Emotion 'junkies'

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: GUEST,erinmaidin
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 07:43 AM

Songs are stories. Stories are meant for listening. Sing the story in a way that causes people to listen. Otherwise they are merely conversation and most conversations are finished once the sound stops...or in many cases..during.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Jeri
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 06:55 AM

Claire, on Judy Collins: maybe. I think the SOUND of her songs is more emotional than she herself seemed the one time I saw her, although they're still definitely on the bland side.

Trevor: nail/head/BAM! It's all SO subjective!
When we're kids, we're all hams. I tend to think that as we begin as singers, we often work on weeding out emotion from our singing rather than working one expressing it well. We try to get rid of all those "tremors, cracks and dents" mentioned in the first post which, if we learned how to feel comfortable with them, would add to our individual styles. We can learn how to use our own voices, then just sing.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Trevor
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 05:01 AM

Yeah, when I talked about embellishment I wasn't meaning from a musical point of view and, of course, and as far as the improvisation that musicians use to express themselves, well, I generally enjoy that - unless, to my ear, it becomes a technical test rather than an expression of soul or feeling. It's the ego stuff that I hate, and I guess that judgement about whether it's over the top or insincere is based on the arbitrary, probably subjectively-based, criteria that we all have for measuring what we prefer. And who's Roger?

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: GUEST,ClaireBear
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:15 PM

Jeri asked, above, that we "name someone who is respected as a singer who does NOT sing with emotion!"

Since you've asked, it always used to bother me that Judy Collins (Is she respected?) sang so beautifully and yet so unemotionally. Even when she was clearly singing about something she pulled from her own life ("My Father"), she seemed to me to be entirely detached from the material. In concert, she seemed to be an ice queen...

Just my opinion. And by the way I loved her material, her arrangements, and her voice -- apart from that one issue with her delivery style.

Claire

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:51 AM

Thanks, Ake. I guess we agree.

A

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:26 AM

Bill D said:
I own the 2 record set by John Jacob Niles....I think I have have played it maybe twice in 20 years. 'Nuff said...

You played it twice? What are you, some kind of masochist or something?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:22 AM

Everyone embellishes a tune, however slightly: if we didn't, it would sound very mechanical, like a midi. It's impossible not to vary the timing, the volume, and/or even the pitch just a little bit. There's a pleasing point of equilibrium between "mechanical" and "over the top"; or rather a range of equilibrium, where we feel happy listening to a tune/song; slip outside the range and we're not happy. When our range overlaps with the performer's, everybody's happy.

Well, I think so, anyway!

Steve

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: VIN
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:15 AM

Some great points there Roger, but i don't reckon embellinshing a song or performance is a problem so long as it's not too 'over the top' (which is a matter of opnion anyway i s'pose) but then if that's how the deliverer of the song/tune/poem wants or feels it should be done then hey..........I sometimes attend a club where a regular performer and co-MC does a lot of Jack (can't spell it properly) Brel stuff very dramatically but does it very well (in my umble opinion) and its kind of good so....
An un-embellished whistle or fiddle tune would sound pretty dead and so would a lot of un-accompanied songs i reckon.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:02 AM

All a listener has to go on is their own perceptions. If a performer is intentionally singing a certain way to get the emotion across doesn't really matter. It's whether or not it SEEMS that way.

Someone can mean every word they sing and just be putting their own feelings into it and come off as a manipulative ham. Another person has carefully thought out the song - "at this point I will get very quiet and slow down to show sadness" - but does the song with finesse. You're so into the song that you don't notice. I guess the really unforgivable sin is being unsubtle.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Trevor
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 10:34 AM

I agree with Jeri up there. The thing that I find toe-curlingly embarrassing and irritating, as a listener, is the theatricality (is that a word) with which some singers, am and pro, feel it necessary to embellish their performance. I suppose there is an ego issue for anybody who 'performs' - I just hate it when somebody thinks they need to impress more with their delivery than what they are delivering.
As far as authenticity is concerned, does one have to have had the specific 'experience' in order to 'feel'. If that's the case, why do I always feel like crying when I hear 'The Last Leviathan'. I've never seen a whale die. I can however empathise with fear, loss, lack of hope. I have my own pictures when I hear or sing 'The Band Played Waltzing Matilda'.
And with regard to the perennial 'what is a folkie....' stuff, we just have another example of how restricting language can be. Who gives a rats arse what you call somebody or their music as long as it fits with what you enjoy? Who are we defining it for?

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 01:33 PM

Amos ...The handle on the thread " Emotion junkies" was not meant to be taken in a truly literal sense, but i feel that most lovers of folk music enjoy the emotional component,rather than ..say instrumental technique.I think it is the emotional content which makes "folk music" different from all other forms and keeps us so loyal. Arn't we all so proud to call ourselves "folkies" regardless of which branch of the genre we prefer.
As to a definition....its impossible to define,but to me its music which makes your emotions come alive,shakes you out of that everyday lethargy,that we all sink into ...I even see some Rod Stewart songs as "folk music". and who can say Stings' "fields of gold" and "work the black seam" are not "folk songs"
   Best Wishes brother and sisters....Ake

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 11:48 AM

I take some exception to the implications of the phrase "Emotion junkies". True, there is a condition people get in to where for various reasons they ar enumbed up against feeling, and anything extreme enough to remind them of life is desperately sought from any source capable of penetrating their walls -- horror movies, drug trips, roller-coaster rides, or criminal careers.

But folkies for the most part do not sing in order to feed an unnatural habit, which is implied by the word 'junkies'. My view is that by and large they are more capable than average of facing and experiencing the full gamut of human emotion without either shuitting them off or dramatizing them (which is the same problem in another direction).

Akneton talks abouit wringing the last buzz out of a singer's voice which is rich with emotional complexity. I think he is making it sound worse than it is -- not an addict's behaviour, but the desire to fully understand a subtle communication, quite a different thing.

Just my 2cents' worth...


A

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Peg
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 11:27 AM

I think it is possible for a singer to intentionally create an emotional sound or type of phrasing for effect, and still have it remain authentic sounding. But it's a fine line, and one risks sounding affected and precious if one overdoes it or does not quite capture it in a sincere way. One can practice a song for   maximum emotional sound, but the performance itself cannot be "phoned in" and the presence of the singer is really what's at the heart of convincing emotional expression.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 10:55 AM

Hamlet put it pretty well too: "It offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags."

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 10:32 AM

I'm getting a bit disturbed by all this talk of "white collars". My dad was a welder, his dad was a brickie, and his dad worked down a pit: my working-class fides are pretty bona, I would have thought. And yet, I'm a professional working in IT at a university, so my Collar is most definitely White. (Actually, it's blue today, but you know what I mean!) What does that make me? (And it's not because I'm a particularly clever family member, just that I was the first one whose parents could afford for him to go to the grammar school.)

One thing that used to annoy when I was younger was the middle-class kid with a guilty social conscience; don't know why -- pure prejudice, I expect. Anyway, I never let it get in the way of friendships.

I've never had a problem with people singing songs from outside their experience (except for Roger Whittacker; I'm sure he's a nice chap, but I could never take his pain seriously. More prejudice!). We all have the ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes; it's part of what makes us human, isn't it? Those who can't do that are autistic. I never miss Gardeners' question time, but I wouldn't dream of getting my hands dirty in the garden; I still think I'm entitled to sing The seeds of love!

Steve

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: VIN
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 08:35 AM

Ello old poop, i agree its nice listening to real people singing in a 'natural unpretentious way' but errr is it ok if a non, so-called, urban white collar type (whatever that is) preaches in a song? even if they too won't ever have experienced the subject matter first hand e.g. fought in the trenches, worked as a piecer at 12 yrs old, worked down t'pit, up a chimney, bin a 'jack tar' on a clipper ship or fought at gallipoli??

It's a bit presumptious i reckon to assume everyone already grees with the 'belaboured' themes. Folk song/music has always been presented in various ways and forms and in these 'technological' days it may appear 'slick' but hey, good or bad, that's modern life! For example, Kate Rusby's version of 'Wild Goose' is as enjoyable to me as hearing A L LLoyd's recording of the same shanty. The folk tunes that Vaughan Williams used in his compositions are, to me, as enjoyable as hearing Fairport or the Albion Band or a simple rendition by a lone troubadour in a folk club or 'round a campfire'.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 09:59 PM

The authenticity is not a question of detailed experience. but of not pretending to feel things not felt. I cannot sing the Rebel Soldier without feeling really venomous about the Union Army. I find myself immersed in the images of Bull Run from the gray side. I don't feel the same way about Fields of Athenry, a song which I don't sing. It varies from song to song.

As to the original question: how do we feel about the emotional content of folk music? Fine, thanks.

A

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: GUEST,the old pooperoo
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 09:58 PM

Amos: i agree with you that there is nothing better than listening to real people, amateur or professional, singing about their own lives, or passing on good old songs to the rest of us, in a natural and upretentious way, especially in a small venue. these are the performers i seek out at the festivals, and they can be hard to find. what i dislike is urban white-collar people preaching in songs, belaboring themes that we all agree with anyway, and doing it badly, and especially when they write in the persona of someone whose experiences they couldnt possibly understand -- a first world war soldier, for instance. these performers seem to be the most popular with the "folk" crowd. also popular are performers who take simple folk-type material and work it up till it is unbearably slick -- a folk act. i wont mention names, but i have a big star or two in mind. why should folk music have stars anyway? and big stages with huge amplifiers and vast crowds? the whole concept seems paradoxical and contradictory, and i think the term "folk" should be dropped, except in reference to actual folkloric material. my favorite venue is a campfire. thanks for recommending the thread. i'll have a look at it. all the best, the old pooperoo

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 09:45 PM

Iv read all the replies carefully,and I dont think were any nearer an answer to the Question of emotion in folk music.
The phrase which is repeated over and over,"authenticity is all," seems to be abit of a "red herring".The singersof the most effective anti -war songs,probably never had to go over the top under fire,but they sure know how to make us think!!!    The same case can be made for many folk song subjects,"authenticity " has nothing to do with it as far as I can see.
On the subject of "the Tradition"...Because a song happens to be old dosn't mean that its a good song.Too many entrenched opinions among the Tradies.
Im afraid some of these long ballads make me want to run for cover.
My origional question was ,how do we feel about the emotional content in folk music?...Its been lost in the mire...Ake

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Joybell
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 08:20 PM

Here Here!

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 08:09 PM

Hand in hand with "Authenticity is all".

There's the deal. The kind of songs we sing come out of raw experience and should not be altered in that respect.

A

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Joybell
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 07:54 PM

Yes me too! Count my vote in please.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 07:44 PM

"If you're honest with the song it will do its magic."

That says what I've been meaning, but much more elegantly and concisely. Thanks Harvey. I'd nominate that for a Mudcat collection of quotations.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Joybell
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 07:27 PM

I have a friend who is keen to recruit me into collecting oral histories and songs from the aging population around here. He sends me video tapes of people he has collected. Of course they are not as isolated as they once were but there is an old lady he has found who sings in the manner of the mountain singers in America. She shows no emotion and she uses a high closed-throat style that she said she got from her Scottish grandmother. There are subtle changes that you don't notice particularly but work on you all the same. My true-love and I found ourselves crying through "Barb'ry Allen" even though we know the song so well.
And Steve, yes I wondered about the compliment but my dear one just loves fish so I think it's ok.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: alanabit
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 02:48 PM

I don't think anyone wants to hear singing which sounds like the Telephone Directory being read, Jeri. I think what various commentators are having a go at is singers who emote - that is over play and over dramatise the ballad. I think that good singing is like good acting. You can't really see how it's done. You just know that it is working and you believe it.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 10:01 AM

Did traditional singers - as collected and/or recorded all those years ago -- put much emotion into their singing? I haven't heard many actual field recordings, and those not for a long time, but I retian an impression that they didn't, particularly.

Steve

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: VIN
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 09:26 AM

Its all in the ear of the beholder!!

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 09:19 AM

I hope when people are talking about 'detached' and a lack of emotion in the singing (as opposed to the song itself or the listeners) one is talking about not over-acting.

McGrath, you wrote (way up there) "For me the place where the emotion belongs is in the person listening to the song, and in the heart of the singer - but not in the singing."
How does one manage to extract the emotion from the transmission phase of this form of communcication?

If I have to sing songs I can detach from, or ones that make me feel something strongly and then supress my emotions, why bother singing? Why bother listening? People can just read the lyrics, without emotion, at home to themselves.

Singing a song, for instance a ballad, with no appropriate passion is like telling a story in monotone.

Ewan McColl sang traditional ballads and songs with a great deal of passion. So did Jeannie Robertson. So does June Tabor, Frankie Armstrong, Lou Killen, various people named Waterson or Carthy, Dan Milner, and quite a few others I think are worth listening to. Please - name someone who is respected as a singer who does NOT sing with emotion!

As far as analyzing someone's singing, picking it apart, I think it's what we do to figure out how they make the magic. I think figuring out someone's style can be interesting. When we pick at all the imperfections, it's because we're try to figure out why the magic's still there in spite of them. Voice is easy to hear - it's right out there. That indefinable 'something' is a lot harder to pin down.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 09:08 AM

Very funny. Steve!!

Pooperoo, I understand your point. I recommend to you the thread series called "Why We Sing", if you haven't read it. I think it provides a perspective from which the argument for a "modernistic folk culture" could be made, but I do understand that is not the definition you honor.

I am an amateur folksinger, but I work at my presentation and at my skills. I have recently had the opportunity to listen to a wide range of recordings from Mudcatters all over the world and I have to say that more than half of them are highly professional in their presentation. But I might add that you seem to be working up a double standard in requiring that folk music come from a folk culture but be professionally competent in presentation. I would think we would want to leave room for those who sing from the heart, and do it as well as they can, because the lvoe the song, although employed in other professions.

A

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 08:22 AM

Are you sure that was a compliment, Joybell?!

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Joybell
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 06:57 AM

I agree Harvey, Steve and Alanabit. Once long ago I told my teacher/guru that I wished I had a voice like ... I forget who it was I admired at the time, but she had a voice to die for. Anyway he said "when I hear you sing the "Great Silkie of Shule Skerrie" I can smell the fish on the breath of the seal". I think of that a lot especially now that my voice is getting older and shakier.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: s&r
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 06:52 AM

read the thread "Why we Sing"

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: alanabit
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 05:57 AM

I go along with both of you. I think the way you present the emotion in a song has a lot to do with the viewpoint. I do a song about a teenage runaway who is perhaps embittered, but unrepentant. I try to make it sound as if it's coming from her mouth. In other songs I am the narrator. Those (I think) sound better with a lighter touch. I guess that when singers sing about their own life, it must be very hard to strike a balance. I shall leave that sort of thing to singers more talented than myself!

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 05:38 AM

I've always believed in listening to the words when you sing: sound as if you mean what you say. This needn't require "putting on" an emotion: you can sing in a manner that allows your listeners to know if your'e being ironic, facetious, resigned, passionate, or whatever.

Example ... A friend of mine sings "Go to sea once more" (merchant sailor comes back from a voyage, blows al his cash and gets his new clothes etc. stolen; has to sign on again straight away with whatever cold, wet miserable berth he can get) in a very glum way; he gives the impression of a man feelng very sorry for himself. I always sing it with a "you'll be amused when I tell you the stupid thing I just did" tone.

I think you should take your songs seriously if you want others to. I agree with Harvey. (Isn't that what I just said?)

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: harvey andrews
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 05:08 AM

"The singer-songwriters seem to depend on audience sympathy for the cause -- saving the environment, stopping war, etc -- rather than on well-crafted songs, and their songs are usually tuneless strings of cliche-ridden doggerel"

I agree there's a lot of it about, but they're only a part of a greater whole.Please don't tar all with the same brush! Maybe "some" singer-songwriters or even "most", but surely not all.
As to emotion, it seems to me many younger singers work hard to keep that out of their vocals, probably in opposition to the drivel sung by pop divas at an emotional level equal to being on a scaffold with a rope around the neck, that pours out of supermarket speakers whenever I'm shopping.
The words should convey the emotion, but the singer should be singing the words as if newly discovering them, and without vocal "tricks". If you're honest with the song it will do its magic. However I do think some of the younger performers I've heard, mostly female, sound as though they're singing the songs in their sleep.Almost an academic exercise like they used to be sung when I was in school, without any feel for the content or connection with the story being told.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: alanabit
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 02:50 AM

Shame on Eric Bogle for failing to get himself born in America, eh?

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: GUEST,the old pooperoo
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 12:31 AM

dear amos, thank you for your reply. i was making 2 points. 1. folk music is the product of a folk culture -- that is, one that is reasonably independent of mass culture, such as have existed until recently in parts of the american south, in urban ghettoes, and thruout the 3rd world. in any other context, the term "folk music" is so ill-defined as to be meaningless. the misuse of the term got a big boost in the 50s, when some brave and well-meaning people started applying it to newly-written compositions which they hoped would improve the world. the works of the modern songwriters are not folksongs. they are simply songs -- topical songs, exploitation songs, propaganda songs, "neo-traditional country" songs, "acoustic" songs -- and their composers are what i call singer-songwriters. The likes of Ochs are more closely related to the world of student parody and political campaign, and perhaps more distantly to cabaret singers like Georges Brassens and Amalia Rogriguez. back around 1960 it was common for the "folk" crowd to scoff at rock&roll and country music -- i remember one night become enraged at hearing dear Joanie making fun of "Let the Good Times Roll" -- when the stuff they were sneering at was directly derived from our country's folk music, while the stuff in the coffee houses varied a great deal on that score. note that Dylan, who had a deep knowledge and appreciation of folk song, and who used folk elements in his compositions, never called himself a folk-singer (altho hank williams did). i'm not a folksinger either, altho i use folk song and style often, and prefer the non-affected delivery. this means opening oneself to the power of the song, and letting it work if it will, on oneself and the listener. once a song gets a bit old, it's time to let it rest. sensitive listeners can tell when you're faking.
2. the other issue is that of standards, and is not necessarily related. the "folk" audience seem to have a tolerance for performances that are poorly done, by people who havent taken the trouble to really understand their material. compare the standards of performance in jazz and even country music. The singer-songwriters seem to depend on audience sympathy for the cause -- saving the environment, stopping war, etc -- rather than on well-crafted songs, and their songs are usually tuneless strings of cliche-ridden doggerel. There are some great songwriters around, like the ones i mentioned, but a lot of them dont seem to be considered "folk".
does it depend on the crowd you're with? all the best, the old pooperoo

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Joybell
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 11:54 PM

It all has it's place. For the record my voice is pretty and sweet even though the songs I do are seldom pretty in content. Jolly sometimes though. I really like the pretty sounding old songs that are grim stories. The contrast is the attraction.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 11:50 PM

I think there's room around for all kinds as long as they're getting it said, Ole pooperoo...maybe we need to make chronological tags -- White-Haired Folk Music for anything written before 1700. Gray haired, 1700-1800. Middle-aged, 1800-1960. Whippersnappers, anything from Phil Ochs to Townes van Zandt. Woddya think?

A

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: mg
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 11:42 PM

to each his own. I will chose the pretty voice every time over the one with however much raw and rough experience of life. We always talk about the emotional aspects of music and never almost about the sensory aspects of it. I like pretty music and jolly music. Life is sad enough. mg

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Joybell
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 11:31 PM

Old PPR Welcome in the water's fine.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: GUEST,the old pooperoo
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 11:13 PM

O priest of the sun-god, the fact that you think folk culture is what goes on in urban "folk" clubs shows where you are at. (Ewan MacColl actually did present a lot of great REAL folk songs, in a fine unaffected traditional style) if you had spent more time listening to genuine folk music, you might know the difference. the term "folk" as used by non-folklorists is virtually meaningless -- at least since the the days of the good old Peoples' Artists. as for the "folk" festivals, i dont care so much if they want to call them that, but most of the stuff presented is not fit to listen to: robotic bluegrass bands, white people pathetically trying to sound black, inspired but talentless poets delivering sermons in song, failed violin students giving spiritless renditions of folk dances, electrified acts trying to get into show business thru the back door etc etc. (and personally, i dont think eric bogle is all that good -- compared with Lyle Lovett, Tom Waits, Guy Clark, Townes van Sandt, and yes, Slim Dusty -- at least he was real). For the record, i had my first paid residency in Boston in 1960, and am still playing at "folk" festivals -- what the hell, i might sell a CD or two. Regards to all, and blessings on Doc Watson. The Old Pooperoo

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Joybell
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 10:30 PM

Same planet. I didn't say they didn't belong. I saw Eric Bogle when he was first performing "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda" and for the record he, (like Ewan McColl actually) performs in a very low-key style. He always lets the song provide the emotion, which isn't to say that there's no feeling there. We all cried with him as I remember.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 09:38 PM

Oh yeah...it is why I love minor key songs so much.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 09:34 PM

It's not prettiness in the voice that is important (it can even hurt) - it's authenticity, especially around emotion.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 09:30 PM

AKe, just to let it be said I tend to agree with you about both "poles" in the transmission being proper locations for emotion.

And I think further that most of what wa sbeing objected to by others here was affectation -- the donning of signs of emotion not actually felt, which is kin to the spouting of words for a walk never taken. It is hard to be genuine, and therefor ehard to communicate, when one is actually making a pretense from art.

A

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: Maryrrf
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 09:27 PM

Well, since this thread is refreshed I'll put in my two cents. As long as it's genuine and not overdone or theatrical, I like it when the singer puts emotion into the song. Although Kate Rusby, Cara Dillon, and some others I can't think of right now have beautiful voices, I often feel a little frustrated - like something's missing. I like a voice with feeling and dare I say it...passion. Niamh Parsons comes to mind. I am aware that there are two very different schools of thought on this and I'm not putting down those in favor of "detachment" but it isn't what I prefer.

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 09:11 PM

I think your right pdq, but that debate seems to be never ending and Iv just had my Cocoa ...So its up the stairs to Bedfordshire.
      Good night to you    Ake..

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 09:06 PM

Thanks for the concern, Ake. I personally am not quite senior just yet. You are actually close to a debate about the definition of "folk music". Wouldn't you rather open a new thread and let this one pass on???

Subject: RE: Emotion 'junkies'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 08:33 PM

pdq ...Thats exactly what I mean,you can see and hear the anger in his writing and his singing.That commitment to his ideals (whether you agree withthem or not)is what gives folk music its power...
Sorry if my language offended any senior citizens...Ake