Folk Singer v Entertainer

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Baz Bowdidge
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 07:04 AM

Folk Singer v Entertainer?
Whenever the twain should meet that's a good thing isn't it?
In my opinion as any other medium entertainment value of folk songs and people who sing them is purely subjective.
To paraphrase 'I know nothing about folk music but I know what I like'.

~Baz~

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 08:07 AM

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge - PM
Date: 22 Jan 12 - 01:47 PM

I used to play music in West Cork, they used to pay me! One night in Annie May's in Skibbereen I played Leo Rowsome's lovely, quirky version of 'St Patrick's Day'. A local uillean piper called Hugh Quinn (I'd heard of him but had never met him) came up & said I was playing it wrong. I told him its origin, a 78 record by the 'King of the Pipers',but he didnt accept this & went back to his seat saying 'ah but you're not a traditional musician, you're an entertainer'. On rflection, what a lovely compliment- thats one of the best compliments I've ever had- thanks again, Hugh, I'll always treasure those few words"
hi jim,
i have played with Jim and Hugh Quinn, i would rather play with Jim, Hugh is a good player too, HOWEVER I find that comment fairly rich coming from a piper who does nOt even play a full set,but plays a practice set.
jim is a great player but also an entertainer, why is it not possible to be both of course it is
Anyway there is no correct version of a tune just different versions, the only incorrect way to play a tune is if you go out of rhythym.
Jim we miss you in West Cork

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: stallion
Date: 24 Jan 12 - 12:10 PM

Hiya Deb,

funny isn't it how we have both been impressed by others knowledge wherever we are, maybe says more about me, I suppose what I found humbling and maybe even intimidated by was the the depth of knowledge people had of my cultural past that I didn't have. I find it interesting, fascinating and impressive to have done the work required, makes me feel like a bit of a laggard! When it happens in the UK I expect it where I wouldn't necessarily expect it in the US which brings that to prominence.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 02:30 AM

Folk Singers v Entertainers!

Fight....!

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 04:05 AM

Tut, tut Al, is your Christmas that boring?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 05:31 PM

christmas has not arrived yet

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Dec 12 - 06:37 PM

Entertainment for most people is showy. Entertainment can be quietly listening to a nice voice sing an old song without having to "push" it on the audience or babble corny
patter.

Entertainment is in the ear of the beholder.

Sometimes a singer just singing for themselves can be very entertaining.

We have a skewed view of entertainment which comes from the commercial show
business world.

Entertaining is what entertains which seems like a tautology but when you think about
what entertains you personally, I bet you find that it's different from someone else's
idea of entertainment.

If you're not bored, you're entertained. Someone who is really into the music they are doing can be very entertaining on a deeper level, ie: not boring but fascinating.

Many so-called folk entertainers can be boring as hell if they try too hard to please a monolithic audience (which doesn't exist really).

I personally find entertainment value in jazz, old anglo-American ballads, blues,
any improvisation on an instrument, a beautiful voice, a story-song or any number of ways other than the commercial razz-a-ma-tazz of show biz.

I probably would go to see someone who others might find uninteresting if I find value in what they are doing.

A "folk singer" by modern definition is in the coffee houses and house concerts, a show bizzy type performer with patter, pacing of song material, planned sets, or other
preconceived ideas to share with an audience.

I think it was Carl Sandburg who coined the term "folk singer" although in German, you have Volksleider and minnesingers.

The "Mighty Wind" satirized the attempt of performers trying to be showy "folk singers" and many of them opened themselves up to this sendup because they tried so hard
to please their audiences whether it was a bar crowd, or college frat crowd, or even
in a full scale concert.

Some, like Pete Seeger educate their audiences while entertaining them.

Entertainment is an ambiguous term that is different strokes for different folks.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 10:27 AM

That'a a good post Stringsinger.

There's a good deal of illogical stuff posted on this thread and you have successfully homed in on the all important subjectivity of it all.

For example, just because someone is deliberately setting out to entertain me does not mean that I would be entertained by them. And vice versa, I could be propping up the corner of a bar and be hugely entertained by a couple of folk in the corner playing tunes just for themselves.

And whether any renumeration changes hands in either of these cases is utterly irrelevant.

However, there is another level of mere politeness that one should adhere to. For example, if I'd payed to go to a gig and I was sat right at the front, whether I was being entertained or not, I'd clap after each song (though maybe not so vociferously if I thought they stank). And I certainly wouldn't clap for the couple of folk in the corner playing tunes just for themselves. That would be very rude indeed.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 04:13 PM

Any form of communication.....whether we're trying to 'teach' something, put forth a song or story we really like, or just communicate a part of our (or somebody else's) 'essence' requires that we are sensitive to how it can best be received.

Any 'folk singer' without that sensitivity probably isn't doing him/herself or the 'audience' any big favour.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,Banjo Tom
Date: 11 Dec 12 - 08:34 PM

I love it when folk artists entertain on their instruments, including the human voice, and offer well-done material, patter, stagecraft, a good story, and the like. It's a bonus, all of it. I like people who have pounded the pavement, done their homework, listened to others, picked themselves up, and have something interesting or positive or negative to say. Something.

I find this v-thing a false dichotomy, a red herring of sorts. The terms on either side of it are not mutually exclusive, and to try to fit artists into one category or another is presumptuous.

The prison-house of ideas, of dualisms, of taking sides, is of no concern to artists, who maybe play for money or no money, at home for friends, on the street, street-level pubs, club-dates, concerts, festivals, stadiums, or just around the camp fire, and wherever they're happy playing.

One's voice as a folk entertainer is personal, and if it sings and touches people, well, that's good enough for me!

I can think of a filk or two about Druids running wildly through the woo-ids. But that's just ego.

So, which side are you on?

Best ~ Tom Hanway

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 12:21 AM

I'm up late, so let's get to the point. Folk singer

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 01:44 AM

Although I had heard Burl Ives on the radio and had seen Susan Reed in a movie, my first experience with live folk singing was in the very early 1950s when the girl I was "going steady" with at the University of Washington developed an active interest in folk songs, got herself a copy of A Treasury of Folk Songs compiled by John and Sylvia Kolb, was given a marvelous old parlor guitar by her grandmother who no longer played, and set about teaching herself. I bought myself a cheap guitar and just for the casual fun of it, joined in her endeavors.

One evening the two of us heard Walt Roberson in an informal concert in a basement restaurant in Seattle's University District. Walt held forth for close to three hours, like a minstrel of days gone by, singing songs and ballads and spinning tales, and generally held Claire and me, and the rest of the audience of maybe seventy-five people, completely enthralled for nearly three hours!

I was so taken by this experience that someplace during that evening I decided "I want to do that!" To sing songs like the ones Walt was singing, and that Claire and I were both learning—and to hold an audience as enthralled as the two of us, and the rest of the audience that night, had been.

I seem to have been fairly successful at it because even if I didn't get rich and famous, I did manage to make a living at it.

Folk Singer versus Entertainer?

I have never separated the two ideas.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 12 Dec 12 - 06:55 AM

I think the "v" is important.

And I think that those who don't hold some sort of separation between musician/artist and entertainer in their minds, those who hold it as a false dichotomy, are missing something of the complications and differing definitions of the word performance.

Some artists are drawn merely by a desire to entertain, to enthral, and others merely have a very private and inescapable urge to create. And while both these artists are thankfully rare, as, of course, most have a bit of both in them, I think it's important for any artist to try to assess for themselves how much of each of these very different motivations they themselves hold.

There is a great deal of ego involved and I think it important that artists deal with these conflicts. One could say that the pinnacle of egotism is to hold a desire to get on a stage and entertain people. But isn't it even more egotistical to get on a stage and practice one's art despite the audience? Or taking it to its logical conclusion, to hold a view that an audience would be a distraction to one's creativity? Or to even eschew the concept of audience altogether?

But such arguments ignore subjectivity and the concept of ego doesn't have to descend into the concept of egotism. If we take one's ego to be merely that part of one's self that experiences and reacts to the outside world then we can conclude that our ego is our art. And this, quite simply, is the beauty of art. It is one's experiences and reactions to human traditions.

And the quality of any art can be defined by the depth of the tradition and the level of the artist's respect for that tradition.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 05:17 AM

... thinking about it, I'll re-phrase those last two paragraphs:


But such arguments ignore subjectivity and the concept of ego doesn't have to descend into the concept of egotism. If we take one's ego to be merely that part of one's self that experiences and reacts to the outside world then we can conclude that our ego is our art. And this, quite simply, is the beauty of art. It is one's experiences and reactions to the human condition, expressed through its traditions.

And the quality of any art can be defined by a combination of the depth of the tradition, the level of the artist's respect for that tradition and the level of the artist's ability to communicate their experiences and reactions to the human condition.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 04:14 PM

There is a great deal of ego-satisfaction in getting up in front of a group of people, being the center of attention, and having them enjoy what you are doing.

But that's not the whole of it, by any means. If you love the songs you do, especially to the extent of learning about the events and circumstances surrounding a song so that YOU understand the song and what it's about, then strive to convey the spirit of that to the audience, there's a bit more to it than ego.

This is one of the reasons I prefer small venues. I've sung in some sizable concert halls and on one occasion for an audience of 6,000 people. This is a pretty heady experience. But—I much prefer singing for much smaller, more intimate audiences, such as coffee houses and house concerts.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Dec 12 - 05:40 PM

And the quality of any art can be defined by a combination of the depth of the tradition, the level of the artist's respect for that tradition and the level of the artist's ability to communicate their experiences and reactions to the human condition.
this statement is true up to a point, but it does not take into account contemporary singer song writers, who can do all of the above without having any connection to any specific folk tradition.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 01:52 AM

example of above. leon rosselson, ian dury, peter bond. the first is a folk singer and entertainer, and in my opinion so is ian dury, and peter bond

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 01:55 AM

for those who have not come across him,this was the only peter bond song i could find http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6E-jJg0QwE&noredirect=1

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 05:29 AM

Don, you are confusing "ego" with "egotism". The two are very different. Look them up.

Dick, my statement does take into account contemporary singer song writers. In that their art is compromised by the shallowness of their tradition. Just as, conversely, a traditional musician's art is often compromised by their lack of ability to communicate their experiences and reactions to the human condition. (Though the best of them can, of course)

However, Ian Dury's consummate ability to sharply and wittily cut to the heart of the human condition raises him head and shoulders above the usual dross of contemporary pop. But also, his tradition is very strong. He was from a long line of populist commentators using whatever medium fell within the contemporary fashions of the day. And attracting the intelligent, skillful contemporary artists of that day with which to interpret, arrange and create.

And the modern tradition of the solo, folk singer songwriter guitarist, is, by comparison, wanting.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,colin holt
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:42 AM

re.. my statement does take into account contemporary singer song writers. In that their art is compromised by the shallowness of their tradition..

Bit sweeping don't you think ????

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: sciencegeek
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 07:17 AM

I think that the very title of this thread illustrates the strong influence of the modern recording industry more than it does any actual required differences between the two.

Go into the current version of the original "record store" or online to find music and everything is arranged by categories that are derived from marketing efforts of the major recording companies to pigeonhole their artists.

Call them folk singers, traditional musicians, entertainers, pop stars the one common thing about them is that they are PEOPLE, not some commodity... despite the efforts of some to turn them into little pieces to fit into some grand picture puzzle. I prefer to regard them as amateur ( by the original intent of the term), semi-professional ( they have a day job) and professional (this IS their day job).

I know one Irish born performer, singer-songwriter who in a house concert shared his tradition of the ceilidh and the next day for his concert, put on his stage personna. I prefer the former style while the hubby was blown away by the latter. He's still the same guy.

If you wanted to find his recordings in the past, you would have to search the International section and then Irish.... now I think he'd be put into the Indie section.

Maybe Dick could shed some light into how CAMSCO handles the issue.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 07:25 AM

Yes, it is sweeping, but that's the way it is. Some overcome this admirably however.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 07:44 AM

As you say, categorising doesn't help. But it's not a new phenomenon. Mozart had to deal with the differences (or lack of) between music hall and opera. And the categories of church music and lay music has been with us for many centuries.

And whether you make any money at it is entirely irrelevant as this marginalises the independently wealthy (17 century string players were largely amateurs and the wind players were largely pros) and stigmatises the poor (poor musicians are oft regarded as beggars).

However, traditions are their own defining categories.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 08:05 AM

i regard ian dury as a contemporary folk singer , if he had rung me up, when he was alive to do a gig i would have gladly put him on

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 08:42 AM

I'm not convinced he (and his band) would have been interested in performing in a venue so for out with the "contemporary fashions of the day".

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 09:20 AM

sorry:

far out-with the "contemporary fashions of the day".

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:07 AM

no that's still not right: (had to look it up, it's one word)

far outwith the "contemporary fashions of the day".


Fashions and trends should be of interest to artists as there is a tendency among those who consider themselves serious to eschew trends deliberately as they consider them anti intellectual. But the best of artists, of course, are able to fashion fashion towards their own ends. i.e. they are not passive consumers of fashions, they fashion ... the verb ... to fashion.

What is new though, is the gathering existence of loads of opposing fashions. Everything from mods and rockers to punks and hippies ... to young wiz kid instrumentalists to old beardy nasal voiced fokies.

I'd say it's impossible to really eschew fashion. And I'd say that if we view fashions as merely traditions - shallow or with depth - then we should be more comfortable with them.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:13 AM

ray davies, is another i would be happy to book

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,colin holt
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 10:28 AM

Micheal.. I think you think too much !!

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 11:45 AM

You mean you think I think too much for you

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: sciencegeek
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:16 PM

If someone puts themselves in front of a group and performs to provide entertainment for the rest... as opposed to being part of gathering of singers, players and listeners making music together... then I think it's fair to say that they are a performer or entertainer.

That's what I was referring to when I said... "Call them folk singers, traditional musicians, entertainers, pop stars the one common thing about them is that they are PEOPLE, not some commodity... despite the efforts of some to turn them into little pieces to fit into some grand picture puzzle. I prefer to regard them as amateur ( by the original intent of the term), semi-professional ( they have a day job) and professional (this IS their day job)."

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Shimbo Darktree
Date: 14 Dec 12 - 06:34 PM

Goodness me! Talk about a dust storm! I like Matt Milton's comment, although I am sure he had his tongue planted firmly in his cheek. I like, and sing, murder ballads and other wrist-slashers, and my audience (both of them) love them. That is my belief, anyway.

Entertainment, like good singing or music, is in the eye/ear of the beholder/listener, is it not?

Shimbo

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 07:58 AM

"Entertainment, like good singing or music, is in the eye/ear of the beholder/listener, is it not?"

Yes. That's why I said, "Just because someone is deliberately setting out to entertain me does not mean that I would be entertained by them. And vice versa, I could be propping up the corner of a bar and be hugely entertained by a couple of folk in the corner playing tunes just for themselves."

But it interests me how beholders of specific ears form fashion cliques. Such people club together and begin to sound the same and wear the same clothes. It interests me because I'd like to understand where or when a fashion clique can become regarded as a tradition

And I still don't understand the relevance of amateur, semi-professional and professional?

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 10:04 AM

And I still don't understand the relevance of amateur, semi-professional and professional?

only in relation to being defined as an entertainer/performer... as posed in the opening post:

"IMO [but prepared to be persuaded otherwise] folk musicians/singers are people who perform the music purely for personal pleasure & are not usually paid for their endeavours.

What think you?

Discuss "

Would you NOT call Pete Seeger a "folk singer" because he would get paid gigs? Or Woodie Guthrie?   

Belle Stewart ( Stewarts of Blair) performed around the world in her later life... we booked her and the family more than once. I still consider her a traditional singer, that happened to be able to share her tradition with us.

Some folk/traditional singers/musicians have gone on to also become performers/entertainers/educators... they are not mutually exclusive.

My opinion is that there always seems to be an urge to define or label one another and the terms that came into the discussion seemed to be more relevent to marketing than reality.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 03:37 PM

I agree with that opinion. And even those who are widely regarded as professional entertainers can sit and just make music for it's own sake when the fancy takes them.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 05:55 PM

I think we are confusing a number of issues, here.

A singer is, more often than not, labeled by the kind of songs that he or she sings. If a person sings traditional songs, people will call him a "traditional singer"—even if he was born in a big city and his father and mother were well-paid professionals of some kind. But in most people's minds, since he sings folk songs, people call him a folk singer.

Or a girl who lives in the country whose father is a share-cropper and who goes to a country school is spotted by a sharp-eared teacher as having a particularly nice singing voice. The teacher goes to bat for the girl and she winds up at Juilliard studying voice, and eventually becomes a much-in-demand opera singer.

So the city boy is a folk singer and the country girl is an operatic diva.

Confusin' world, ain't it?

As to amateur, semi-professional and professional, each of the above singers could be any of the three. If they sing simply because they enjoy singing, sing for their friends and family, and don't get paid for it, they're amateur (which is not a judgment on how good they are; some amateurs can be very good indeed!). If they sing for pay every now and then, but don't really depend on it for living expenses, they're semi-professional. And if they derive all of their income from singing, they're professional. Pretty straightforeward, really.

Contrasts:

Jean Ritchie was born and raised in Viper County, Kentucky, and learned her initial songs from family and relatives. A traditional singer, both by what she sings and by birth.   I don't know how much of her income came from her singing, but I tend to think she's professional, or at least semi-professional.

Richard Dyer-Bennet's father was an English peer. He was educated in Canada, Germany, and the United States. He was managed by Sol Hurok, did concert tours and recitals, and many records. He was definitely professional. Because most of the songs he sang were folk songs, most people refer to him as a "folk singer." But HE didn't.

He was a classically trained tenor, a classically trained guitarist, and he considered himself to be, not a "folk singer," but a modern day minstrel, singing a whole range of songs, most of which happened to be folk songs. So--most people call him a "folk singer."

Most of the "folk" or "traditional" singers that I know personally are city-bred and learned their folk songs from song books (Lomax, Sharp, et al) and recordings, or from each other (the others having learned most of their songs from song books and recordings). Most of them sing just for fun, some sing for fun but get paid now and then, and a few earned their living that way, singing in coffee houses, house concerts, and other venues.

One assumes that those who got paid for their singing (semi-professional or professional) were entertaining enough to draw a paying audience.

So it's not real neat and tidy.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: sciencegeek
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM

LOL... Don... by Jove, I think you've got it!... :P

Earlier I was thinking about where Jeff Warner would get pigeonholed...

how do you figure someone whose parents introduced him to so many traditional singers around the country as they collected songs? I do love that photo of him as a little kid with Frank Profitt...

now he performs around the world, does school programs and keeps alive the legacy of his parents, Frank & Ann Warner.

IMHO... labels belong on merchandise, not people.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 12 - 08:12 PM

Meself and the blokes I play with every week, five or six of us max, appear to give a lot of people a lot of pleasure in the two pubs we play in. But my feelings, much as I enjoy every minute of it (they are, without exception, the bloody salts of the earth, those blokes I play with), are utterly ambivalent. I love it when a tune or two gets whooping and clapping, but I am also acutely aware of our very many limitations (I won't bother listing them). We often get clapped for stuff that had me clenching me buttocks as we were playing it. Some sets of tunes we play have me cringeing at the very thought of how we are just about to murder 'em any minute now. But, overall, I don't really give a stuff. My mates and I could leave our instruments at home and still have a great night in the boozer, but instead we choose to convey much of our appreciation for each other via our tunes. There is no excess of ego, no boss, no technical criticism. We do it for ourselves and for each other. In both pubs we know most of the locals and it would be stupid for me to say we ignore them, but the obstinate point is that we are not performing for them, we are playing for our own amusement, and the pleasure they derive is their bonus, and we do not court it in any conscious way. Naturally, it's different if we are getting a bob or two for paying at a party or wedding, but not that different. I suppose we have to be be a bit more ready to play without too many big gaps full of banter. I love what I do, I don't think I'm too bad at it (I'll never make Carnegie Hall), but it's for me and my mates first and foremost. And Jeez, it's a ton of fun.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,SirCoughsalot
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 03:05 AM

A folksinger is anyone who sings primarily folk songs, and if you want to sing for people, you'd better make an effort to entertain them or it's just pure self indulgence. No one is going to listen to someone they don't find entertaining. Of course, we all have our own tastes... I think this quote from Cisco Houston is a good one:

"There's always a form of theater that things take; even back in the Ozarks, as far as you want to go. People gravitate to the best singer...We have people today who go just the other way, and I don't agree with them. Some of our folksong exponents seem to think you have to go way back in the hills and drag out the worst singer in the world before it's authentic. Now, this is nonsense...Just because he's old and got three arthritic fingers and two strings left on the banjo doesn't prove anything."

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 05:23 AM

The fact that the differentiation between amateur, semi-pro and pro is neither neat nor tidy is irrelevant. As I said, it marginalises the independently wealthy and and stigmatises the poor. But more than that, it bears no relevance what so ever to the quality of the art. It's a complete red herring.

What is of more interest is whether the artist/performer comes from a tradition or a fashion clique. And what's the difference?

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 01:43 PM

michael... I'm still perplexed by your idea that somehow identifiying a performer by as amateur, semi-pro or pro is a slur.

As I originally stated, amateur in its original context - history lesson here, was applied to those individuals - often highly talented- who by virtue of their aristocratic position or independent wealth, were able to pursue their area of interest without having to seek a paying position. How does that marginalize anyone? There are plenty of talented people who belong to musical groups and work very hard on their volunteer performances. Amateur is NOT an insult or slur on one's ability... in horse shows we have amateur owner classes, it just means they don't show against the pros... unless they decide to show in an open class.

As someone who has been involved in booking concerts, setting up festivals, running workshops and picking parties... I deal with people who run the gamut. I select for talent and ability to get the job done, bearing in mind that I usually have a budget to meet... and we need to at least break even by the end of the year to keep the organization running.

As for the pros... some are very generous in making themselves available and join in the after concerts sings... and others do their gigs and that's it.

As I said before... performers and all the rest are people. In another thread I had talked about Ed Keeney, a wonderful fiddler from Donegal that I knew back in the 1980's. His day job was driving a bus and he had also been a member of various bands - swing and popular music of the 40's - 60's. I think of him as a wonderful and modest fellow who loved to share his music.

Try and get him to do anything other than a private house concert or join a session, forget it. But he'd donate his time & talent for seniors or benefits.

Going pro is a tough thing to do... mentally, physically and financially. Not everyone wants to go that route. For those that do, give them all the support you can.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: Shimbo Darktree
Date: 18 Dec 12 - 06:31 PM

Well said, Sciencegeek. If anyone supports my "going pro", and has large amounts of disposable cash not already committed to Mudcat, I could be easily persuaded. I will learn to cope with the "commercial" label, and wealth is a great buffer to those who wish to look down their noses upon one. I may even buy a banjo (insert favourite banjo joke here).

Just let me know, and ensure the cash is in an easily negotiated form.

Shimbo

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 05:06 AM

I never suggested that identifying a performer as an amateur, semi-pro or pro is a slur. I said it is a distracting irrelevance. It conjures up such irrelevancies as "Ooh, yes, very good for an amateur, but they'll never cut it as a pro." Or "Quite nice down the pub, but I'd never pay to see them". Or "I saw them busking in the town centre the other day, it was a bit sad." Or, "Yeah, they could afford to take a year off just to practice ... and that violin that daddy bought them didn't do any harm either."

So what that some fiddle player drives a bus. It's irrelevant.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: sciencegeek
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 07:04 AM

WTF?!? Not a slur? Every example that you just gave is negative and comes from within you, not from anything I said or implied. How sad.

I don't know what's made you so bitter, but you really need to lighten up... because the original post in this thread implied that to be a folk singer, you had to be an amateur... as in doing it not for pay...   and then requested other viewpoints... which then included a differentiation between performers, entertainers, etc.

As for that bus driving fiddle player... any mudcatter that had the good fortune to hear Eddie play would treasure that memory and wish they possessed a measure of his talent.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 07:21 AM

I'm sorry, you misunderstand me. I'm not bitter at all.

The examples are not from within me. And nor are they from anything you said or implied.

Yes, those examples are all sad. But they are sad because they are born of reactions to the differentiations between ammeter and professional. If we stop differentiating then such negativity melts away.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: sciencegeek
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 08:30 AM

WOW... I am floored.... of the 90 plus posts by 30 to 40 different posters, there is only one poster bent out of shape by the term amateur. And you're the one.

I looked at the initial post as the proposition that to be a bona fide folksinger you had to take a musical vow of poverty - you couldn't make it your livelihood. I do not find myself in agreement with that notion & presented reasons why I feel that the need to label people is counterproductive... especially for those folks who are involved in many different musical forms and also that people have different goals in their lives...

To survive as a professional, very few locations can support you, you have to "hit the road" and maybe do different types of gigs to make it work.   

I've done the occasional paid gig... but consider myself to be an amateur... so I definitely DO NOT regard the term as a negative. And am more than little irked by your negativity.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 09:00 AM

You still misunderstand me. I'm not asking you to regard the terms amateur and professional as either positive or negative. I'm asking you to simply disregard the terms all together. They are irrelevant at best, divisive (as you've shown) at worst.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: sciencegeek
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 10:03 AM

only in your mind does there seem to be this issue.... period.

I see no reason to adhere to your unique brand of political correctness in reference to PERFORMERS. I also object to the decline of live venues for performers accompanied by low booking fees making it that much harder for them to make a living .

It made me grit my teeth every time I passed a place advertizing "Live DJ", knowing that talented "Live Musicians" were paid a fraction of those fees.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: GUEST,michael gill
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 02:20 PM

No. The prejudice for or against amateurs or professionals is rife.

"Professionals are hard working and deserve respect."
"Amateurs are hobbyists"

"Professionals are mere entertainers"
"Amateurs are the salt of the earth"

Are these are the issues that you are saying are "only in my mind"?


You still don't understand that to musicians/artists, the issue is irrelevant.

Subject: RE: Folk Singer v Entertainer
From: sciencegeek
Date: 19 Dec 12 - 04:38 PM

you do realize that it is you who insists on bringing up what you say is irrelevant... so move on..