BS: Why

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Jun 12 - 05:44 PM

Soon as I first read the thread title.

Flashback: Why
Less back but flashback nevertheless: Because we LIKE you

MMMMM OOOOO UUUUU SSSSS EEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: EBarnacle
Date: 18 Jun 12 - 05:51 PM

Why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 04:32 AM

WHY?
has Richard posted elsewhere but not justified or withdrawn his judgement of my character here?

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 05:27 AM

Why? Well, that's Richard's way. He'll do an occasional self-righteous stomp as though his truths are self-evident, but very rarely, if ever, will he go any further and actually explain himself or his various objections, much less enter into a discussion on them.

All in all, these things make this site a far less pleasant place to be

I guess by these things he means those personal opinions & perspectives that differ from his own: those little inconveniences to any shade of fundamentalism that, out here in the real world, make life all the more interesting, and Folk Music such a diverse & fascinating area of cultural experience however so (evidently) contrived it might be.

As Folkies get older, so the more curmudgeonly they get. I know some choice old grunters in real life & cherish each and every one of them even though we differ on everything apart from our love of Traditionasl Folk Song & Balladry and the sharing thereof. I think it's entire permissable to love the same things for different reasons, and if in one's researches one comes to differing conclusions to the entrenched orthodoxy then so be it. What is interesting is how quickly people are prepared to turn that difference into a cause for more personal attacks which is, I feel, less forgiveable.

You know you're dealing with a religion when you get branded as a heretic by the would-be priesthood.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 08:41 AM

There you go again Keith. You really are far right - the constant friend of the militarist and imperialist, the defender of the conservative party at prayer, the denigrator of non-white religions. Discussions with you were a waste of time: you refused to accept information from Muslims on muslim beliefs, from homosexuals on homosexual lifestyles. If you are so centrist why do I never (and I mean never) hear views like yours expressed by anyone I meet off the mudcat (with one exception, one mudcatter)?

Sweeney - you retreat into quasi-academic bafflegab (yes, bafflegab even by lawyers' standards) on every discussion of "folk" and absolutely refuse to accept that it differed in kind rather than form from other music - the basic fact that underpinned the long standing (now no longer accepted) assumption that throughout Europe peasants had burst into song - but not in England. The researchers you dismiss as paternalist found the evidence that the assumption was untrue but the fact that the difference was in kind not form was thereby reinforced. The idea of folk music has never been contrived.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: GUEST,Keith
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 09:15 AM

the constant friend of the militarist and imperialist,
Not constant but, like many in the centre, I sometimes accept the need for military intervention.
Not as often as Tony Blair though.
the defender of the conservative party at prayer,
I have never defended them, at prayer or otherwise.
the denigrator of non-white religions.
That is a lie.
I never have and defy you to produce any such.
you refused to accept information from Muslims on muslim beliefs,
That is also made up Richard. Why?
from homosexuals on homosexual lifestyles.
Also not true. I did say that gay men are the highest risk group for HIV and lesbians about the lowest risk.
That is factual and not right wing or left wing politics.

If you are so centrist why do I never (and I mean never) hear views like yours expressed by anyone I meet off the mudcat (with one exception, one mudcatter)?
Because I do not and never have held the views you ascribe to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 09:28 AM

The assumption that Folk is different in KIND is a prescriptive paternalistic judgement on the nature of Proletarian Creativity. It disempowers essential individual genius in favour of the faceless collective and a much cherished purity that celebrates ill-educated working-class anonymity. On such a patronising notion was Folk contrived & is, I feel, entirely incompatible with anything but entrenched right-wing conservatism & cultural reaction that typifies the revival to this day.

At its most fundamental, Folk exists as a bourgeois fantasy of a working-class rural / industrial idyll, with Tradition fenced off in terms of the historically authentic, rather than a celebration of the culturally dynamic processes which gave rise to the Folk Song Idiom in the first place - processes which continue to account for proletarian musical experience to this day, irrespective of genre.

From the outside Folk remains hobbyist, quaint and elite; a very select and eccentric minority passionate enough to cherish such remnants which are always going to be relevant to someone, but rarely to the class from which the material came from, who will always be disparaged as being debased until retrospection invariably sanitises their rudery. As I said in a recent review of one of the new VOTP albums: [such an approach is] not only anathema to the working-class craft & cunning of the men and women who created the songs in the first place, but is entirely incompatible with the earthy vernacular realism of their subject matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 09:31 AM

The Mudcatter you meet off Mudcat.
If that is Don T he will be as outraged as me at being labelled Far Right.
He does support the Tories but they are the majority party and NOT Far Right.

You should stop throwing that accusation around unless you can justify it, and in this case your attempts are all false.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 10:10 AM

Why is the BS section shrinking?

Perhaps the old Lefties, unable to cope when their views are challenged by Centrist twats, have to resort to false accusations that they can only support with made up examples, which is getting harder since personal attacks are no-longer tolerated.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 10:37 AM

Seems to fit here on many levels!

"Why?
is it you must be so very cruel to me, in order to be kind"
(Gilbert O'Sullivan)

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: GUEST,the sublime cigarrette
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 11:31 AM

why

it's always down to 'why'

why does it always have to be 'why'

"Oh, why? That's what I keep askin'
Was there anything I could have said or done?
Oh, I had no clue you were masking
A troubled soul, God only knows what went wrong
And why you'd leave the stage in the middle of a song"

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 12:08 PM

since personal attacks are no-longer tolerated.

Not seeing much evidence of that. Invariably one raises a point only to met with a barage of insults & smart remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 01:16 PM

Yes.
That has been a disappointment.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 05:27 PM

Yep, there you go Sweeney. Point made thank you.

Keith, I'm not going to name the Muslims and homosexuals you have denied - maybe they don't want to be named as such. Your suggestions that you have not done as I have said are inventions. You are "in denial".

The sort of things that both of you say (and the American posters who do and say worse), the promulgations of authoritarianism, sexual shibboleths, based in some cases on the alleged words of imaginary friends, etc, etc - these typify why posting here has fallen and the reasons that people have actually told me that they post here less often.

It's not just what I see and do, it's what others have told me that they see and do.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 05:46 PM

I'm not going to name the Muslims and homosexuals you have denied - maybe they don't want to be named as such.
A shocking lie.
Completely made up.
You are disgusting.
You said I was "the denigrator of non-white religions."
That is a lie, and a vile and wicked one.
I never have and defy you to produce any such.
You said I "refused to accept information from Muslims on muslim beliefs"
Completely untrue.
A total and wicked lie.

Royston is a Muslim and a gay man.
I debated strongly with him about the risks of HIV but I never did and never would criticise his faith or his sexuality.
Nor would I to any person of faith or any sexuality.

How you must fear me to need to lie so blatantly to discredit me.
You, a lawyer.
Respectable.
Educated.
Articulate.
Intelligent.
Me just a classroom teacher.

But you can not hold your own and defend your views.
You have to lie and cheat.
What do you gain from it?
Threads are soon forgotten but your behaviour here will be remembered by anyone who reads it.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Jun 12 - 06:40 PM

""No it is not that arguments of people of conscience do not stand up - it is the offensive nature of the right-wing propaganda spewed out.""

One man's right wing propaganda is another man's truth, and another man's truth is by definition always offensive to you Richard, since you recognise only your own opinion and deny the right of others to hold a different one.

And while we are on the subject, I, like Keith am very far from the right wing, being on the far left of my preferred party, which is somewhere to the LEFT of the right wing of what passes for Labour.

Confusing, isn't it?

As for conscience, mine (with superhuman self control) prevents me from subjecting you to the level of base and vituperative language you throw in our direction.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 Jun 12 - 06:23 AM

Just to change what I wrote back there:

At its most fundamental, Folk exists as a bourgeois fantasy of a working-class rural / industrial idyll, with Tradition fenced off in terms of the historically authentic, rather than a celebration of the dynamic cultural processes which gave rise to the Folk Song Idiom in the first place - processes which continue to account for proletarian musical experience to this day, irrespective of genre.

*

For Richard's benefit this means: Traditional Folk Songs were made by the same creative processes which has made all other human music since the year dot yet were only perceived to be different by a remote / superior / academic / observer class who deemed them to be so. The essense of Working-Class Creativity is that it will always be baffling to the higher social classes who will never get the true measure of it no matter how hard they try. This accounts for the disparity of social-class & scholarship one finds in the revival today which can only understand the material in terms of its taxonomy & taxidermy rather that its vivid rudery.

I first realised this when I freaked out a third-year girl at school by singing Lucy Wan as an example of how subversive folk song could be in comparison with the 'punk' of early 1977 (I was in the fifth year at the time). Duly hawled before the beak, I defended myself by pulling out my copy of TPBOEFS which saved my bacon. Suddenly this dark tale of incest, sororicide and disturbing Oedipal dealings had become justified not in terms of its horrific vernacular archetypes which had so upset my third-year friend, but rather the scholarly aura which had contained & disempowered the very things that so upset her. I wasn't just let off, but I was praised for being cultured! This is something I've been aware of ever since - that the natural habitat of English Speaking Folk Song & Balladry is very different from the hallowed archives of the EFDSS.

A Musical Tradition is not the songs it gives rise to but the dynamic idiomatic process by which the songs are made. Any Tradition is, essentially, collective, but the songs are made, and re-made, by individual creative masters of that tradition. The religiosity of The Revival (which is about as far removed from the Natural Habitat of Folk Song as you could get) is such that it wants these songs to be inherently different by way of orthodox prescription, which manifests as the entirely meaningless 1954 Definition. Descriptively, the songs are dymanic in terms of the cultural fluidy in which they existed, being made and re-made afresh with each performance, carried across oceans and continents by emigres and deportees and evolving in different ways accordingly. But always the songs were the product of creative working class human individual masters - a concept which is anathema to those who concieved of FOLK to deny the very individualism by which all great art is measured. This endures today in the VOTP editions which favours song type & celebrity compilers over the individual working-class men and women who sang & made the songs in the first place, all of whom are deserving of our respect and attention, especially if we wish to experience the true essense of what a 'folk song' is, in all its harshness, brilliance, beauty, humour, terror, honesty and enduring potency.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: EBarnacle
Date: 20 Jun 12 - 09:21 AM

Folks, please only initialize after you have used the full term at least once in the post. Those of who do not know the acronym don't always get it.

By the way, Y is a crooked letter.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 20 Jun 12 - 10:28 AM

Doesn't every self-respecting Mudcatter know TPBOEFS, EFDSS & VOTP? For shame if they don't! And as for FOLK...

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jun 12 - 04:25 PM

If it is, Raptor, I suspect the fact that it appears (at least to me) that a much larger majority of liberals currently populate the good old Mudcat than it did in the past, when there were a few conservatives hanging out here.

There's probably less to argue about.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: EBarnacle
Date: 21 Jun 12 - 09:54 AM

I guess I'm not self respecting, then. I know EDFSS but some others...

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: Elmore
Date: 21 Jun 12 - 11:34 AM

Too old and tired to debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 12 - 11:51 AM

You reach a point where you realize it's just pointless getting dragged into arguing with distant people across a computer screen, it's messing up your mind, and you'd surely be better off (and happier) doing something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Jun 12 - 12:04 PM

It's not just what I see and do, it's what others have told me that they see and do.
I believe that, in 'legalese', that latter part is known as 'Hearsay'!

Subject: RE: BS: Why
From: GUEST,grumpy
Date: 21 Jun 12 - 02:28 PM

What really gets me about this board is why so many right-wingers are posting here in the first place.

For fuck's sake, haven't they learned anything from the folk and blues songs which this site celebrates?