Rick Fielding is not folk

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 04:55 AM

I wasn't going to post to this thread. I said to myself, "Carol, this isn't your fight, don't get in it". But I really need to say this.

Some of the behavior that I see in this thread really makes me sad. One of the beautiful things about music is its ability to bring people together. I don't understand when people allow it to be used to drive people apart. I really don't understand it.

Respectfully,

Carol

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: kendall
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 07:37 AM

I dont understand why people throw out their opinions as fact. "Rick Fielding is a cheap imitation of John Gorka" Almost no one agrees with that, it is not a fact but an opinion.If you wish to make such a statement, put it out for what it is..an opinion. No one can argue with an opinion. The best they can do is offer a different opinion. Example.. In My Opinion.. John Gorka could't carry Rick Fieldings banjo capo. Now, how can you argue? you will not change my mind, you will only piss me off. Is that your intention? Just what IS your intention? Let's deal with the real issue here. Cut the crap.

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: GUEST,harpgirl
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 08:46 AM

...hey Jed I wanted to be under Kendall...

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: GeorgeH
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 08:51 AM

Guys, (in the US "either sex" sense . .) the second post in this thread said it all . .

G. (about to disappear for another 11 days . . not folking this time, though!)

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 08:57 AM

The worst thing you can do with threadworms like the one or two who've been stirring this thread is to stratch them. It's what they need to propagate.

Definitions about words like folk are handy for deciding how to arrange your record collection, and so forth, but it's a waste of energy to get too aerated about it.

It's not like there was a frontier between the different varieties and you had to get the right kind of passport or visa or pass through immigration control. But at times it almost feels like that with the threads here.

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 09:36 AM

Am I the only one who thinks this entire thread is really weird?

Threads like this make me glad that I don't know most of the people involved in them outside of the context of Mudcat. I am happy to have them remain faceless pseudonyms on a screen.

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 09:45 AM

Of course its weird nameless and faceless Guest. It started as a "Lame Flame" and we all just kinda' jacked it around for our own amusement. But most of us on this thread are not nameless or faceless. Feel free to check the Mudcat Resources site and you'll finbd pictures of most and other info as well. And in the threads you can find most of the names for the ones using pseudonyms.

All that is probably too much for you though....but check it out if you like.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: Pseudolus
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 10:22 AM

Call me crazy, but if I was going to try to make a serious and intelligent point, would I call myself Larry, my brother Darryl and my other brother Darryl? why not call yourself Larry, Moe, and Curly?!?! Helloooooo!!!

I've never had the pleasure of hearing Rick but it seems to me that all I need to know is that the people defending him are using their real names and the ones flaming are not......nuff said....

So rick, will you be in the Wilmington Delaware area anytime soon? I seem to be the only one that hasn't had the pleasure....

Frank

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 11:39 AM

I guess I must be dense. I thought that the point of the first posting was that if you create a narrow enough definition of folk you eliminate not only those whom you don't like (in this case John Gorka) but also those that you do (Rick Fielding). I thought it was a valid point, probably because I object to the need to categorize and define everything and everyone. I obviously didn't see it as an attack by a rabid flamer.

Why do we need to categorize within this forum? And why (except humorously, thank you very much Mr. Offer) do we need to compare? Ever since I heard Leo Kottke compared his singing to "geese farts on a muggy day", I've thought that nothing positive ever comes from those comparisons. I spent months trying to find albums with gees farting, only to be disappointed. If Rick Fielding or John Gorka or anybody else does a song or two IN THE STYLE OF Gordon Lightfoot, I'm sure they both do many more in styles that could be described in any of a million different ways by different listeners.

What's my point here? If you want to argue, defend, flame or whatever the hell else - go ahead. But, please, try to understand what's been written before leaping on your high horse if you wish for these discussions (like the original Gorka thread)to remain civil and informative.

Luv ya'll,
Bart

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: kendall
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 01:03 PM

careful harpgirl, you may attract the attention of the flamers. (What you said sounds good to me)Anyone have a problem with that?

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: DougR
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 01:11 PM

Well, Kendall, I'm jealous. DougR

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: GUEST,harpgirl
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 01:15 PM

...I made it! Hey Kendoll, if Rick ain't folks then what is he? I thought it was the musical genre of the song in question and not the person?

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 01:18 PM

Rick...tap your left hoof three times to agree that you ARE folk...;>)

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: kendall
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 03:05 PM

How can we argue something that cant be defined?

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: Songster Bob
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 03:18 PM

Kendall asks:

How can we argue something that cant be defined?

-- Hell, those are the best kind of arguments. Seriously, this thread is a poor way to debate the terminology we use, but we already knew that.

I ain't folk, either, other'n being one of the mass of humanity we call "folks," but it doesn't bother me.

Bob Clayton

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: kendall
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 03:26 PM

Arguement.."The automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says". pointless and stupid. I prefer to have a discussion with someone from whom I can learn something. Thats why opinions dont carry much weight with me.

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: Irish Rover
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 04:33 PM

You Guys don't get it! Rick wrote the post to see if we still love him, we do, so we can end it now

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: Art Thieme
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 08:52 PM

FAT CHANCE !

Art

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 09:57 PM

You got that right Art. Funny thing is that on both my website and business card I'm listed as "traditional and contemporary acoustic musician". Would never seriously call myself a folksinger, 'cause like the well-informed initial poster, I DO know the difference. 'fraid she's been doggin' me for several weeks now, but what the hell are ya gonna do? It's the internet, after all.

Rick

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: little john cameron
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 10:00 PM

The way ah se it,the problem is ye're aw too bloody "nice"LJC

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 10:06 PM

I may upset people here but I could not care less. My defintion of folk is "If it sounds like folk to me, then it is folk".

I have heard little of Rick but I have enjoyed what I have heard without feeling the need to pigeon hole it that precicesly and that is all that concerns me.

Jon

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 11:13 PM

Holy mackerel, I can't believe the number of postings to this thread. Too bad I was away for 2 days and missed it all.

Anyone who's ever been called a folksinger by himself or anyone else has probably been accused of not being a folksinger by various other people. I look forward to seeing Rick play in Orillia fairly soon, and when I do I will let you all know if I think he's a folksinger...not that it matters what I think...but what the heck! How ya doin' sophocleese?

I agree with Jon Freeman. If it sounds like folk (subjective judgement), then it is folk.

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: Brendy
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 11:15 PM

No, he is not folk.

He is one of many folk.

B.

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: DougR
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 11:21 PM

Rick! You mean you really are NOT a folksinger? Shucks shoot!

DougR

P.S. I can't believe this thread is still alive, but Rick as somebody said one time, -'as long as they spell my name right!'

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: ol'troll
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 11:26 PM

By the initial postings definition, Woody Guthrie, Leadbelly, Big Bill Broonzy et.al. were not "folk" musicians because they wrote a lot of their own material.So don't dispair Rick. You are in august company with these "non-folk" greats.

I don't know from Gorka. Maybe he is too.

troll

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 11:39 PM

Well, another thing to just shake my head over.

Who cares what kinda critter a friend is, if they're a friend? Aren't people just people, and isn't music just music? When you get a person who is also music... like Rick is.. what else need be said?

~S~

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Aug 00 - 11:49 PM

on both my website and business card I'm listed as "traditional and contemporary acoustic musician".

Traditional acoustic musician? Sounds like folksinger to me...:-)

Subject: RE: Rick Fielding is not folk
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Aug 00 - 07:34 AM

I am a cheap imitation of myself.