 sj |
||
|
||
Are folk singers allowed to improve?
|
|
|
Subject: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Sibelius Date: 04 Aug 02 - 03:12 PM I say 'singers', I include players as well. I have come across some places, more than I would like, where aiming to sing or play better than you did the week before carries a sort of unpleasant stigma, like a contagious disease. Performing badly is more approved of than performing well. As long as you've tried, that's all that matters. Yes, of course there's room for that when the young or inexperienced give it a try. But there does seem to be a view in some places that if you practise between performances, with the express intention of improving, you're somehow not one of us. It somehow denies the true nature of folk music. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 02 - 03:17 PM Well, sir, I would just say you can find horse manure in any field, and it sounds like you stepped in some. Or it may be you identified the wrong problem -- it could be you were talking about your efforts to improve to an audience who just wanted to hear music. They weren't there to hear about your struggles, just to hear your music. In that case, your remedy is simple --- choose a better audience when you want to talk about yourself. As for allowed to improve, I'd say I have never stopped improving, thank God -- it's mandatory!! But I choose those to whom I talk about it with some care, as it can be a veryboring subject to a lot of people! A |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: michaelr Date: 04 Aug 02 - 03:17 PM I've never heard such nonsense in my life. What are these 'places' you've come across? I'd stay away from them! I've been working to improve my singing and playing since I started at age 13, and I suppose I'll keep doing so as long as I can. I don't see how it could be fulfilling to stagnate as a musician! Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 04 Aug 02 - 03:24 PM Michaelr " I don't see how it could be fulfilling to stagnate as a musician!" Heh... I know people who haven't learned new music for the past 10-15 years... How sad is that eh??? ;-)
|
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Genie Date: 04 Aug 02 - 03:29 PM Sibelius, I've never run into that attitude on the part of an audience where I performed. (I have occasionally run into someone who heard me over a decade ago and seemed to assume that I must play and sing at the same level I did then, but that's a different issue.) There are, on the other hand, a couple of jam sessions/song circles I attend where a lot of the players seem to have a strong preference for songs -- and arrangements -- that use only your basic 3 to 5 "folk song" chords. Try to do a song that uses a major 7th or a transitional chord or a 9th or a diminished chord and a lot of these folks just stop playing and let you play by yourself -- and then sort of act like you were showing off. It's hard to explain how they communicate this attitude (you kinda have to be there), but you can tell when the group likes the song and wants to learn it or hear it again. In the groups (mainly one in particular) that I'm talking about, they never seem to get very enthused about anything that isn't super simple to play. Still, even groups like that, I've never known anyone to show any disapproval of good technique. Quite the opposite. Genie |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: greg stephens Date: 04 Aug 02 - 03:29 PM Sibelius' music doesnt seem to have changed a great deal in the years I've been listening to it. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: GUEST,Paul Date: 04 Aug 02 - 03:35 PM Clinton, I know exactly what you mean. I bumped into a old school teaher of mine last year. 15 years ago, he used to entertain us with a couple of Ralph McTell songs (always the same ones). When I heard him at a session last year, guess what he sang? Paul |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Sibelius Date: 04 Aug 02 - 03:50 PM 'Places' - folk clubs. I've checked back my original remarks, and I can't find any explicit or implicit reference to my 'struggles', whatever that is all about. It was a serious point, however it looks. I've seen folk clubs close because the preference seemed to be to keep the standard of singing and playing uniformly low. Anyone who had obviously been working at their playing, singing or performance was regarded as having a bit of an attitude - the more so if they came back the following week. As a result they stopped coming, the club got a reputation for being unwelcoming of newcomers and was left with a small group of regulars who (as CH alludes) never learnt anything new and who eventually got bored of listening to each other. Whatever the reaon, folk clubs closing down isn't going to help encourage larger audiences and wider participation in folk music. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: GUEST,Captain Swing Date: 04 Aug 02 - 04:04 PM I agree with you completely Sibelius. In my experience, you will only receive any credit for improvement in folk clubs if you are at a pretty low level already. If an already accomplished perfomer tackles something more challenging and succeeds then this is either seen as cockiness or that they've always been able to play that well anyway. Another performer could receive the same level of applause for falling off his/her chair! Cheers - Captain Swing |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Bobert Date: 04 Aug 02 - 04:12 PM Find another place to play, Sibelius, that appreciates hard work, which getting better can be. Plus, music is about you first and the audience second. Right? Now get back to work... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: GUEST,Paul Date: 04 Aug 02 - 04:27 PM I think I agree with you, sort of. I've noticed a tendency here, and at Mudcat Paltalk sessions to tell everyone that they're 'great' however inept they may be. Is that the sort of thing you meant? Paul |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Sibelius Date: 04 Aug 02 - 04:30 PM Elaborate, Paul, would you please? |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Don Firth Date: 04 Aug 02 - 04:39 PM Interesting. Years ago I used to run into occasional folkie type musicians who looked down on me because I'd had some singing lessons, studied some classic guitar, and was taking classes in music theory. One of the loudest was a guy who played and sang very well, but claimed he couldn't read music and he didn't know one chord from another, he just kinda made it all up as he went along. This, of course, implied that he was just so naturally talented that he didn't need to practice or study all that stuff that I was studying. Come to find out that before he took up the guitar, he'd had nine years of classical violin lessons (his sister told me). You can't do that unless you know how to read music and a whole lot more besides. He was BSing everyone. There's a lot of that kind of BS in folk music circles. If anybody gives you grief for practicing and trying to improve your musicianship, it's probably because they're 1)too damned lazy to practice and they're afraid you'll get better than them, or 2)just bloody ignorant. In 1964 at the Berkeley Folk Festival, I attended a workshop conducted by Doc Watson. Doc horrified a number of folkies. At one point, someone asked him how he can play fiddle tunes on the guitar and play them so fast and clean. He responded, "I practice scales at least a half-hour a day." Another guy asked him about a particular finger-picking pattern he did. He answered, "Well, it's just a simple arpeggio. 'Course, I'm not supposed to know words like 'arpeggio.'" I figure if you want to play like Doc Watson, you have to do what Doc Watson does. He really knows a lot about music i>beyond what he actually plays--and he practices. Maybelle Carter never learned to read music very well, but she spent a lot of time practicing the guitar. Don Firth
|
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 04 Aug 02 - 04:42 PM That is, indeed the case, although there are several instances of 'damning with faint praise'.... Paltalk is the voxconf site that we have a sing around with on Sunday afternoon/evenings sometimes.... there is a tendency to say great or wonderful to encourage people to sing, but to be honest, there are very few times when someone has been so horrible that they needed to be silenced. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: BlueSage Date: 04 Aug 02 - 05:00 PM Genie, you have made an interesting point about introducing complex song arrangements at jams and song circles. It sounded like you were referring to "jam sessions/song circles" as if they were the same thing. I look upon them as completely different events. If I'm at a jam (where everyone is playing together) I stick to simple chord progressions so the other participants can "jam" along. If I'm at a song circle (where we are taking turns performing for each other) I use songs with more complex progressions and arrangements. It all depends on the consensus of the participating musicians. As for the original question posed by this thread, I've never encountered an audience who didn't appreciate quality musicianship! Mike |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 04 Aug 02 - 05:03 PM What a dumb thread. This should get at least one hundred responses. Count me in. :-) Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Big Mick Date: 04 Aug 02 - 05:24 PM Jerry, you beat me to it by a few minutes. This is a silly thread. Let's get it to part two, HE SAYS WITH HIS TONGUE COMPLETELY BURIED IN HIS CHEEK. Unless someone beats me to it I am number 17. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Sibelius Date: 04 Aug 02 - 05:30 PM A "dumb thread" it may be Jerry, but as my basic point was about 'improvement', well improve the thread! |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Stewart Date: 04 Aug 02 - 05:31 PM Genie: I think I know one of the song circles you are talking about. Many people come, but hardly anyone has rehearsed or even thought about what they will sing. They will begin with, "I really don't know this song, so can anyone help me?" or they will stumble through the same song they have sung before, but without any improvement. Others, who can sing reasonably well, will sing the same songs over again every week - one would wish they might learn a new song! If one does does take the time to learn a new song, and sing it well, one gets the feeling that they are just performing and that the song circle is not a place to do that sort of thing. Personally, I find it much more rewarding to hear a new song, well sung, than the same mediocre ones week after week. Don: I agree that a lot of folkies want to give the impression that what they're doing is natural and un-studied. We've all heard bad examples of so-called folk music that is over-produced and pretentious. But I see nothing wrong with striving to do whatever it is you do well, and to do music well takes lots of practice. Liz: I frequent a good open mic where people with a wide range of abilities perform - some are very good, some are not, and some are in-between. The audience is very supportive and everyone gets great applause and praise. But then you wonder if it is sincere or whether they are just trying to make you feel good. On the other hand, they do seem to appreciate someone who improves over time. It is rewarding when you feel, as a performer, that you have improved - unlike the song circle where there seems to be no incentive to improve or even do anything well. I prefer to perform in groups where most people are as good or better than I - that gives me real incentive to practice more and improve. Cheers, S. in Seattle |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 04 Aug 02 - 06:13 PM Fair's fair, Sibelius: Howzabout this? When I first started singing folk music, I was in my twenties and tried to sound like I was 67. Now I'm 67. When I sang, I tried to erase all vestiges of my best Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett phrasing and tone so that I'd sound like a poorly recorded Clarence Ashley on a scratchy old 78 record. Lovingly un-remastered. I figured that, if I wanted to sound authentic, I had to sing with a nasal twang and affect the phrasing of a southern musician (in my best Wisconsin imitation.) After awhile, I realized that when Clarence Ashley recorded the Cukoo he wasn't 67... he was probably the same age then that I was. I also started to get uncomfortable with people trying to sound old, and with an accent that didn't reflect who they were. Kinda a Strasburg Method Acting approach to singing folk music. I wonder what Brando would have sounded like, if he played five string banjo. I especially became uncomfortable with well to do suburban white folks trying to sound like dirt poor black folks. I figured the best place to start on changing the whole world would be with myself, so I stopped trying to sound like someone else and hoped people would listen to me if I sounded like me. I hope that I improved. No one complained. No Folk Police grabbing me by the lapels saying, "We heard that you're trying to improve." "Oh no, not me, officer! I sound as lousy as I always have." :-)
Yeah, the whole thought of people not wanting you to improve seems dumb to me (no offense meant.) Maybe you mean something else? Folk audiences may not always want you to change. In that regard they're no different than many people I know who think that any change is by definition, for the worse. Now maybe there are a couple of people on the planet I haven't had the misfortune to meet who REALLY don't like people to improve, but a whole audience like that? Sounds like Hell on Earth to me.
Maybe you hang out in the wrong places... Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Phil Cooper Date: 04 Aug 02 - 06:20 PM There's another trend I've noticed over the years as well, on this topic. That is, if someone saw you play an open mic/song circle when you were starting out and you sucked, will you ever play well? I call this the "knew you when you were little" syndrome. I know several musicians who suffer from bad first impressions made years ago. They've improved, and still have trouble being taken seriously as musicians by those who saw them way back when. I agree with the notion that improving our skills should be a constant endeavor. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: katlaughing Date: 04 Aug 02 - 06:25 PM I have heard performers complain when audiences expect them to sing the same things they may have heard them do several years ago, but they understand it's not from dislike of improvement as much as not liking change, as Jerry points out...wanting to hear the "old familiar refrain." I quit singing in PalTalk partly because I lost most of my voice over the past year (nothing serious) and also because I wasn't learning any new songs to my satisfaction. Some of the level of talent in the song room inspired me because it was so superb; almost all of it encouraged me to try new songs, playing the dulcimer for others, etc. So, in that respect, I don't think the applause and whistles, etc. hurt anyone even if they were more for effort than quality. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: toadfrog Date: 04 Aug 02 - 06:35 PM Sibelius: The point would be clearer if we knew what kind of improvement you have in mind. Was it your own performance that was improved, or did you "improve" on the songs you sang? Can it be that changes which seemed to you to be improvements did not seem like improvement to your listeners? Did someone say, "we liked it better the way you played before," or was it more like "you have improved, asshole, and we don't tolerate that!"? |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Big Mick Date: 04 Aug 02 - 06:49 PM Some good points. Sibelius, please accept my sincere apologies for being a smartass. It is just so inconceivable that one would be put down for improving. I would concur that you either need to change the folks you are playing music with, or the venues. Either that or you are misunderstanding the comments. I really do wish you well. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Sibelius Date: 04 Aug 02 - 07:20 PM Fair comment, toadfrog; let's stick to improving on our own performances. That was my point. If I watch someone sing "The Worker's Song", then they come back the following week and sing it again, only their pitching is more precise and their accompaniment is more fluid, then haven't they improved their performance? As to whether it's an 'improvement' on the song sung by Dick Gaughan, well that's a matter of opinion, isn't it? Mick: Smartass? Your word, not mine! |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 04 Aug 02 - 09:36 PM I'm still curious, Sib, what you're really getting at. I think of the common occurrence of singers and bands that seemed to peak early... and then lost their magic... The Amazing Rhythm Aces, Timbuk 3, Dire Straits(although I'm not sure they even exist any more) and singers like Steve Earle and Dwight Yoakum who I thought were best early in their careers. Now, maybe THEY think that they've improved. Maybe I think that I've improved and I've actually lost my magic. Have you "improved" yourself in your own mind and found that others don't share that opinion? If it's a question of a musician evolving in a way that is not appreciated by others, then you're not talking folk audiences specifically, you're talking people who are attracted to a musician for a particular gift they have, who change in a way that others don't appreciate. Anyone care to hear David Lee Roth anymore? Howzabout Mariah Carey or Whitney Houston? There's no universal measurement for "improvement." One person's sense of self-improvement may be someone else's opinion that they've lost it.
So, c'mon, Sibelius, verbalize, will ya? :-)
Or is this just a puzzle? puzzled; Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 04 Aug 02 - 09:37 PM Rant mode on.
I frequent the Paltalk "live" rooms quite a bit, and I note a common practice, referred to above. Someone plays/sings something, and it's horrendous. It's spectacularly awful! The singer has a bad voice, no idea of rhythm, couldn't find a pitch if life depended on it, and doesn't know or care about the words. But there are comments of "AWSOMEEEEEEEEE!!!!" and so forth. I've seen that expression used so much in totally inapplicable situations that I won't use it even when the performance was, in fact, inspiring of awe, as so many are.
Another observation. There is one singer who is VERY frequently heard in Paltalk live circles, who, I gather, patterns his/her (I won't say which) singing on a certain well-known performer who must have a very distinctive voice. His/her guitar playing is in fact very good, and the speaking voice is pleasant. But when the singing starts the tone is awkward and grating, sounding whiny and petulant--I assume from an attempt to approximate the well-known performer's sound. I always turn the sound down during this singer's turns because the effect is so grating. And yet I have more than occasionally seen a comment like, "Oh, (performer) you have such a great/awesome/beautiful (choose one) voice!" I have great difficulty thinking that ANYONE could mean that comment. Now certainly we're all there as friends, and one doesn't want to make somebody feel bad. But the almost-automatic entry of not merely approving but on-the-surface enthusiastic comments calls into question the validity and even the honesty of compliments generally.
My own practice is to say nothing if it's not good, or if the performer seems to need encouragement to get beyond a present bad state I will say something like "That's a good song!" If the singing is bad but the instrumental work was good, I'll compliment the playing and hold my tongue about the singing. End of rant. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Genie Date: 04 Aug 02 - 10:21 PM BlueSage, You're right that jams are different from song circles. But what I was referring to was not the introduction of truly complex arrangements, but something as simple as using one or two chords beyond the usual G, C, & D, with maybe an Em or an A7 thrown in. I really don't consider Cmaj7 or one of your basic diminished minor chords "complex." Stewart, actually, the main "song circle/jam" I was alluding to is in Portland. The explicit policy is to do songs on which everyone can play and/or sing with you on, and many participants are relative novices. We do use lyric/chord sheets. Nevertheless, folks gravitate toward the 3 chord songs with melodies that all sound like variations on each other, IMHO. A song like "If You Could Read My Mind" intimidates half of this group, because it uses some unusual -- though not difficult -- chords. A song like " Urge For Goin'" intimidates the same folks because it has a lot of chord changes, even though the chords are familiar. Jerry R, LOL! Couldn'a said it better myself! (What you said about trying to sound old, etc.) Phil C, That's what I was trying to say in my earlier post, about people assuming you will never improve. As they say, "you never get a second chance to make a first impression." Some folks will never "let you improve," in the sense that they will never hear the improvement! Uncle DaveO, ...so if I ever get a chance to partipate in one of the PalTalk sessions, and you tell me, "That was a pretty song you did," I'll know what that really means, right?" *G* Sibelius, I do hope you're not losing sleep over the opinions of folks who really don't want you to improve. Let 'em listen to rap! Genie |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 04 Aug 02 - 10:43 PM ...and another thing that irritates the Hell out of me... Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: GUEST Date: 05 Aug 02 - 08:07 AM Dave O - You're so right about indiscriminate use of over-the-top compliments. I won't praise something that I didn't think was praiseworthy. And I'll usually wait awhile before delivering a compliment - that way it isn't as easily mistaken for mere auto-complementing. Its not really kind to tell someone they are marvellous when in fact they aren't. It can end up making them put themselves in a situation where they end up looking foolish. Back to the thread topic. Sounds like maybe a mix of jealousy and not wanting the existing dynamics of the session/singaround to change. Maybe if you improve too much you risk making the non-improvers uncomfortably aware that they have stalled? I hope you find a more congenial bunch - but in any case - full marks for being one of those that can and does improve over time. Onwards & upwards & all that.... |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: SharonA Date: 05 Aug 02 - 09:33 AM Jerry Rasmussen sez: "I wonder what Brando would have sounded like, if he played five string banjo." Um, that wouldn't be a Stella banjo, would it, Jerry? :^) |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Hecate Date: 05 Aug 02 - 09:56 AM If a club is going to work as a community, then encouraging regulars to become better and more confident performers is a must. This often means bearing with them during the first few months when they only have a few songs and they aren't performing so well. I find it weird to think of a club not encouraging people to broaden their repertoirs and to improve. What few clubs I've expereinced, the 'older hands' will often help out newer people, suggesting material they might want to try, providing chords, giving moral support etc. That said, we have a running joke about 'practising' - everyone claims not to practise, anyone using 'but I haven't practised it' as an excuse not to do a requested song gets a round of ' so what, this is a folk club', but its all so much hot air, they all blatantly practise now and then. To the uninitiated, it might seem like we favour the whole 'I haven't practised, I do it naturally' approach, its just an excuse to rib each other and to try and raise a chuckle or two. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: IvanB Date: 05 Aug 02 - 10:34 AM Frankly, I think if a club is to survive it must encourage members to evolve in their playing. Stagnation is a killer for any community, no matter what type it may be. As for Paltalk, the accepted rule for the music rooms seems to be "thou shalt not criticize." I agree with Dave that the compliments sometimes go overboard for mediocre singers and/or instrumentalists, but I've heard a number of them that were just starting out (and I know this because they've mentioned it in chat, not just from the quality of their performances) who've been encouraged to continue and improve partly by the warm acceptance they feel on Paltalk. Paltalk users, as a group, probably need to be a bit more discriminating in choosing their icons, but I've certainly been enriched by many of the performers I've heard there, and I've also been encouraged to improve my delivery so I can do the best job possible when I perform. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Steve Parkes Date: 05 Aug 02 - 10:43 AM Some nights I get up and sing at my regular place, and I do pretty well, in my own opinion. From time to time I feel I've done very well. Some nights I get up and everything goes to pieces: I'm in the wrong key (and don't notice for a coupe of verses), I'm running out of breath halfway through lines, I'm forgetting the words ... you name it. And I don't think people should have to put up with that. It's up to me to put some effort in, so I can make a proper job of things. I've been around long enough to be able to make a joke of it when things get bad, but I'm supposed to be a singer, not a stand-up comic. I can easily forgive beginners their nervousness and lack of experience (even if it is an effort sometimes), but I'm not so happy to listen to poor performances from folks who should know better. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 05 Aug 02 - 10:46 AM SharonA.... very, very good..LOL :-)
Hecate: Back in the 60's in Greenwich Village, they had a different disclaimer. Singers would get up on stage and say, "I will now attempt to play..." and then give the title of the song. "And now, appearing in the center ring the Flying Zamboni's will attempt to do a triple flip." It was the ultimate fail-safe introduction. If you really messed up and someone criticized you, you could always say, "Hey! I only said that I would ATTEMPT to play the song.." Maybe we need to revive the introduction and forget about all the disclaimers of not having practiced. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Aug 02 - 10:48 AM Harkening back to the orginal question "Are folk singers allowed to improve"... I think it might be more apt to ask that same question about politicians. Or William Shatner. Or marmite. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: EBarnacle1 Date: 05 Aug 02 - 12:04 PM I've been on both sides of this discussion. When I first joined a formerly well-known singing group, my voice was less than great, but I tried. Over the course of a couple of decades, various members mentored me and helped me improve (including lessons in the chorus on stage). The key to it all was that I was expected to make an effort and reach for my best. When my baritone register first came in, I had to take what they had taught me and learn to control/use it and make myself an asset to the group. Eventually, I was offered solos. On the other hand, I believe the group is/was overly accepting of the trolls who dragged everyone down by performing loudly, out of rhythm and out of key. These people led to the destruction of the group by imposing themselves on us and the (often paying) audience. They insisted on getting on stage with us and dominating one or two microphones. Don't ask me why the sound men did not lower their levels to minimize their effect. Eventually the group stopped being invited to major gigs and now works a only few times yearly, generally without the trolls. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Sibelius Date: 05 Aug 02 - 05:49 PM Jerry: I was thinking more of the typical set-up in folk clubs in England, which is essentially an amateur (not in the pejorative sense) arrangement, rather than the professional, more or less mainstream rock acts which you mention. The phrase I should have used in the first place was "inverted snobbery", but it got stuck behind my frontal lobe somewhere. Other contributors have knocked the idea into shape and moved it on, and if the thread shows anything, it's that I'm not the only one who's come across this. DaveO's is a good point, about over the top flattery of risible performances, and this depresses me as much as the cool reception I've seen given to players who've worked hard. Oh yes, and someone went off down a siding about pre-song excuses, but what the hell, sidings are often more interesting than the main line! "I'm really not very good" - well don't do it then! "I haven't practised this..." - but we're going to have to listen to you scratching your way through it anyway, right? Worst of all is failing to get the guitar in tune, then starting the song with "well it's good enough for folk". It isn't, dammit! Treat the music with some respect! Genie, thank you for your concern, I'm not quite at the stage of losing sleep just yet. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Phil Cooper Date: 05 Aug 02 - 06:31 PM Sibelius, On your experience with performers/participants who sort of look down their noses at those of us who practice, I know of this occurrance: A friend of mine, who used to edit a quarterly folk magazine (in the US) reviewed an album (an LP, the mag ceased publication before CD's really started coming out) by a songwriter. She mentioned some complimentary things about his writing, but faulted some of his delivery. He wrote an irate letter to the magazine claiming that he purposely didn't practice his banjo much, because it would interfere with his sincerity, therefore the review was unfair. Somewhat like being a poet and not reading other poets, because you didn't want to seem influenced by anyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 05 Aug 02 - 06:57 PM "thou shalt not criticize." A stupid rule for ANY situation... Criticism can ALWAYS be done well... even to the most fragile of egos... It's just a matter of doing it constructively... |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 05 Aug 02 - 07:39 PM Sibelius: As this thread has evolved, it's made a lot more sense. It's kinda like the floor singers thread... there are clearly some differences between the folk scene over here, and your way. For a few years, I ran something called a Potlatch, with a friend of mine, Dallas Cline. A Potlatch is a pacific northwest indian gathering where the purpose is to outgive everyone else. I thought it was a good goal for people getting together informally to share music. At the time, I was also running a folk concert series, and there was a steady stream of "professionals" who would come to the Potlatch, anxiously await their turn to show how good they were, and then when I didn't offer tham a booking in the series, they disappeared. The core group was very encouraging, even though only three or four of us had performed "professionally." I learned to play fiddle with a kid in high school who played hammered dulcimer, in large part due to the generosity and encouragement of the people who had to listen to us. Most of the people weren't "professional," and did not have the talent or desire to become one. For a lot of people, that might seem hard to understand. Why wouldn't you want to get good enough to get bookings? For some people, they were well aware of their limitations and just enjoyed swapping songs in a non-judgmental environment. Most of the others just enjoyed music as an avocation... a living room experience. Most of the time, we had a wonderful evening, thoroughly enjoying the best as well as the worst musicians. One of the things that turns me off most is the competitiveness I see so often when people get together to perform. It's one thing to want to get better. It's another to want to look better than everyone else. Everyone with a discernible ego (me included) likes the recognition of playing a song well, whether they are living room singers or professional performers. But, no matter what the experience may be, when you try to make yourself look good by making others look bad, you'll kill any spirit in a group. Maybe that's what you've experienced.
In many of these threads you can see the difference in perspective between those who are trying to make a living out of their music, and those who do it as an avocation. I've always been involved with music as an avocation, so I have a more casual, probably less demanding/discerning perspective than someone like Harvey. It's good to remember that, if we're trying to listen and well as speak here. I need to remember that as much as anyone. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Aug 02 - 10:06 PM You meet all kinds. Generally speaking though, among the folk people I know, improvements in delivery, voice, etc, are noted and given enthusiastic encouragement. As for those who practice regularly, they are admired for it...specially by me! - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Ebbie Date: 05 Aug 02 - 10:19 PM What Little Hawk said... In our group(s) just about every one of us has gotten better; some a LOT better. Sometimes it's not that the voice itself is better now, but that the timbre and delivery have improved due to its owner being more comfortable, less nervous, these days. I can't imagine being in a group that isn't accepting and supportive. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: DMcG Date: 06 Aug 02 - 04:46 AM On meaningless compliments: I attended a folk club some 35 years ago where the singer was ordinary - not bad, but not enthralling either. At the end of one of his songs, the audience applauded politely whereupon he threw a fit "Why are you applauding? None of you were listening, that table over there talked throughout, your applause is nothing short of a lie", etc etc. I've never heard anything like it (outside Brechtian theatre!) but I have to admit he was absolutely right. Although Dave O's remarks make me wary of singing on Paltalk now (!), the point he makes, and this otherwise forgotten singer, are valid. I won't explain my own rules for Paltalk, but ever since the encounter above I have been much more careful about 'automatic praise'. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: GUEST Date: 06 Aug 02 - 05:00 AM DMcG - the applause he got was politeness on the part of the audience. The real feedback he should have taken note of was the very fact that they weren't listening & were talking through it. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Aug 02 - 09:28 AM Well, they could have responded by booing, hissing, and throwing rotten eggs...perhaps then he would have been pleased with their honesty and openness! LOL! Sounds like he had a chip on his shoulder to me. He probably kicked the dog when he arrived home that night. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 06 Aug 02 - 09:38 AM Or, he could have done what Len Chandler used to do at the Gaslight Cafe in Greenwich Village in the sixties. When he sang a chorus and noticed that people weren't singing along at a table he'd leave the stage, go stand next to the table and tell them that they'd better sing. He never was explicit about what the consequences might be, but they started singing, just to play it safe. :-)
Anyone know where Len Chandler is? Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 06 Aug 02 - 12:41 PM I helped run a weekly open-mic for several years. The building had a large parking lot where warmups and jams were always going on, in addition to whoever was on stage inside. If whoever was on stage was really bad, everybody just migrated outside and listened to whoever was playing in the parking lot. In short, the message was, "Put some effort into your performance or you'll wind up playing for the soundman." Was this rude or impolite to the peron onstage? I don't think so. We all knew that there would be "competition". I think it really gave people an incentive for improvement. If all the folks in the parking lot put their instruments away and came inside when it was your turn to play, you knew you were doing something right. Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Aug 02 - 02:35 PM Wow. What a great system for motivation to improve... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: GUEST,pibbles Date: 06 Aug 02 - 05:41 PM I was away from our local folkie gathering for 6 months because of another commitment for those nights. I missed the gatherings and was delighted when one night I was free to go back and see people again and sing a song or two. However when I got there I became very depressed. NOTHING had changed. This person was STILL sloppily learning new songs too fast without working on them to make them presentable. That person was STILL pausing before every chord change with a sweet ingratiating smile on her face. The other singer still sang in a monotone mumble. They were all of them cheerfully applauded for their efforts. I left halfway through realizing that I had outgrown the gathering. It had been supportive to a certain level and after that improvement wasn't encouraged. Barring accidents or serious difficulties in my way I want to be a better player and singer in two years than I am now. As I am a better player and singer than I was a couple of years ago. Sometimes a group is useful for a while and then you move beyond it and find others who will offer you more challenges and room to extend and develop your craft. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: GUEST Date: 07 Aug 02 - 02:56 AM Pibbles - that strikes a chord. There are sessions where the expectations are so low that it tends to get clogged with repeaters or almost-learnt-its, and then there comes a point where its a chore to sit through the evening, and that's no kind of atmosphere to bring out the best in you - so you end up performing a bit lack-lustre yourself.... - as you say - sometimes you outgrow a group (or familiarity breeds contempt) and its time to more on.. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: GUEST Date: 07 Aug 02 - 06:37 AM move on I mean - of course moron might be more appropriate. :>) |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: GUEST,Foe Date: 07 Aug 02 - 10:02 AM Jerry - Len Chandler ran the "Songwriters Showcase" in Los Angeles for many years. Hopefuls would audition to him and John Braney and if they felt you had 2 commercial songs you got on the showcase, once a month at (? don't remember the club). He might still be doing that. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Sibelius Date: 07 Aug 02 - 05:27 PM DMcG's recollection, of a singer complaining of people applauding when they hadn't been listening, triggered a wry smile. Here comes a confession: I did the very same thing myself not two months ago! Admittedly, this was in a pub where we occasionally go for a session, not a folk club, but it was very cramped and noisy, full of people who were there to eat and drink and not to listen to the music. It was getting late, we (and our instruments) kept getting trodden on, and we were all beginning to lose our tempers. What annoyed me was the fact that all the singers and players - who ignored the damn song but applauded it anyway - were my friends, so maybe I felt I could get away with blowing off a bit of steam in their direction. They all just fell about laughing, serve me right! As a respondent to DMcG's post suggested, perhaps it should be taken as feedback: learn some new and better songs..... |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Bert Date: 08 Aug 02 - 02:19 AM Ya know Sibby, I've never come across that problem. Now you've got me really worried, because there is a distinct possibility that I have never MADE any improvement! Oh dear. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: GUEST Date: 08 Aug 02 - 02:48 AM Sebelius - don't forget it could just be listener-fatigue. Sometimes the best people are the ones that get talked over just because everyone knows they're good & assumes they must be confident enough not to mind (that effect is multiplied if they're your friends). Its very difficult to listen intently all evening, so sometimes a little inattention breaks out that is no reflection on you or the songs. On a similar tack - has anyone ever suffered (like me) the supreme embarassment of apologising after a song for having got some crucial wording wrong, then realising everyone is completely puzzled by your explanation because they weren't paying attention anyway & have no idea whatsoever what the song was about (heart-breaking when you've emoted your best). |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Jeri Date: 08 Aug 02 - 09:18 AM Guest, the bit about apologising to puzzled people - yes. I quit doing it. I've forgotten verses in songs or switched lines. It's part of that phenomenon where you notice every little mistake but no one else does. It may be they noticed and then forgot about it because it didn't matter to them. I've noticed really good people do it and make it seem like it was on purpose. At some point, a good performance is about confidence. If you can pull of an air of quiet confidence it makes you seem in control, and I think that often matters more to people's enjoyment than perfection. On the original question, the bit about improving - I've seen that happen to some extent as well. Some of our more youthful players have found the solution to the "don't wanna play anything new" syndrome. They keep playing it week after week, with enthusiasm and an innocent disregard for those who sit there with instruments in hand and wait for the tune to end so they can get back to the something they already know. Eventually one or two others will learn the tune. The others will have a choice to learn it or sit there doing nothing when it's played. Same thing happens with songs. Most places I've been, folks can usually learn the chorus by the end of a song because they pay attention. I can sing something several weeks in a row, tell 'em the words before I sing it, practice the chorus first, and they'll still sort of mumble-sing when the chorus comes 'round. I've never been very good at imposing on people, and that's what this feels like. Nevertheless, unless people actually seem to dislike the song, the only way folks will join in is if I'm persistant. Just keep going. Try to get just one or two other people excited about new/better. The other folks may realise that they can do a little work or be left behind in the dust. |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Peg Date: 08 Aug 02 - 11:05 AM so what's worse: song circlers who never bother to learn a new song (I am thinking of one singer who can talk about traditional music until blue in the face but when called on to sing at our local singers club always sings one of only two songs; this is going on for years now!)...or ssong circlers who show up with some new ditty they have just learned or are learning, and hold their lyrics in front of them or keep stopping and starting again and apologizing? Even seasoned professionals have a false start once in a while (the wonderful Frank Harte will start again if he has chosen an awkward key, for example, or Niamh Parsons will pause good-naturedly when she forgets a lyric)--but for the most part the level of mediocrity and tolerance of it seems kind of high... Then again, our singers club has just about died out from lack of interest! The one in the suburbs on Fridays has 40-50 attendees every week; we are lucky to get 2 or 3 in the city on a Wednesday. Any suggestions? Requests to start earlier (we don't get going until at least 10 pm or later although advertised to start at 9 pm) have been met with indifference...we have our own great room and have had had some wonderful guest performers (including the two luminaries mentioned above) but we seem unable to attract new blood or get old-timers to come back... Maybe time for a new thread: are singers clubs allowed to evolve and grow?
|
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Sibelius Date: 08 Aug 02 - 12:55 PM Latest post from Peg: "Maybe time for a new thread: are singers clubs allowed to evolve and grow?" Go on then, Peg, get to it! |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 08 Aug 02 - 01:49 PM I've read all the postings in this thread with real interest and realize that the question really is related to a specific setting... a singer's club, or at least a group of people who get together to sing informally. Once I understood that, it made the title clearer. I guess underlying my thoughts is, "do I really care whether other musicians think I'm good, or getting better?" We all have egos, but I'm not singing for the approval or praise of other musicians. I sing for the audience and try to use whatever gifts I have as fully as I can. But then, I'm not sitting around with a group of other musicians, worrying about what people think of me. In the long run, you have to know who you're singing for and have confidence in yourself.
A couple of nights ago, I watched a program about Dwight Yoakum. He and his band talked about all the clubs they'd played early in their career, where they were fired. When Yoakum released his first album it was full of the same songs they'd been fired for singing. Same songs, no question of improving or not improving. There are so many other factors that go into whether someone appreciates your singing that I wonder why it is so important. People are jealous, people are defensive, judgmental, and have a proprietary interest in your repertoire that can lead them to turn on you if you aren't doing what they think you should be doing. Just as with friends, you have to pick the musicians whose imput you trust with care. Each of us knows people who minimize what we do. The people whose opinion I value are friends who I know appreciate my music... not that they blindly compliment me on what I do, but I know that they will give an honest, encouraging opinion if I ask them.
In the long run, when you're up there on stage, it's you and the audience. If you're losing your audience, that's another story. But, they aren't likely to want to stop you from improving. Thanks for this thread, Sibelius. It's given me a good perspective on situations I no longer find myself in. As far as I'm concerned, you can improve until the cows come home. And even after they've been milked and are settled in for the night... :-) Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Don Firth Date: 08 Aug 02 - 02:43 PM Jerry sums it up. Anyone who criticizes you for learning, practicing, and trying to improve, or who resents the fact that you are improving is not your friend. Don Firth
|
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Sibelius Date: 08 Aug 02 - 04:28 PM Don, agreed - but don't panic, the bunch I was referring to earlier are still very much my friends, and I have them all to thank for encouraging me when I was starting out playing, years ago. Just a case of familiarity breeding a bit of contempt, I think! Jerry, I'm not familiar with Yoakum's material, but I get your drift. But surely there'll have been nights when he's come off stage thinking he'd had a hoofer, and determined to play it better next time - determined to "improve"? |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 08 Aug 02 - 04:37 PM Sib:
Dwight Yoakum is a country singer. Of course, he is always striving to improve. But, that wasn't the question you posed in this thread. The question was would someone else "allow" you to improve. That's a totally different question and places a power in others that I don't believe they have. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: GUEST,Graham O'Callaghan Date: 08 Aug 02 - 06:41 PM I have joined this thread rather late I am afraid, so forgive any repitition. I run workshops at festivals targeted at new and aspiring singers and one of the fundamental reasons for people attending them is because they themselves seek to 'improve' some element of their 'performance'. The critical thing to 'tease out' is what they wish to improve? If it is a straight forward case of trying to impress then forget it, but if people are trying to make a genuine attempt to improve their interpretation of the song so that do beter justice then great. Of course, to do this effectively then skills can be learnt and developed through practice and a 'spin off' might be better delivery BUT do it for the songs sake not for your ego. By the way, myself and Rob Harbron are running a day workshop on song and accompaniment in October at the Lewes Folk Club ..... sign up now! |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: smallpiper Date: 08 Aug 02 - 08:00 PM I fpeople don't improve the tradition dies it is afer all a living tradition (alegidly) |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: NicoleC Date: 08 Aug 02 - 08:04 PM Interesting thread, and I especially appreciated the comments on complimenting performers. A poor sod at the music shop where I go for lessons every week has his office next right in the middle of the (not sound-proof) practice rooms. When I first started taking lessons, he used to tell me every week that I was improving. I said thank you and paid no attention, because I knew very well that I was atrocious and would be so for a veyr long time. Today he said the same thing, and I realized he hadn't made that comment since my first couple of months there. Wow. Maybe that means I really *am* improving. (From bloody awful to just awful, maybe?) :D |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Sibelius Date: 09 Aug 02 - 01:14 PM Graham: Your 2nd paragraph; quite so. Smallpiper: quite so. Have we worked this one out by now, do you think? I keep thinking the thread's run its course, then a couple more interesting posts appear! |
|
Subject: RE: Are folk singers allowed to improve? From: Genie Date: 11 Aug 02 - 08:37 PM Well, Sibelius, I tend to agree (about the thread running its course), but yesterday on NPR I heard an interview with Judy Collins, in which her evolution as a folk singer was commented on by the interviewer. Collins remarked that she had begun her music career/study as a classical pianist and coming from that perspective it was always assumed that, of course, you would always strive to improve your musicianship. Perhaps that is one root of the problem of some folkies not expecting/wanting/encouraging other folkies to improve. We think of classical music (and maybe jazz) as "serious" music, so naturally people in those fields are expected to keep expanding and improving. Not everyone in folk, pop, c/w, or rock comes to it with the same kind of work ethic or view of the music as having no upper limit for excellence. The good news: a lot of folks have a lot of fun (and other benefits) from novice level folk musicianship. The bad news: a lot of folk music folks may hold themselves (and others) back via [Omigod! I'm gonna quote G-g-g-g-george B-b-b-bush!] "the tyranny of low expectations." Genie |
| Share Thread: |