Folk Music professional versus amateur

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: Howard Jones
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 03:02 PM

"it's all a question of who sets the standards, though, and what the criteria of achievement are."

The standards are set by the audience, which in the folk world tends to include a high proportion of people who are singers or musicians themselves who can judge from a base of knowledge. I suspect that for most people who are not professionals, the main criteria of achievement would be recognition and acceptance by ones peers - fellow musicians.

For the professional who's trying to earn a living, the only important measure of achievement is financial. I don't believe there's anything wrong with that - recognition doesn't pay the bills.

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: John P
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 04:40 PM

I don't consider a paid performance any different from an unpaid one - in any way. I try and give my very best whether there's money involved or not, and most of my musical buddies are just the same. This is why I'm sceptical about the 'divide' between professional and amateur.

I'm not talking about musical differences. I should hope that everyone plays their best all the time. I do, however, think there is a difference between a jam session and a stage performance. For a jam session, you are pleasing yourself and your friends. For a performance, you are supposed to be pleasing an audience. Some of the differences are playing well-arranged music, interacting with the audience in some way, being capable at dealing with a PA system, starting and stopping on time, and conducting your business with integrity. None of that is important in a session or a sing-around.

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: Will Fly
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 05:09 PM

None of that is important in a session or a sing-around.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. In a folk club setting, whether I go along to do an unpaid floor spot or go as a paid headline act, the performance criteria are the same. And being 'professional' in an unpaid capacity - wherever you might be - is one form of entrée into paying gigs. You're seen at singarounds, and I've been given gigs from being at a pub session.

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: Greg B
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 07:20 PM

One of the best ways to ruin the pleasure you get out of something is to start getting paid to do it. Or so I found.

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: John P
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 07:28 PM

One of the best ways to ruin the pleasure you get out of something is to start getting paid to do it. Or so I found.

Well, I like getting paid, but it is far from the most important aspect of playing music. Some years ago I was playing three or four gigs a week and was poised to quit my day job. I decided not to do so after watching my friends play music they didn't really like and take any crappy $25 gig in order to put food on the table. As my partner said, "Why should we give up jobs we like in order to be poverty-stricken playing music we don't like?" It means playing less music than I like less well than I like, but I also get to choose my gigs and not compromise my artistic sensibilities. And I have health insurance and can afford to take the cat to the vet when necessary.

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: michaelr
Date: 30 Nov 11 - 07:44 PM

I've been a semi-professional for over 20 years. I have a day job which pays my bills, and my band plays two to four gigs a month which don't pay much at all (most venues here in California give you some food and/or drink; other than that you play for tips).

Playing music is something I love to do, and I'm convinced it is what's keeping me sane. Long ago I came to the conclusion that if I were to do it for a living, it would become a job and thereby cease being fun. Therefore, I'm in it for a good time, have never given a toss about the "current market", and count myself lucky to have been able to keep my band going for this long and please a number of punters in the process.

Best of both worlds, really. And if things go to shit even more than they have (read: if I lose my job), I'll be able to make some coin playing, busking, or teaching.

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 02:06 AM

pfr: OK let's take "generally accepted" highest standards, and pick up on MtheGMs example of the Copper family. Back a long time ago- say a hundred and thirty years- people used to go to a pub in Rottingdean for their Saturday night entertainment, a good old singsong. They didn't have the option of the radio, the telly or unless they went into Brighton even the music hall. So they enjoyed themselves as best they could with the excellent music they had, sung the way they did (as best they could too I presume).

Roll on 50 years and the singarounds have mostly stopped. Nearly everyone has a radio and a gramophone, and there's a bus into Brighton to watch the films or go to concerts, and the homebrewed stuff is.. amateur... compared to the polished products available. But one family holds out- they like the old singarounds, so they keep doing it. And good old Bob Copper becomes a bit of a star when the BBC, looking for evidence of Olde England, put him on the radio.

Had they acceded to the "generally accepted" best singing style, they would have sung their songs in an RP accent in a light tenor, with a tasteful piano accompaniment, as was used for so much of the recorded "folk" music of the time. That was what the market expected.

It's all a matter of what you mean by "standards".

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 02:06 AM

oops twas I

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: Howard Jones
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 03:55 AM

Paul, there isn't a single market. There are different markets with different expectations. The Coppers weren't singing to break into a particular market, they sang what they sang and how they sang because they enjoyed it, and the market they were performing to (even if it was just the family) enjoyed it too. A wider market which appreciated that particular style found them, not the other way around.

If we take another example, Walter Pardon was a singer who adapted his repertoire, and to a degree his singing style, to the demands of his audience in his local pub, who wanted more of the music hall and popular songs rather than the traditional songs which he loved. So he gave them what they wanted, and sang the old songs to himself until he was discovered by the folk scene.

Within the "folk scene" a particular style developed which differed not only from the traditional styles (eg Coppers, Fred Jordan, etc)but also the previous piano-arrangement styles. It was partly influenced by American folk styles, but developed a particularly British flavour. Anyone aspiring to perform in folk clubs learned to perform in that particular style - for many, that is what they mean by "folk".

For those aspiring to more commercial success in the context of the broader music industry, a different style again is required. It's not one which will necessary go down well in a folk club.

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 06:46 AM

In order to succeed* any artist must in my opinion as a minimum:-

1.       Be technically very competent.

Isn't technical competence overrated? There are some brilliant technicians out there, but how much more important is passion and soul? For me some of my favourite artists aren't that technically great but have a certain integrity than more than makes up for it. Some people can of course combine the two...

2.       Ideally have some unique characteristic

Ok...

3.       Pursue a relentless campaign of publicity and networking to maximise exposure

Know what you mean, but I see plenty of folks who have done this, done okay and are still rubbish...

4.       Play what the current market wishes to hear

Chasing the current fads and fashions is the job of also-rans and copyists. I know some folks like to keep hearing more of the same and are wary of innovation, but look at who the revered artists who are feted and remembered are and they are nearly all innovators or iconoclasts rather than camp followers and sturdy, workmanlike give 'em what they want merchants...

5.       Be persistent and get lucky

Absolutely.

(* Define success, by the way. Artistic? Commercial? Critical?)

***************

John P suggests: For a performance, you are supposed to be pleasing an audience

I'd rather have someone who was pleasing themselves - and pleased me as a side effect - than someone whose objective was to was try to please me. Does that make sense? There's adanger that audience pleasing as a strategy might result in lowest-common-denominator music... and end up pleasing no-one.

**************

And I forget who suggested artists needed to dress suitably, but I'd suggest back that folk music shouldn't have a dress code. Though of course it does. Several, in fact....

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 07:05 AM

Drat! Cookieless.

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: Richard from Liverpool
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 07:28 AM

My personal stance; amateur folk music is far more interesting and vibrant and professional folk music. I guess part of this is because I'm cynical about folk musicians who put style before substance, and in doing so lose track of the spirit of the music because it's all about their flashy instrumental arrangements. But there's also a more fundamental question for me: Why would I listen to recordings or go to gigs of folk artists fancifying things, when I could easily go to a classical concert or listen to a gig of a proper indie band (especially given that a lot of professional folk just means somebody turning folk into breathy guitar-based pseudo-pop)? I listen to folk recordings to note variations of words, etc., but very rarely for pleasure - I have records of proper bands for that.

But as for the energy of a bunch of amateurs singing what they love - and that's what I've seen at a handful of wonderful singarounds etc that I've been to - I'd bypass a hundred gigs and concerts just for one night in that brilliant atmosphere of people getting up and singing and playing from the gut.

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: theleveller
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 07:30 AM

"3.       Pursue a relentless campaign of publicity and networking to maximise exposure

Know what you mean, but I see plenty of folks who have done this, done okay and are still rubbish..."

I'd agree with the cookieless Mr Cringe there. And strange as it may seem, there are some of us who, like the Ratties of the folk world, really do enjoy lazily paddling around in the backwaters.

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 08:26 AM

Ratties of the folk world

I can see I'm going to have to rename you "the le-voler"...

(Sorry about that).

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: theleveller
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 08:32 AM

Boom boom!

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 11:33 AM

Wasn't that Basil Brush?

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 11:54 AM

dunno why GUEST,Paul Burke has singled out and seized upon my hastily phrased casual observation
for such close scrutiny..???

..there's plenty enough other willing regular axe-grinding combatants at mudcat
happily willing to indulge in endless circular pointless pedantic OCR hair-splitting
amateur cultural academic word 'definition' games...


here's one to kick off..

hows about 'amateur' versus 'amateurish' ???


personally, I wouldn't satisfy any of johncharles opening 5 point criteria..

well maybe no 2 just a bit ?


However, I'm probably far more suited for consideration in the furthest netherworld
of the 'outsider artist' spectrum of unpaid indie 'Folk' music....

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: GUEST,punkfokrocker
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 12:05 PM

see.. did it again.. typed amd posted too fast
while grabbing a few minutes between other more interesting 'activities'......

"OCR" !!???


of course I meant OCD !!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: JedMarum
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 01:20 PM

leeneia - is right on.

And I don't have a moment's worry about choosing music to perform that I know the audience (the market) wants to hear and what I want to play. I have been doing this a long time. I KNOW I cannot "sell" a song that I don't believe in - so it is pointless for me to play stuff I think the market demands and I don't love.

A music performance or a show is a two way communication. If I am not reaching the audience with the songs and the messages I want to deliver, then I am failing.

I love folk music. I play folk-style. When I plan a show or a performance, I am planning a conversation, so-to-speak. I have all kinds of musical ideas that I enjoy playing at any given moment ... so my selection for material becomes, what is the set of ideas, that I want to get across? What are the expectations of the show? I always consider what my song list will be ... and I do plan the "dynamics" of the show, the pacing ... because I've learned that that is an important factor in the success of the communication. But no set list ever survives a full set. Even when I am playing with my band ... I usually modify the set based upon what's happening with the "conversation."

I play a lot of modern and original music in my shows. And I play a lot of old folk music too. I don't see much difference.

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: JedMarum
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 03:36 PM

... it's a great way to make a living if you're willing to work really hard and earn very modest income! I have some down time (like now), these Dec and Jan weeks are slow for gigs ... but I get to refocus, and if I am diligent, work the bookings hard for 2012 and 2013.

Subject: RE: Folk Music professional versus amateur
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Dec 11 - 03:36 PM

Sorry if I seemed to be persecuting you pfr: no intention of that, it's just that you were saying he right things to point outdifference between folk-as-performance and folk-as-cooperative-activity.