Our musical tastes are so conservative?

Subject: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 00 - 09:25 AM

Groups under the names of Fairport Convention and Steeleye Span are still recording and performing. These groups still contain some original members. Many of the former members have moved on to other successful projects. Despite this, your average folkie (if there is such a creature), seems to forever think of these groups as the one that produced 'Matty Groves' or 'All Around My Hat', around 1970.

A lot has happened musically, in those thirty years but to some it is like yesterday. What must it be like for a musician who has been working and creating all that time, to be interviewed and asked only about the work they produced so long ago? I am thinking of a recent interview on The Mike Harding Radio 2 show, with Robin Williamson and Mike Heron about their work together in the Incredible String Band.

In traditional music terms thirty years is not a long time, but for an individual musician it is a long time indeed. In pop music now even a week is a long time and for that pop musician, that can be their entire musical career. To be never remembered is sad. To be never forgotten for work you did so long in the past, also brings its problems.

The biggest irony for me is that these two groups are now looked upon as THE very model of folk, when I remember them being greeted rather coolly by the then folk establishment, as the punk rockers of their day? They were rock bands then. If they had only played folk venues, they would have not reached the audiences they did and would have gone the way of many good folk bands have subsequently done, into sad oblivion. ……Unless of course they were the siblings of any of the members of these groups.

So take heart those of you that are producing innovative folk music today……If you wait around for thirty years, you too maybe thought of as folk icons………….. and your children will inherit this status too.

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Oct 00 - 09:42 AM

I saw your query on this last week and I've been thinking about it since. Its evolved a little more now I see and let me add a thought.....a bit of an odd thing that seems to hold true.

We seem to expect these artists to grow and change, evolve as it were. Some don't. You seem to see that more in the pop world, but it happens across the board I think. What I notice is, the ones who evolve and change we still respect, but continue to "honor" them of harken back to one time period as you mention. Another artist may have some high point, big hit, tremendous album, or whatever, but they DON'T change and continue to do the same thing for 25 years....milking it as it were.

Artist "A" we tend to respect 25 years later although we keep going back to that "great" time/album/song/whatever and aren't often paying attention to or may dislike their newer offerings. Artist "B" we tend to make fun of 25 years later because they DID NOT change and we think they are laughable for going with the one thing. We may have felt equal enthusiasm for each 25 years ago. Why do we make jokes about "B" when our real opinion of each was the same back then and we haven't liked anything "A" did since???

Did I get that out right? Hope so.......

Spaw

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: Troll
Date: 16 Oct 00 - 09:48 AM

Spaw...If you will check out the last verse of "Ramblin' Rover" By Andy M. Stewart(?) I believe that you will find the answer.

troll

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: GUEST,rabbitrunning
Date: 16 Oct 00 - 10:16 AM

Well, considering that I was out dancing the other night to Goth and Industrial music, it isn't so much that my tastes are conservative as that when I'm at the mudcat, I'm focusing on the corner of my eclectic heart that loves traditional music. I think that an interviewer who never got a chance before to ask about a favorite album, no matter how old it is might be tempted to get distracted, too. [grin]

Some people have very successful careers doing nothing new, and others get rich enough to do what they love regardless, and not worry. Both are great, as far as I'm concerned. Isn't it Cher who's just done an album called "Not Commercial" and is having to market it over the web because none of the labels would touch it?

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: LR Mole
Date: 16 Oct 00 - 10:31 AM

Hm....if a "lectric blooz" guy throws an Elmore James or Bo Diddley riff into a piece, is it copying, or stealing, or homage, or what? Must a trad tune always be about some impossibly obsscure political hoo-hah, and do the Authenticity Police kick the door in if it's changed? Do artists owe their public a cessation of growth or a denial of change? I suppose one answer is the marletpace (do what we liked before or we won't buy it) but that's neither comfortable nor true, to me. As Sondheim wrote: :Is it always "or"; is it never "and"?

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 16 Oct 00 - 11:17 AM

Here is my take on this:

There are lots of ways to grow and develop as an artist. One way is to "move the art forward" by contributing new songs and building on the tradition. Another is to find new ways of approaching old songs, either by bringing in other elements (a bit of jazz, a dollop of calypso, etc.) or by deepening your understanding of the sources and roots of the songs. Another is to get better through practice; you can always improve your technique.

What a lot of artists do is flail about, trying things for the sake of change, without really developing the music. Electrifying (or going unplugged)in too many cases is a good example of change that is not developmental. For some artists it's just a diversionary tactic; an attempt to hide the fact that nothing new is really happening in the music itself. They (and often their audience and professional critics) mistake activity for accomplishment. If the audience doesn't embrace the new music as they did the old? Why they're miffed, of course, expecting unquestioned acceptance of whatever they do. They blame the lack of acceptance of the new on the narrow vision of their audience. Bah!

What artists who are truly trying to develop their art often forget is that it takes the average listener a little bit of time to adjust. You can't expect everyone to function at the speed of genius. There will be backlash to growth, initially, as old expectations are set aside and new ones developed. The most serious backlash will be from the "recording industry professionals" - the clowns at the labels who don't really know what sounds good, other than the cha-ching of the cash register. Critics, also, can damage the chances for a new direction through misunderstanding or malice.

If an artist believes in what he or she is trying to accomplish, there is no choice but to mush on. Hopefully, as an artist grows, he or she can help us grow, too. I think that those are the people who, twenty years on, we admire. They can play the old stuff and the new in the same set without having it sound inauthentic or discordant. There is usually a "connecting thread" of some sort in their music that provides continuity and makes it work.

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 16 Oct 00 - 12:45 PM

Alas, those with a desire to be pop and country and rock etc often leave the folk world behind and will not be caught dead using even the word "folk" in any of their interviews, promo, etc. That is as it should be. It leaves the word folk to be happily utilized by those who sing folksongs. Indeed, the folk world acts as an available springboard to stardom for many -- or or so it seems. Since that's the way of the world in this year 2000 that's well and good. More power to all those good people. Please let me know if money does bring happiness. Me and my friends haver never ever found out the answer to that question.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 00 - 02:22 PM

The point with these two bands was that they never were folk bands. They were rock bands who became more folky when the more folky type of musicians joined their ranks.

It was the process you describe, in reverse.

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Oct 00 - 10:07 PM

If I may, I'd like to try once more to shed a tiny bit of light on how 'folk' might be identified, and make a point about FAME..(relating to some of the examples given)...

There are artists/groups who achieve a certain amount of 'fame'...Steeleye Span and Fairport Convention surely did...as did Bob Dylan and Joan Baez. To varying degrees these did it by doing music which eventually became 'connected' with them..and after awhile, playing of singing certain songs seemed to be 'about' the artist rather than the song...it sort of moved to being a vehicle FOR the artist, rather than the artist simply doing a good job on a song. If he/she WROTE the song, that is fine...but when a song becomes associated with someone who didn't write it, especially a 'trad' song, it affects the whole feeling.

Now, on the other hand, the are musicians who showcase the SONG, rather than themselves, and give an entirely different feeling to the music. Art Thieme has done a couple of Craig Johnson songs, but they remain Craig Johnson songs...and in the process, Art managed to enhance his OWN stature by doing those songs without 'usurping' them!...Make any sense?.....

To me, Andy M. Stewart, despite his acknowleged talent, is 'about' Andy M. Stewart...and Steeleye Span were much the same. It is a subtle point, and we may differ on our interpretations of WHO did this and to what degree, but I feel strongly that ONE item on a 'folk' checklist is whether a singer is promoting the song first, or himself first. I can enjoy both, but I respect one a bit more. Pete Seeger is quite famous, but I never felt he was trying to MAKE Pete Seeger famous....he simply did a marvelous job of making people feel the music, and so became well known...

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Oct 00 - 10:23 PM

Well Bill, I had just about fallen off the turnip truck til I got to the last paragraph which DOES make sense. Jeri has also hit on this several times.....the difference between what someone is "about"....themselves or the song. I think its a valid point, but it comes to prominence in talking about differences between folk and, say, pop or country. Who might be considered a "folk performer" who is more about themselves.....Ani DiFranco? Or can you consider that folk? Anybody have an example of a trad/folk performer who might fit?

We seem to be up to about 4 different topics from Shamble's thought, which is also interesting.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 02:59 AM

I think that Bill's post makes the point well, that it is more about the way a folkie audience receives their music than how the performer presents it.

It is in what light, folkies allow the performers to be seen and also the length of time the process takes.

It is also as if, for a performer to do something that does reach a popular audience, for some, they are then automatically 'suspect'. though of what, I am never quite sure?

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: Noreen
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 09:42 AM

What must it be like for a musician who has been working and creating all that time, to be interviewed and asked only about the work they produced so long ago?

OK, Shambles- here's your chance:

From the Fairport Convention website:

That's a Good Question....

Rather than tell you about what they had for breakfast, the Fairport 'lads' would like to write something interesting for the Winter Tour programme.

So what would you like to ask? You can address a question to an individual, but ideally they can all have a go.

If your question is used and you are coming to one of the gigs, Peggy will personally buy you a drink.

Can't say fairer than that!

Noreen

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 01:59 PM

Thanks Noreen. I sent it. If i get one, I will let you know what the answer is here.

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: Peter T.
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 02:34 PM

One classic element of this is whether some people have a kernel in their style that they find clean and easy early, and then they spend the rest of their life working through. Dylan, for instance, keeps circling back to folk music as filtered through his own sensibility, which wanders all over the place. He obviously still sees himself as a weirdly hybridized Woody Guthrie.

A related interesting question is whether people who go on for many years have older role models or storylines that they can fit into, especially in pop which is for teeenagers. You can see the struggle in rock people either trying to remain like teenagers forever, or trying to figure out what to do when they are 50. It is obvious that one of the classic alternative role models is the ancient black blues singer -- you can watch various older pop stars shifting ground as they try and cope: and others just dragging around the same stuff as the wrinkles descend.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Oct 00 - 02:55 PM

"they are then automatically 'suspect'. though of what, I am never quite sure"

well, for ME all they are suspect of is altering the music to fit some 'marketing' model of what it ought to be. Or just gratuitous change 'cause they WANT it to be identified with them...Once in a great while they actually improve something, but real improvement, for me, is a much more gradual 'folkish' process. In this sense, yep..my tastes ARE conservative.

My only serious complaint is that it is so hard to retain an identity for the older, more 'conservative' music. What the popularizers do is legitimate, but they tend to use labels which lump MY stuff in with their stuff...and there ARE differences.

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: GeorgeH
Date: 18 Oct 00 - 11:39 AM

Shambles says "The point with these two bands was that they never were folk bands". However that's simply untrue, both Fairport and Steeleye were bands who set out to apply "rock" music ideas to Folk music. At the time they were original, innovative and (damn it!) exciting.

Since then everything else has moved on while they've stayed where they were. Nothing wrong with that - I guess I'd even still quite enjoy one of their concerts, if I felt that to be how I wanted to spend my money. But for the cost of one Steeleye/Fairport concert I can probably pay for 2+ concerts by more innovative acts, which I will enjoy vastly more.

As for Albion Band -- well, best not mention the downward spiral of the Albion Band . .

G.

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 Oct 00 - 08:53 PM

"change" isn't always for the better.
"I like it" doesn't equate with "folk"

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 18 Oct 00 - 11:44 PM

For sure, CRAIG JOHNSON, like U. Utah Phillips, has written so many wonderful songs in the "folk style that I couldn't ever not notice and sing them. I say that recognizing fully that I always resisted learning singer/songwriter creations---especially the navel-gazing tomes glorifying love on urban L-trains and the like. Craig Johnson and Utah are so trad-like that I'm sure Woody G. would love it if folks all along the timeline took those to be of his making. A couple by Si Kahn, Stan Rogers and Ewan and Peggy fall into that category too in my mind. The four songs by Craig Johnson that I recorded over the years (with Mr. Johnson's permission) were never recorded by him. And I was honored to bring such fine work a place where others would possibly find those gems---.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 00 - 02:20 PM

...amen, Art....

some people enjoy 'innovation', like George H, some prefer to stay with traditional styles. If we are at least AWARE of which is which, we can avoid a lot of problems. Like Art said, Craig's and Utah's and some others are very much trad-like. And Dick G., as usual said what I wanted to say with wonderful brevity.

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: GeorgeH
Date: 19 Oct 00 - 02:39 PM

Actually, Bill, I have a great liking for straight traditional performance as well . . There's such power in the material, and a good "traditional" performer acts as a vehicle for that.

Then again, nothing's ever simple!

G.

Subject: RE: Our musical tastes are so conservative?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 Oct 00 - 08:36 PM

I should add:

"folk" doesn't necessarily equate to "good"