 sj |
||
|
||
Do purists really exist?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 10 Jul 11 - 08:07 AM You substitute an invented term "old songs and ballads" for the correct one "folk song". There is no correct here, only to the fundamentalist. Hmmm - fundament / mentalist seems to as good a term for Anally Retentive as any, especially in this context don't you think? That adds nothing and loses much since it loses the correlation between folk song and folk music on the one hand and folk arts and folklore generically on the other. Have you read Trubshaw's Discovering Folklore? If not, recommend you do. It only comes unstuck (ironically) when discussing Folk Music, where he gets more hung up on content than context. Folk Arts is a deplorable term anyway - reactionary post-modernism at its worst, and quite patronising too. We had a lovely thread about it a while ago. Folklore, again, is more about outsider observation, interpretation and misunderstanding of feral events by way of containing them in academic terms and thereby reconstructing them in that image. It isseldom about what it means to the people who it, in which case there'd be nothing to write, or else too much, and the whole notion of Folklore would evaporate, as I believe it should. Folklore is either Everything Everywhere, or it is Nothing Nowhere. As a singer of Old Songs and a teller of Old Stories and lover of Old Rites and Riots, I go with the later every time! Schmaltzy Matilda (I like the coinage) is a fine song in its own way No it isn't, it's a fecking dreadful piece of mawkish tripe that only comes in useful for parody as in Ron Baxter's masterful Morecambe. and there's nothing inherently evil in singing it - and if your own arguments are right then it is a traditional song. Reductio ad absurdum. I never said it wasn't a Traditional Song - just not an Old One; it's certainly a New Testament Folk Song, sung to the point of laboured idiomatic cliche (as you keep saying Folk is never about quality or musical preference) but I do believe its inherent evil lies in the thuggish assumption that a random smattering of listeners have to weep along with mawkish sentiments. Thing is, being a Revival in the religious sense, in my experience, they generally do. * PS - Your distortion of the impact of the application of a term to the Elliots is likewise contumelious. Make no mistake, I have every respect for The Elliots, but not for the system by which they were selected and exalted. I despise the implication of Folk Purity and co-opting of select individuals and familes simply to prove a point. It's rather like Disney's cameramen driving lemmings over a cliff to substantiate a myth. In the context of their Culture and Community the Elliots remain remarkable, but only one tiny small piece of a much bigger jigsaw that is the rich and wondrous culture & musical traditions of the Durham & Northumbrian Coalfield which was my natural born home - a culture that must include everything from Tommy Armstrong to The New Blockaders. I have no respect for your arguments, or your irrelevancies, Thinking about this again, I have every respect for yours. * Suibhne, your argument that all music is traditional, whilst I can understand it, is not helpful to this discussion. I don't want to helpful, Howard - I'm just pointing out to the anchorites of the Folk World that there are other musics out there, each of them with equally valid claims to being Traditional. You know full well what I mean by "traditional" in this context. I know what Folkies mean by it - I also believe they are wrong and quite frequently miss the beauties of the songs they love owing to both a lack of understanding of cultural process and a willingness to believe othodox writ. Besides, you are the one who has consistently berated academics and collectors for their lack of understanding. Yes, but look at the reasons why. This completely disregards that the purpose of folk clubs is to present a particular type of music, No it doesn't - and chance would be a bloody fine thing if that was the case. As I keep saying, I only go to Folk Clubs to play and hear a particular type of music, but the reality is seldom so straightforward. In fact, it was only coming to Lancashire and hearing all the other myriad approximations of musical styles that were performed in the name of Folk over here (as well as the geral disinterest in Old Songs and Ballads) that made me realise I had to loosen up or else go insane. In the end, I chose the latter option, especially when we found what is now our Perfect Folk Club in the perfect pub. However in the wider context of Human Society there is more to be considered by the Folklorist Ethnographer than the interests of a minority of enthusiastic hobbyists - such as myself and every other Folkie great and small. Off out to enjoy the day now, back later, or tomorrow, depending how we get on. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Jul 11 - 09:31 AM Oh, there goes "find the lady" again. You brought the issue of "what is folk" in in place of "what is a purist". Now you want to talk about "what is old". In this context, because the discussion had diverted to the folkish essence in purism the CORRECT term is "folk song": otherwise you are changing horses in midstream. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: MGM·Lion Date: 10 Jul 11 - 10:46 AM As you know, I don't think the DIY argument ['it's better than you could do anyway'] holds any water: Dr Johnson on tables applies [google it if you don't know it]. But Sean, I believe you stake some claims to be an original maker. So let me know when you have come up with anything ·00001% as god as "The Band Played...'; and, yowzer, will I ever be impressed. Regards ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 10 Jul 11 - 11:28 AM Have you all nae heard of Archie Plum? Who did muckle talking through his bum.... |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: The Sandman Date: 10 Jul 11 - 12:30 PM I was interested to see that the traditional music event which has been occupying my time lately, The Willie Clancy Summer School (a 39 year-old, week-long annual feast of music classes, song workshops, lectures, exhibitions, recitals and jam-packed pub sessions, topped off with a concert of Irelands finest traditional singers and musicians), made page two of The Irish Times yesterday while the Oxegen knees-up at Puncherstown only made page seven - where did we go wrong, I wonder. excellent news jim |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Continuity Jones Date: 10 Jul 11 - 04:14 PM Folk is like tomatoes. Tomatoes struggle to grow in the wild in most countries, but do ok if they're propagated and covered and watered and tendered. They're quite good fun to do, but not real wild tomatoes. Folk music today is like that. It's a long way from the real wild tomato that people claim it once was and some pretend it still is. Some people like to propagate and protect and water and tender and pretend they're wild tomatoes and others like to buy tins of Heinz Tomato Soup. I hope that has made it clear. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Jul 11 - 04:29 PM "and some pretend it still is. " Perhaps you - or somebody would like to explain exactly what being "a purist" is and what we should be doing to become "impure" in order to satisfy those who obviously disapprove of us doing what we do - no luck so far, but here's hoping. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: BTNG Date: 10 Jul 11 - 04:30 PM Do purists really exist? like legends, only in their own minds |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 10 Jul 11 - 04:44 PM But Sean, I believe you stake some claims to be an original maker. Not really - at least not songs anyway; I sing Old Traddy Folk Songs and that's about it, though I did make a song called Porcupine in October Sycamore which can listen to (and read about) HERE, though I doubt it'll appeal to anyone on Mudcat. My main objection to The Band Played WM is the bullying sentiment of the thing and the assumption that we all must agree with those sentiments. I like stories without an agenda, or just a bunch of images, or both. This is one of my reasons for liking the Old Songs, which usually I'm quite happy to call Traditional Folk Songs / Ballads out of deference to convention but not credo. My reasons for loving these songs is as much aesthetic as it is social, and consequently I favour those Folk Clubs where they dominate to the point of exclusivity. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Jul 11 - 05:14 PM Bullying? It tells a story from a point of view (as do many of the Irish Republican songs that I hate). What's your problem? |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Phil Edwards Date: 10 Jul 11 - 05:16 PM it was only coming to Lancashire and hearing all the other myriad approximations of musical styles that were performed in the name of Folk over here (as well as the geral disinterest in Old Songs and Ballads) that made me realise I had to loosen up or else go insane. In the end, I chose the latter option Hmmm... |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 10 Jul 11 - 06:34 PM It doesn't tell a story so much as labour a point. There is a world of difference. POW tells a story; whereas TBPWM negates the narrative completely by miring it in meaning. I'm not a great fan of political songwriting - I love Robert Wyatt, but when he gets political I switch off. Please note though, my dislike of TBPWM is purely personal and has little bearing on this present Sunday sub-discussion much less the thread as a whole. Now, what were we talking about again? |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: GUEST,Brian Date: 11 Jul 11 - 01:22 AM My smug purist days came to an end one evening at the Singers' Club in London in the 70s - run by Ewan and Peggy, and pretty damn hardline on the subject of traditional music and sing-what-you-know - when Loudon Wainright III sang 'Dead Skunk In the Middle Of the Road' and got an ovation and two encores... |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Jul 11 - 02:25 AM "a fecking dreadful piece of mawkish tripe" ... "I'm not a great fan of political songwriting " Sweeney on TBPWM. ,,,, Trouble is, Sean, you will undermine your case by gross hyperbolic overstatement, then climbing down in a shake of a lamb's tail when challenged ~~ see above. Sabotages all the possible effect of your verbosity. Then =="Please note though, my dislike of TBPWM is purely personal and has little bearing on this present Sunday sub-discussion much less the thread as a whole. Now, what were we talking about again? "== you climb down further by declaring what you have said irrelevant anyhow and trying to change the subject. It won't do, you know. I mean, dash it, it just won't do! Regards ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Jul 11 - 03:14 AM "and pretty damn hardline......" Such stuff as dreams are made on!! As a long time supporter and organiser, occasional resident and regular visitor to the Singers Club from the late 60s to Ewan's death in 1989, certainly hardly ever missing a club night in the 70s, this is the first time I have heard that Loudon Wainright ever went near the Singers Club - Dylan maybe, but that was earlier. MacColl and Seeger individually wrote more songs than anybody else in the revival. They regularly appealed for new songs at the club and issued those they were given in 20 editions of Singers Club sponsored 'New City Songster', edited by Peggy, between 1969 and 1984. After Ewan's death Peggy published two selections of songs they had written, one of around 200 of Ewans and another 150 of her own. Along with accompaniment classes and seminars, they ran regular songwriting classes. If they were such dyed-in-the-wool traditionalists, they had an extremely weird way of going about it, doncha think? I can't think of one individual singer, club or organisation that went to anything like the trouble to promote the making of new songs; can you? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Jul 11 - 03:16 AM Like No Man's Land, TBPWM is a brilliantly written song in the style of the tradition. My objection to both is that they are written as if putting words into the mouths of those about whom they are written. They re-write history from a perspective that barely existed at the time of the events. You can argue that individuals may have held such views, but not that they were at all representative. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Jul 11 - 03:24 AM Keith: I think you have misrepresented the perspective of Band Played... "that barely existed at the time of the events". The song is surely retrospective, not viewed from from POV of when the events occurred. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Jul 11 - 03:43 AM It's story is told in first person Michael. Your challenge could fairly be made aginst my mention of No Man's Land. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Jul 11 - 03:46 AM Although it does make the narrator a surviving veteran. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Jul 11 - 03:52 AM It's story is told in first person Michael.=== Yes; beginning with an old man saying 'when I was a young man', and relating his present perspective on the long-past events. Nothing to do with the perspective people had at the time of the events: tho I can't see they would have had more than one probable 'perspective' on losing their legs & wishing they had died instead, at that. I am afraid I just cannot grasp your point here at all. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: theleveller Date: 11 Jul 11 - 03:52 AM Just got back from a phenomenal weekend of folk, roots and acoustic at Moonbeams Wold Top Folk Festival high up in the Yorkshire Wolds. Here performers across a wide age spectrum played to a lively audience with a similar age profile. "Pure" folk it may not have been but it was pure enjoyment. Much of the audience and many of the performers were local and the "sense of place" was brilliant (even the beer was brewed on the premises). This was certainly not folk that needed an iron lung to keep it alive as you can see if you have a listen to these 4 amazing teenagers: 4 Square |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Jul 11 - 04:06 AM It was not much of a point M. Sorry. There are a number of songs about WW1 that are written from a modern perspective, that suggest the soldiery lacked any understanding of what they were fighting for and that there was no cause anyway. I do regard EBs songs as falling into that category, is all I was trying to say. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 11 Jul 11 - 04:16 AM I agree with Jim.(you may frame this Jim). Ewan and peggy were all right. They were the first people to publish one of my songs. Although they were a bit surprised to find out that I wasn't black, because I'd written a calypso using the patois of the kids i used to teach in Brum. If they were purists - I'd settle for being a purist. Doubtless they had limitations - but that goes with being human. I can't really see where this thread is going, except as a vehicle for me writing silly poems - which i do anyway. I'm not sure what the detractors of the Eric bogle song are saying - matilda was in the same edition of NCS as my song (Ithink) - either that or the Barrie Robberts/Bill caddick Songsmith magazine. The only point of view it expresses is that people were shocked and saddened by young men being killed and maimed in great numbers in WW1. That point of view didn't exist at the time - we all just swelled with pride at the heroic sacrifice - i don't think so Keith. The sense of waste and the misery of bereavement - I think they were around at the time. In fact i can testify from accounts of my own family members that they were. Have you all nae heard of Archie Plum? Who did muckle talking through his bum.... I had trouble finishing that one. I did think:- Och! the voice had a wondrous Hieland lilt an' was muckle strange, comin' frae his kilt... (Ewan could do Scotch accents.) |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Jul 11 - 04:41 AM Not denying the tragedy of suffering and loss Al, and don't want to drift an important thread. I do deny that there was a common sense of lack of purpose, apart from the intellectual elite of the war poets. There are many collections of letters published. I found this collection in seconds. An Aussie Anzac in Gallipoli. http://www.smythe.id.au/letters/15_33.htm |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Spleen Cringe Date: 11 Jul 11 - 04:41 AM I know this is further deviation from the thread, but... I'd always assumed EB was pretty conversant with the works of those WW1 poets who tried to capture the horrors of what they were experiencing when he wrote those songs - and that his perspective was influenced by theirs. So they could be seen as a reframing of one particular set of contemporary accounts with the added dimension of 50 years or so worth of hindsight (including Australia's involvement in Vietnam). I guess they'd pass muster as contemporary songs that nod in the direction of old folk songs of the English speaking world or whatever you want to call 'em. And I've always thought that Aussies were particularly good at a certain type of mawkishness. Meanwhile, I doubt purists exist, partly because virtually anyone can find someone else to apply the label to in order to distance themselves from it. From the perspective of the outside world, I'd hazard a guess that even the most 'impure' folkie would seem pretty, um, quaint. And I reckon that even the most rigorous folkie also enjoys some other stuff too - the differences are purely about cataloguing rather than about the music itself, and I would suggest that it is up to each individual what they catalogue where, and indeed even whether to bother to catalogue. After all, folk has been a disputed term - amongst those to whom disputing it matters - for over fifty years. Then again, I'm not a music academic and I catalogue pretty randomly. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 11 Jul 11 - 04:50 AM On the Bogle song drift. Keith also seems to opt to ignore this verse in TBPWM: And now every April I sit on my porch This is hardly suggesting the narrators view was the prevailing view of his comrades - even years after the event. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Jul 11 - 05:02 AM Not ignoring it Jon, but fair comment. Did you ever hear a modern song of WW1 that did take "the prevailing view of his comrades" ? |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 11 Jul 11 - 05:05 AM Like No Man's Land, TBPWM is a brilliantly written song in the style of the tradition. It's written in some style anyway, but if you mean The Tradition as used by FolkTrad types to designate those Collected Canonical Songs we call Folk Song, then I might question that on any number of structural points. But the rest of your post does that perfectly so I'm not going to do it. As well as putting words in mouths, it puts thoughts in heads or else preaches to the converted. I only brought it into the discussion as I first it sung by June Tabor in the filthy back-room of a pub somewhere in the Northumbrian coal-field when there was still a working colliery (with steam trains) nearby. She sang it alongside The Plains of Waterloo, if not in the same breath, then in the same set. It's certainly on the same album (I still have a copy of the record as bought from her that night). So - Plains of Waterloo on one hand - The Band Played Waltzing Matilda on the other. I was just a kid - 14/15 or so - but my dislike of the latter song was instant and enduring; 35 years on I detest it still, whereas even the John Renbourn Group version of Plains of Waterloo (with its OTT programmatic arrangement of fifes, drums &c.) still manages to move me. Better still, Shirley Collins; better still, June Tabor herself; but best of all was the nameless (to me) (male) floor-singer who wasted me with it at The Bay Hotel Folk Club in Cullercoats around 1985 or so. Thing is, I know my dislike of TBPWM marks me as a Purist; even in the first instance my reaction was one of what's the fecking point? Much less - so what?. Especially as POW was so strong regarding the subjective human aspect of war, without turning that into some unweildy political point about its wrongness. War is never a matter of absolute wrongness, it is always matter grim necessity and individual opinion of All Shades, even unto the Bullying righteous opinions of white-poppy wearing pacifists for whom TBPWM is gospel. Also when I was 14/15 I used to have a friend - an old man in a wheelchair who'd lost both his legs and half of his face at the Dunkirk Evacuation some 35 years earlier. We used to sit in the sun in a local graveyard and smoke and talk; me the slovenly hippy Gong-freak with a penchant for local history & folklore, and he the living hero who'd been blown to bits when he was 15 (having lied about his age in his eagerness to enlist) in a war against an entrenched evil that had ended a mere 16 years before I was born. I cannot begin to comprehend that sort of sacrifice, but I know that I could not have live the sort of life that I have done all these years without it. To him and millions of others, I owed my very freedom; and Dear God he was not bitter, but proud. Working it out now I realise that if he'd been 15 at Dunkirk, he was only 50 when I knew him - the same age (almost!) that I am now. One thing I will not do is write a fecking song about it. Life is life. It goes on. My love of The Old Songs (a term used by many Traditional Singers I believe, Richard - one certainly used by Bob Copper in his poem of that name : see Here if for some reason that one has somehow passed you by. Imagine if using THE CORRECT term it was The Folk Songs - just would have the same punch, would it?) is largely one of poetic immediacy - no agendas, similies, wonky poetic metaphors unless by way of circumlocution (Seeds of Love is pure hard-core filth in this respect) and pure textual jouissance. Kipling caught this; & others have too. To me its high art, and in any case the first thing I want to do when told by a righteous idealogue like Billy Bragg not to buy The Sun, is to go out and buy The Sun. That's not why I listen to music, nor is it part of my political world view (best summed up in Kipling's poem A Pilgrim's Way) much less my musical one (which, right now, enjoys those three lost early Krafwerk albums on a par with Miles Davis early 70s electric period and the chamber music of Henry Purcell) in which Folk Music was only ever a small part, which is maybe the key here. What is the dominant music in your life? What proportion of your musical life is given over to Folk? I'd say it's never been more than 20%, and these days it's settled to around 10%, which is where I reckon it belongs. Even in its Innocence, folk was only ever a small part of a much bigger cultural reality without which I'd say it's pretty meaningless. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 11 Jul 11 - 05:21 AM This is hardly suggesting the narrators view was the prevailing view of his comrades - even years after the event. The song is not aimed at comrades, rather the captive folk audience who find such sentiments deeply moving. Personally I find manipulative, and cynical. A cheap trick if ever there was one. Same with the other one about Willie McBride. Whenever such songs are sung, I head for the bar and hope there's no one in earshot of the singer who's ever lost any one in wars old and new. It happened once in my experience, during the Falklands, when a solfier's wife out with her roudy mates took exception to the anti-war righteousness of the folkies - and rightly so. Was life ever so simple? |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 11 Jul 11 - 05:28 AM PS - There are lots of poignant War songs that aren't Traditional as such: Bellamy's setting of My Boy Jack is potent; as is Hamish Henderson's Fairwell to Sicily. Both of which I sing. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: glueman Date: 11 Jul 11 - 06:21 AM Re. political songs, I've never been a fan either. A good song can rarely serve two masters and the cause of art and polemics generally means quality takes a nosedive. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: theleveller Date: 11 Jul 11 - 06:39 AM I'd totally disagree with you there, Glueman. The Oysterband's performance at Moonbeams Festival on Friday had some excellent political songs that were greatly appreciated. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that political songs are the corner stone of contemporary folk music. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: glueman Date: 11 Jul 11 - 06:40 AM "I was constantly reminded of the story told about that lovable wit Rev. Sydney Smith, who was strolling along a narrow street around 1800 with a colleague when they heard two women leaning out of their opposite windows and screaming insults at each other. 'These two ladies will never agree,' Smith commented, as the debate raged over his head, 'for they are arguing from different premises'." Stolen from the excellent site in the link: Skeptical Investigations |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 11 Jul 11 - 07:34 AM I think the premesis joke was one of Flann O' Brien's; if it occurs to me I'll post a reference, but as I recall it's in The Best of Myles. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that political songs are the corner stone of contemporary folk music. I think you're right there, theleveller - which is maybe why I don't get along with it, much less the conservative left-wing religiosity it implies. Folk religiosity is one thing; political reliosity is another. Even an innocuous song about a Certain Pigeon (also in the Tabor Songbook) becomes a vehicle for leaden political sentiment. I can't think of many Contemporary Folk Songs that don't do this, apart from the Funny Ones which maybe I despise even more, although I admit Ron Baxter's parody of TBPWM is a thing of true genius. That said, I also admit that, as far as Folk Parodies go, it is, alas, the exception that proves a very prevalent rule. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: theleveller Date: 11 Jul 11 - 07:37 AM So are you saying that your political opinions overide your critical faculties? "the cause of art and polemics generally means quality takes a nosedive" I think Picasso's Guernica might give the lie to that. Or are you saying that your statement only applies to songs? |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 11 Jul 11 - 07:58 AM So are you saying that your political opinions overide your critical faculties? Speaking for myself, I see music as being polically humanist by default; if it is co-opted in a right-wing or left-wing cause it loses all meaning. I go into Folk Clubs where I hear as many Anti-War and Poor Working Man songs as I do opinions railing against Political Correctness; even songs that are yet more subtle in their racism (A Mon Like Thee) or Homophobia. It's an uneasy curdling mix for sure, and I would counsel strongly against going there, which is why I seldom do. Kipling is always a minefield in this respect; for example I have two dear friends who see no harm in singing The Ladies, which is something would I never do. Likewise - I know many who sing The Land as a left-wing song, which most obviously it isn't, but that just goes to show how twisted these things can get by way of interpretation or glib assertion. I might argue that racism knows no politics, homophobia likewise, or warn of the nationalistic dangers of Folk in any case, or just remember poor Peter Bellamy, who dared be outspoken in such matters and suffered the consequences. And can Guernica really be said to be political in that sense? As a monument to those killed under the barbarity of a far greater evil, I think, perhaps not. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: glueman Date: 11 Jul 11 - 08:26 AM I was thinking particularly about lyrical polemics Leveller. I'm not suggesting overtly political songs can't be great art, just that they so rarely are. Religious songs can fall prey to the same impulse of wanting to hammer home a message but using lyrics as a way of sugaring the pill, which is why I prefer, say, 397 from the Denson Book "There is a fountain filled with blood, drawn from Immanuel's veins: And sinners plunged beneath that flood, Lose all their guilty stains" to "Lord of the Dance". If there's to be a pill I prefer it bitter than hidden in sugary analogies. Modern political songs tend to be too keen on allusion for my simple tastes. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: theleveller Date: 11 Jul 11 - 08:39 AM I really can't see how you can dissociate folk music and politics any more that you could history and politics. Politics, in its widest sense, is an integral part of life. For instance, in 'Liberty Against the Law', Christopher Hill devotes an entire chapter to why the Robin Hood ballads gained such popularity amongst the disenfranchised, and often dispossessed in the mid-1700s, during the time of The Enclosures. By "widest sense" BTW, I mean wider than the narrow and polarised boundaries of party poltics. And yes, Glueman, there are as many bad political songs as there are good ones and the allusions must be readily understandable now and, hopefully, in the future. A good tune doesn't go amiss, either! |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 11 Jul 11 - 10:01 AM Okay then - all human interaction is political be default. As a kid I was brought to believe Christ was the first Communist, then had to cope with the parable of the shekels as being the essence of Capitalism. In the end it's all a matter scale and individual freedom, which is why the older I get I return more and more to my Anarchist roots. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: theleveller Date: 11 Jul 11 - 11:09 AM Oh bugger - mow you've gone and brought religion into it as well. Time to reach for the tin hat :) |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: glueman Date: 11 Jul 11 - 11:10 AM Anarchy is a form of conservatism of course. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: The Sandman Date: 11 Jul 11 - 01:14 PM but you dont understand that anarchism was the final goal of communism, the ideal was that the state would eventually whither away, when people were well educated enough to undertstand that the state was no longer needed, that all peoples actions interacted with others so if everyone thought about other people and the consequences of their actions the state was no longer needed. in fact anarchy is not just mayhem, as capitalists and thatcherites would leave us to believe, it is the understanding of everyones position in a community, in relation to everyone else it is about consideration for others |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 11 Jul 11 - 01:38 PM Exactly so, GSS - both Anarchy and Atheism remain the high ideals of an eventual utopia; no Gods, no Laws, just mutual respect across the board according to prophesies of Bakunin. Now, I wonder where such an idyll of tolerance and inclusity would leave our beloved Folk Music with its holy writs, sacred cows, holy families, gangs of fours, volkish fantasies, cringing deferences, immovable feasts, entrenched hierarchies, absolute correctness and summary excommunications? Ever heard the Dick Gaughan / Ken Hyder piece News From Nowhere? No that's so political it trascends my usual objections - for one thing it's an instrumental free improvisation, and the underlying ideology of both perps is quite faultless. In this context it's worth having a look at what Dick Gaughan had to say about Peter Bellamy. Read it HERE. Folk Lefties take note.... |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: glueman Date: 11 Jul 11 - 01:54 PM But adherents of anarchism are deeply conservative, show me a Crass T-shirt and I'll show you a well brought up public servant in mufti. Anarchy wants to impose its views like all the rest, I say believe what the hell you like, gods, pixies, purism, neo-purism, each to his own in the true sense of individualism before the word was sold off by the pound in Mrs Thatcher's market economy. Anarchy is just another ideology with a capital letter and a big idea. Gimme small ideas every time. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Banjiman Date: 11 Jul 11 - 02:25 PM Now..... where were those purists again? |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Jul 11 - 03:24 PM Dunno Haven't found one yet Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 11 Jul 11 - 03:39 PM I'm presently in the process of persuading our local council to start a Folklore Collection service. So far so good; we've agreed on the broad concepts, and even begasn head-hunting the basic workforce. All we need to now is decide on the colour of the bins. In Tyneside you get Folklore Collection 'igloos' in most car-parks, but we feel being more proactive in the collection process and actually going out into the community will result in both a higher yield and a higher quality of Pure Grade Lore collected. The basic idea is once we've collected enough high grade Pure Folklore, then we'll enter into negotiations with less Lore-rich areas of England to arrange redistribution on a barter basis. Expect to see our lorries on the motorways soon. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Jul 11 - 04:29 PM I assume "jouaissance" is used as in the French original. Gosh how exciting. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: Phil Edwards Date: 11 Jul 11 - 05:00 PM I think the premesis joke was one of Flann O' Brien's It's in At Swim-Two-Birds. The main character spends a lot of time having arguments in bars, and comes up with what he thinks is a killer witticism/put-down - "Your argument is unsound, as it is based on licensed premises". He tries to use it two or three different times, but keeps getting cut off or ignored. |
|
Subject: RE: Do purists really exist? From: John P Date: 11 Jul 11 - 05:26 PM . . . our beloved Folk Music with its holy writs, sacred cows, holy families, gangs of fours, volkish fantasies, cringing deferences, immovable feasts, entrenched hierarchies, absolute correctness and summary excommunications . . . Wow, this would be worrisome if it was a description of the folk music and dance communities that I'm a part of. Since it's not, it just sounds like an over-active imagination. To sum up me and almost every traditional folk musician I know: - Not a purist. - Not trying to revive anything. - Don't care what other people play or listen to. - History and folklore are interesting, but don't have much to do with playing music. - The only important thing about a performance is that it sound good. - The 1954 definition is good for discussions, not for music-making. - Admire skill, but not much into the "stars" of the folk scene. - We pretty much all like each other. |
| Share Thread: |