly session tunes (English. Irish, whatever) with the occasional song thrown in rather than take it in turns and mostly songs ones. But I never seem to get round to talking to others and trying to find out if it might work. The closest to that I know of is one in Coltishal which I believe has the approx first hour as a tune session before changing format to songs. I've yet to get to that one though.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 02:17 AM

"It is his privilege to see the tradition in the way that he does."
It is everybody's privelege to see the tradition as they do.
It is not everybody's right to distort and misrepresent the views of others, not without challenge anyway.
Those who do so are guilty of exactly what they accuse others of doing.
"thinking our thoughts about the nature of folkmusic is our privilege"
And sharing those thoughts with others is a pleasure when it is done honestly and sincerely.
"they are excluding people, that is the problem."
Anybody who attempts to present a specific music in a thought-out specific way excludes somebody - club nights, sessions, concerts of jazz, hip-hop - heavy metal - blues - classical.... are all events organised by people who wish to present music in the manner they feel best suits it - they are not juke boxes where you stick your coin in the slot and get whatever music you choose performed in a way you choose - they are entitled to do it their way.
You don't like the way they do it, don't go.
You want something different, go and find it in a club that caters to your tastes.
Last night we had a bunch of wonderful fiddlers playing traditional music in a traditional manner to a capacity audience with standing room only and a knot of people straining to listen from outside the door - half the players were in their teens or early twenties.
The last folk club I went to in London, I sat with around a dozen others, in a freezing cold pub room, with the sound of piped music drifting up from the bar, listening to somebody stumbling her way though Danny Boy from a crib-sheet and still having to be prompted by a member of the audience.
Eeny-meeny-miny-mo.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 04:45 AM

Dick, that is an extraordinary statement. Would you say the same for example of Nic Jones' Sir Patrick Spens and June Tabor's? Or are you using a subtle irony to criticise those who use "purist" as a catch-all (well, catch-many) term of abuse?

However, and despite Brian Peter's well informed and well put illustrations, I wonder if this thread was really about "what is folk?" - rather it is (I infer) about those who say that some things should only be done in certain ways. Now many will call me a purist because I like the word "folk" to have a meaning, I think that precisely because it is "folk" it will and may properly (that is to say, without ceasing to be folk) be done in different ways, in different forms, with different melodies and different texts. It seems to me that it is legitimate for those who wish to hear "traditional British folk song" sung unaccompanied to do so - and even to say that those who wish to join their club must do the same. Equally it is legitimate for those who believe that British folk song is unharmonised to eschew (and to say that their club eschews) harmony - but listening to the Young Tradition and to most shanty crews (not all) who sing harmony (which Hugill said IIRC was only native to West Indian and African crews) I believe that the unison singers are missing out on the sexiest thing in folk song. Again, I hate pianos in folk song - but the driving percussive piano on June Tabor's Hughie Graeme drives it along and makes it the tour-de-force that it is.

It would seem then that those who howl the insult "purist" at others have a wide range of targets - those who believe that the word "folk" has meaning, those who would restrict "folk" to certain styles only, those who alter texts (surely something that must have consciously been done since time immemorial). Any more for any more?

Would someone who criticises others for being "purists" like to tell us what they mean?

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 04:52 AM

Our session is an equitable, jump in when you like but don't over do it; 100% trad tunes, songs, ballads, but when it begins to get too sessiony (a surfeit of diddledee) then the singers become more vociferous and it begins to kick off. Mostly accompanied singing, but for something bit special (sean-nos) then unnacompanied does just fine. Sometimes an unnacompanied singer will find themselves accompanied by the company, but with such grace and subtlety that they never complain; on the contrary, they consider it an honour.

In 35 years I've never been happier with a Folk Club for so long - 3 years and counting...

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 05:07 AM

That's nice if you can achieve it.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 05:14 AM

Nice indeed - to be sure in 35 years it's the closest I've come to an ideal I've been dreaming of all that time. We stumbled across it by chance and 3 years later it's eclipsed all the other clubs we've been involved with of late. It's that perfect mix of equity, quality and consistency - and the pub's unique too. The other week at around 1am the landlord was pulling teeth for one of his dentist-shy regulars using Talisker as a mouthwash... In such wild places doth true folk reside!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 05:18 AM

'Would someone who criticises others for being "purists" like to tell us what they mean?'

No, not really. Why should anyone have to justify how they feel? And supposing you do win all the arguments - what does that prove only that you'd be good at having arguments.

Its a matter of sensuality. How do you know that you're gay, or straight? You know about it the way because of the way you feel. Jim knows about the folkmusic that he likes, because of the way it makes him feel.

Personally I see a room full of fiddlers, and mentally I reach for the machine gun. Slow airs, jigs and reels, frowns of concentration, rhythm sections floundering about for the key at every change of direction, conspiratorial smirks of happiness (ho! ho! - gave the rhythm section the slip that time!) from fiddler to fiddler after every identical tune.

Give me Danny Boy and the cribsheet, every time. Everyone to his goat, as the french say. Something like that anyway!

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 05:40 AM

so different, yet so clearly the same

Just a thought, but it's obvious to spot the differences between two disparate versions of the 'same song', but what about the versions that immediately preceded it? or yet came after? What about the next time the song was sung by the same singer? I've got examples of Davie Stewart doing this, but a more immediate example is the two versions of Green Wood Side sung by Mrs Pearl Brewer on the Max Hunter Archive. The creative process of singing means they're both very different, or is it the random factors of memory? Either way, whilst both versions are complete & wondrous in and of themselves, they are, in another sense, only part of a wider condition of change and adaptation as the songs live (and are lived with) before being passed on.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 06:17 AM

"what about the versions that immediately preceded it? or yet came after? What about the next time the song was sung by the same singer?"

You're right, there, I can think of instances where the same singer sang a song significantly differently from one performance to the next. And, according to accounts of live performances back in the day, Sam Larner seems to have had an almost improvisational approach to the melody of Lofty Tall Ship.

And, going back a few posts...
[BP] Which were the 'Folk Terms'? And why the capitals?
"'Unselfconsciously in three or more different musical modes' seems to fit the bill... It only becomes unselfconscious when you apply an academic terminology to the material which would have been completely alien to the original singers."

My use of 'unselfconsciously' was intended solely to exclude self-conscious modal manipulations of the kind that musicians might like to execute to show how clever they are. That you choose to interpret it through your usual prism of 'folk revival condescension' says more about your agenda than it does about mine.

My terminology would of course have been alien to the original singers (although it serves its purpose here well enough), but from Jim Carroll's account of Walter Pardon working out song melodies on his melodeon it's clear that here was one traditional singer with a good ear for the modes.

"I know the differences and variations, just I can't possibly see how it could possibly be any different. Can you?"

Differences and variations are exactly what I'd expect, given an understanding of 'folk process'. I'm still surprised by the beauty and drama of the results, though. Like Marina Russell's Well Met, Well Met - stunning.

"Folkies call The Tradition consists of so many isolated specimens suspended in formaldehyde"

Here we go again, the old cliche about 'formaldehyde'. Makes a change from 'aspic' I suppose...

"A collected song is not a living entity, it is only an imperfect record of how such-and-such might have sung it on that particular occasion. One one hand we talk of Fluidity, on the other hand that Fluidity is measured by comparing collected non-Fluid versions assumed to be definitive in and of themselves."

Snapshots is exactly what they are. No-one said otherwise. No-one said that each version is definitve; quite the opposite: there is no definitive version. That's the whole point.

Liked the Magma clip. I still have that soundtrack here somewhere.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 06:18 AM

Ripov: I don't know that there are more generalised events. Sessions at any rate tend to be advertised as Irish, English, French, Swedish, whatever.

Huh?

I go to several sessions/ singarounds and NONE of them are advertised as either prescriptive or proscriptive.

The most "tuney" one that I've recently started to go to is more tunes than songs, but songs are still sung, and the repertoire, although encompassing a lot of traditional music (from all over the place....any part of the UK, the USA, various "mainland" European countries, etc) is also open to newer stuff.

At the club I went to last night (actually one of the more "traddy" venues I go to) the MC was careful to mix up unaccompanied and accompanied floor singers and the odd tune, while the main guest artists did songs and tunes from Scotland, Ireland, England, USA and Italy on an array of instruments which included some very traditional ones along with the ubiquitous guitar.

I think 3 hours listening to *only* unaccompanied ballads, or to *only* "tunes from the Irish repertoire" would turn a lot more people off than it would attract.

The *lack* of proscription in this neck of the woods might help to explain why my Monday nights are so difficult, with a choice of at least 3 and sometimes FIVE different venues to attend within 30 minutes of my home, according to which fortnightly ones are "in phase" with the weeklies on any particular week. And also why I have a choice of 3 venues on some Thursdays, and 3 venues on some Sundays.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 08:01 AM

I agree with most of that, if not all, but 'folmaldehyde' is better than aspic in this context - the latter is culinary, the former is scientific! I'm not being disparaging here, BTW (Folk is, after all, my Mother) just aware of the inexactitudes of Folk as an academic displine; Folklore likewise. Did I read once that Percy Grainger had his doubts about modes? Or was that someone else? Can't even remember where I read it now...

Liked the Magma clip. I still have that soundtrack here somewhere.

In my youth I was a great fan of medieval films - Polanski's Macbeth, the Seventh Seal, Monty Python and the Holy Grail et al - but all we ever had of Tristan et Iseult was the tantalising shot on the back cover of the soundtrack album around which to imagine what an amazing film it just had to be. With a soundtrack like that (Vander's finest work?) how could it be anything but? Then YouTube comes along and you get the truth of it! I think they blew the budget on the helmets... then used a cut up studio demo of Wurdah Itah as the soundtrack. I had the demo session once in its glorious lo-fi totality but I can't find it right now. It has echoes in Theusz Hamtaahk - my favourite version of which was broadcast by the BBC in 1974; towards the end (after an unrelenting 30 minute onslaught) is a sublime sequence in which you can hear Vander quoting Minnie Riperton's iconic Loving You clear as day... However, the session was recorded in March 1974; Ripperton's Perfect Angel album wasn't released until the June - so, something going on there, not sure what: blame it on the Zeitgeist, especially as the following year Vander would begin toying with the disco / soul elements that came to - er - define their late 70s / 80s work.

Subject: RE: Do purists really exist?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 09:18 AM

"I think they blew the budget on the helmets..."

Indeed... aren't they impressive!

Briefly, since we're way off topic: Magma at Oxford Poly in 1975 stands out in my memory as possibly the most intense rock gig I've ever witnessed. Scary!

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Phil Edwards
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 07:36 AM

Stirling town, even. Folk process innit.

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: 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...