Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]


What is wrong with being a purist?

John C. 26 Jan 05 - 03:24 PM
Clinton Hammond 26 Jan 05 - 03:33 PM
Amos 26 Jan 05 - 03:33 PM
GUEST,Sleepless Dad 26 Jan 05 - 03:36 PM
Once Famous 26 Jan 05 - 03:39 PM
Amos 26 Jan 05 - 03:42 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Jan 05 - 03:52 PM
Once Famous 26 Jan 05 - 03:52 PM
George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca 26 Jan 05 - 03:59 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Jan 05 - 04:00 PM
Stilly River Sage 26 Jan 05 - 04:01 PM
Clinton Hammond 26 Jan 05 - 04:06 PM
Chip2447 26 Jan 05 - 04:11 PM
Clinton Hammond 26 Jan 05 - 04:12 PM
Stilly River Sage 26 Jan 05 - 04:13 PM
Jim Tailor 26 Jan 05 - 04:17 PM
chris nightbird childs 26 Jan 05 - 04:18 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Jan 05 - 04:19 PM
Peace 26 Jan 05 - 04:19 PM
Peace 26 Jan 05 - 04:21 PM
Once Famous 26 Jan 05 - 04:21 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Jan 05 - 04:22 PM
Teresa 26 Jan 05 - 04:22 PM
PoppaGator 26 Jan 05 - 04:27 PM
George Papavgeris 26 Jan 05 - 04:28 PM
chris nightbird childs 26 Jan 05 - 04:29 PM
Big Mick 26 Jan 05 - 04:30 PM
Clinton Hammond 26 Jan 05 - 04:32 PM
chris nightbird childs 26 Jan 05 - 04:34 PM
Clinton Hammond 26 Jan 05 - 04:34 PM
Jerry Rasmussen 26 Jan 05 - 04:36 PM
chris nightbird childs 26 Jan 05 - 04:36 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Jan 05 - 04:38 PM
Clinton Hammond 26 Jan 05 - 04:43 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Jan 05 - 04:45 PM
M.Ted 26 Jan 05 - 04:49 PM
chris nightbird childs 26 Jan 05 - 04:50 PM
Peace 26 Jan 05 - 04:52 PM
Clinton Hammond 26 Jan 05 - 05:02 PM
George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca 26 Jan 05 - 05:04 PM
Cluin 26 Jan 05 - 05:07 PM
Amos 26 Jan 05 - 05:09 PM
Richard Bridge 26 Jan 05 - 05:12 PM
chris nightbird childs 26 Jan 05 - 05:15 PM
DonMeixner 26 Jan 05 - 05:35 PM
Big Mick 26 Jan 05 - 05:39 PM
John C. 26 Jan 05 - 05:43 PM
GUEST,Frank 26 Jan 05 - 05:59 PM
Stilly River Sage 26 Jan 05 - 06:03 PM
Stilly River Sage 26 Jan 05 - 06:07 PM
Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: John C.
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:24 PM

Just what is so wrong with being a purist? I'm a purist - and proud of it. I am interested in traditional music and song - mainly British, and particularly English - probably because I am English - but I enjoy the traditional music of other nationalities as well.
I don't try to impose my taste in music on anyone else but I do tend to go to clubs where trad. music is appreciated and have numerous friends who share my tastes - at least in part - some are as 'fanatical' as I am, others less so. One area of music which is not to my taste is 'modern' popular music - in fact I dislike most of it intensely.
The Folk Scene (at least the British one - I can't speak for the American one) seems to be divided between us 'purists' (I refuse to believe that this is a pejorative word!) and what I call the 'Anything Goes Brigade'(AGBs). These AGBs seem to really have it in for us purists and, in this forum, anyway, seem to heap abuse on us at every opportunity - 'sad', 'folk police', 'stuck in the past' and, if I remember correctly, even 'racists'(!).
Now, I joined a folk club because I like folk music and want to hear folk music when I go to a folk club - not rap or reggae or hip hop. Can any of you AGBs out there tell me, without resorting to abuse, why I am so wrong?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:33 PM

Maybe because we open-minded and eared people get sick of being told that the music WE like isn't 'proper'...

Like there's any such thing....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:33 PM

I can't. How could anyone tell you your taste in music is wrong?

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:36 PM

Nothing wrong with your views at all. As long as you realize that you might be in the minority and you don't try to force your views on others. Go for it. And I share your views on modern pop music. The vast majority of it is crap.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:39 PM

Because of the holier than thou attitude purists tend to convey.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:42 PM

As usual Martin, you didn't understand the question. He already provided the fact that he does not enforce his views on other, demonstrating a degree of social rationality well beyond your minicephalic ken. Or are you running a holier-than-thou attitude on him? Tsk...hypocrisy??

In ChicAgo??

Well, I never!!!



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:52 PM

John C. - your statements seem to contradict. You say - "One area of music which is not to my taste is 'modern' popular music - in fact I dislike most of it intensely." Then you go on to say that the "Anything Goes Brigade" call you the folk police among other things.

Well, by your strong opinion, you are sending a message to the Anything Goes Brigade that they are wrong. You don't have to say it in so many words, but that is how it comes across.

I have a hard time explaining my feelings about music.   I have an intense love of traditional music, maybe bordering on the same fanaticism that you share. I feel it is so important to preserve this music and carry it on to future generations.

However, I believe it is a living tradition.   There are elements that developed during the folk revival that continue to this day that are obviously not a academic interpretation of "folk" music, but they do draw from the same well.   There are many singer-songwriters that I love. I enjoy hearing powerful poetry and stories in song. I cherish music - I do not need to put it in cubbyholes in order to define.

What is wrong with SHARING?   Why do both sides have to be so stubborn? Yes, it is great that you go to a club to "hear" folk music - but why aren't you "making" folk music?   By your statement, you sound like an observer. Folk music by its academic definition is participatory.   Also, by academic definitions listening to a musician on a stage singing songs is NOT folk music - even if the song is traditional.

Why not share a folk song that you know with members of your folk club? Perhaps you will inspire others to learn and share as well.

Folk music is not meant to be museum pieces. Let it live!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:52 PM

Amos, please eat dung. You cluck like an old dried out broad.
It's your type of holier than thou attitude on Mudcat that is boorish and snobbish.

I know full well this gentleman is asking. He is the exception and I appreciate his question. As a general rule, I have found purists closed minded to any kind of experimentation. This is expecially true in the bluegrass music I have particpated in for years. There have always been purists who have to do it strictly the way "Bill" (Monroe) did it and anyone else was scorned.

Unfortunately, it is this attitude that tends to take any excitement and sponteneity out of the music. Purists tend to play it just like a record: the same every time. There is much room for variation, personality, and experimentation in evven the most purist of folk music. The two schools of thought I believe will never co-exist 100%.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:59 PM

One of the fascinating things is the "drift" in folk music over the years.

Remember, Folk Music, is music of the people. Reggae, Hip-Hop, and Rap are all valid expressions of A people. We may not appreciate some of the subtle aspects of some kinds of music (I don't listen to a lot of classical), but that doesn't negate the interest many others do have for that kind of music.

While I tend to agree that many "pop" songs are lacking something, that doesn't hold for every piece of pop music. Some of it is excellent poetry.

As stated above, I find that many "purists" tend to close out other types of music. While I enjoy the traditional forms of music from my region (Eastern Canada), I would find other regional music excellent for various reasons.

There is no reason we can't be "open" to others' interest in music. Might have something to show us.

Wonder if this thread should have a BS: in front of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:00 PM

No, this should not be BS at all!! This is the heart of music. George & Martin - well put!!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:01 PM

John,

Interesting that I would address these remarks to someone named "John." That was my father's name also, and he was in many ways a purist. I think this softened over the years, but alas, I wasn't living in the same state and wasn't there to hear the programs he attended or performed at as his interests expanded.

Growing up with a purist meant that some types of music were not appreciated so weren't openly listened to in the house, and biases were established in we children that we didn't understand were biases until our worlds broadened with contact with school friends and we had our own radios. Dad was fond of classical music, as am I. I pride myself still on being able to play a pretty darned good game of "drop the needle." We listened most to classical radio stations at home. His other passion was folk music, as you describe for yourself. His specialties were English, Irish, Scottish, and Early American songs and ballads. He liked to hear the many versions, and I wonder if at times he was searching for the Ur-version of some songs. I also appreciate that folk music, and having grown up around a father who was learning the music and the words, I have lots of those words still rattling around in my head.

But the "purist" stance wasn't always comfortable to live around and I suspect it wasn't an easy one to wear, as your defensive query to start this thread implies. And I say this even as I recognize that when I go out to hear performers, and they mix their songs between traditional and their own compositions, that I'm usually biased toward the traditional songs. I want to hear what their versions of old songs sound like. It's the way I was exposed to music. Somehow if an author is recognizable it isn't "authentic."

This attitude isn't logical, it's just what managed to get hardwired, and it is a struggle to examine it in light of day, then push aside, where I believe it belongs.

If you don't listen to new music, you miss the transmission of so much information. I was never great for knowing who performed what songs I liked on the radio, and I still don't keep good track of that. But I recognise the tunes and words I like. Maybe it's that anonymity of folk music that means I don't pay attention to who wrote songs. Anyway, what I hear now in modern songs on the radio are so many expressions of the humanity of performers that my children are listening to. I also hear lots of references back to the older music, even as far back as anonymous traditional music. The accretion of the human condition's reflection in music is important to note. And if you're stuck in one era, you'll miss it.

I have compartments, moods if you will. Some days I feel like listening to a type of music, and will turn on the radio and go through my pre-sets to find something that sounds good. Sometimes it's new stations, others it is what my kids programmed into the radio. Other times I pull out tapes or albums and listen to those. And the kids enjoy those when they are played. So if I can raise children who understand different types of music and have an appreciation for them all, then I'll have been successful. I have preferences, and they grew up with classical music on their radios in the bedroom at night. But I don't touch their radio dials any more at bedtime. I don't want them to have to "get over" the purist tendencies that I learned as a child. While the ability to focus sharply on a given area in which you choose to study is good, I don't think it's useful to apply to life and music all of the time.

I hope this helps. I'm giving only a brief sketch of what it was like to live with my Dad as a small child, and friends of his may have different views entirely, formed at different times during his career as a researcher and performer. So while I don't want to usurp your thread, I'd be interested in any addition to my remarks. They'd be best shared over at his thread: John Dwyer - Songs and Stories.

SRS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:06 PM

All genres do is serve to divide people... and we have more than enough of that already...

-I- dig music...

If I like something you don't, so frigg'n what.... There's probably stuff YOU like that I don't... In the end, it hardly matters one way or the other...

Stop trying to define everything... to put everything in neat little boxes and categories... There's only 2 categories that really matter... What you like and what you don't... and they only matter to you... Take 'em outside and have some fun with them...

And bring me back a pack of smokes while yer at it

:-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Chip2447
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:11 PM

Traditional music was once modern popular music, and in a hundred years some modern popular music may be tradional.

What's the big deal, enjoy what you like, keep an open mind and let music speak for its self. Music will find it's own fan base, or it won't...nuff said.

Chip2447


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:12 PM

"This is the heart of music."???

Christ, I hope to f#ck it ISN'T...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:13 PM

Let me share a small story that occurs as I read this thread. When I was an undergraduate I lived for a few semesters in a dormatory. My roommate came in and apologized for having to play an album of "modern music" for a music class she was taking. I hadn't been aware that I was so rigid in my listening that she needed to apologize, but I also thought it was very funny that what she played was an Emerson Lake and Palmer version of Copeland's "Rodeo." When I told her what it was and pulled out my own copy of it for her to listen to, she was quite surprised, and ended up with some extra brownie points in class the next day for being the only student in class to know this.

I was glad to help her, but I was so struck by her almost fear of my listening discipline and the feeling that she needed to apologize in advance for somehow offending my ear that after that I made a point of not listening so much to the old tried and true, and paying more attention to what was new around me. I didn't lose the old music, but I gained a lot with the new.

SRS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:17 PM

Hell of a good post, SRS.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:18 PM

Well put CH! I need a pack of smokes myself.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:19 PM

Comeon Clinton, you know what I'm saying.    Discussions about music are not BS and a discussion like this should not be relegated to "below the line" topics.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:19 PM

I appreciate both 'schools' to tell ya the truth. We have all met stodgy people who think that if it isn't to their musical taste then it's junk. Once you learn to ignore them, the musical world opens up. People who think other musical 'genres' are worthless are very smart, IMO. Some brilliant players like the venerable Doc Watson could rock with the best of 'em, but he could alos play tunes as true to the roiginal as the day they were written. The analogy that comes to mind is this: A good friend of mine from my youth was a brilliant artist. He painted--what everyone called modern art. He loved the mixtures of texture, balance, colour and expression. I heard many people after viewing his work say things like, "You call THAT ART!" He was capable of painting still life, the human form accurately, but he loved the freedom he found in the stuff he painted. No one would accuse van Gogh of being a 'bad' painter, or members of the Group of Seven, even though their art was not like a photograph. Such is what I hear when I listen to 'purist' music and more modern stuff. Both are music worthy of our consideration. Stockhausen's (sp?) music may not have beenm to everyone's taste, nor the music of Miles Davis or Bill Munroe or The Mormon Tabernacle Choir or the Clancy Brothers, etc., but just 'cause it ain't to yer taste don't mean it ain't to someone's, and neither does it mean it isn't good.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:21 PM

"worthless are very smart, IMO"

Ahem

that should read "worthless are NOT very smart, IMO"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:21 PM

Smoking causes cancer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:22 PM

"Some brilliant players like the venerable Doc Watson could rock with the best of 'em, but he could alos play tunes as true to the roiginal as the day they were written"

I believe Doc Watson aspired to be a rockabilly musician before he started playing with Clarence Ashley. Doc is the perfect example of what makes this music fun.   He can do some great old-timey songs and then surprise an audience with a version of "Knights in White Satin". Brilliant artist!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Teresa
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:22 PM

I agree with Clinton on this one.

There are certain types of music I especially love, but I would never presume to tell others that one sort is "better" or "more proper" than another.

For a long time, I avoided listening to rap,, because I heard the stuff on the radio that mentioned beating on women and cop killing. Then I heard artists like michael franti and KRSOne, and they write positive songs about activism.

I had some friends a few years ago who were interested in punk music. I went to some of their shows, and they were doing a lot of political activism as well.

I listen to a lot of different types of music socially, because I know it is the heart and soul and passion of some folks, just like Appalachian, Irish and British Isles is for me. Since I know that feeling of reverence people have for music, I love to share it.

teresa


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:27 PM

I dislike as much of contemporary pop music as the next person; on the other hand, I'm no purist. My tastes are fairly eclectic; while I could be validly accused of many abberations, "purism" isn't one of them.

The "traditions" in which I am most interested are extremely open-ended:

A)

The "songster" tradition, wherein buskers, streetsingers, one-man-bands, jug bands, etc., use their portable (and generally acoustic) instrumentation to interpret whatever material their audience wants to hear ~ which might include truly traditional folk songs, time-tested ("classic") popular material such as Beatle songs, "fake-book" standards like Gershwin or Cole Porter songs, doo-wop and rock 'n' roll "oldies," etc. In personal terms, anything and everything I enjoy playing and singing, and that I'm *able* to play.

B)

The New-Orleans-music tradition, which encompasses a rich mixture of shake-your-ass music from the traditional-jazz repertoire, through the 40s/50s R&B that gave birth to rock 'n' roll (e.g., Professor Longhair), to current-day brass-band street-parade music and several varieties of contemporary blues/rock and roots/rock. Lots of horns, drums, and piano, and little or no place for *my* intrument, the acoustic guitar. This is music that I truly love and that I can *sing,* but that I can't really *play* as an instrumentalist or as a solo self-accompanyist.

And, hey, anyone who has different tastes (which I know includes *most* of y'all Mudcatters), that's fine with me. I also think that when we discuss the pros and cons of adhering to a "tradition," we can share a common viewpoint even when each person is talking about an entirely different tradition...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:28 PM

Nothing wrong with being a purist.
Nothing wrong with not being one, either.
Why does one have to choose?
I love traditional music: English, Irish, Venezuelan, Greek, French, Scottish.
I also love other music - too many types to list. And I dread to think that if I was a purist that did not listen to other music, then I would have missed:

"Lies" and "The field behind the plough" of Stan Rogers
"Sir Richard's song" (of Peter Bellamy's?)
"Sally Free and Easy" of Cyril Tawney
"Chicken on a raft" of Tom Lewis
"Fiddlers Green" of John Connolly
"Where Ravens Feed" of Graham Miles
"And the Band played Waltzing Matilda" of Eric Bogle
...and dozens of others, precious jewels all, that please the ear, lift the heart, quieten the beast and foster belief in humanity.

But your choice - nothing wrong with it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:29 PM

Good fer you Teresa! I listen to almost anything... There are, of course, some things I like more than others, but that's the way it's supposed to be!
Besides, if I was closed-minded about my music, my influences wouldn't range from Bob Dylan to Jack White to Bach, and I don't think it would be as interesting. So, to each their own.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:30 PM

I guess it depends on what one considers a purist. Anyone that tells me how I have to interpret a song won't get very far. But if by purist you mean that you like a specific type of music done in a traditional manner, I agree that you have every right to enjoy that music in the manner you choose. And anyone that sneers at your right to enjoy the type of music, and the interpretation, is an idiot.

But, as a performer, I will perform it the way I hear it in my head. I often have my foot in both camps. I can, and do, perform trad folk music. But I also perform modern "folk" singer songwriter stuff. For me it has to do with whether it is a good yarn well told, or a feeling well expressed.

The key here is tolerance of, and respect for, each others musical tastes.

All the best,

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:32 PM

"Discussions about music are not BS"

True that Ron... but this whole stupid 'debate' is NOT, I hope, "The Heart" of music as you put it...

I honestly hope MUSIC is The Heart of MUSIC....

:-)

About the only difference between 60's "Activist" folk and punk is the volume... And that's not even totally true, cause the 'hippies' were pretty damn loud in their time too...

*singing*
Come mothers and father throughout the land....
And don't criticize what you can't understand


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:34 PM

Another good point, Poppa. I DO listen to music that I don't like to perform. By the same token, I'm also an Acoustic artist, but that goes for all Acoustic music. Not just Folk or Blues. If I hear a song I'd like to perform, and it fits in my style, then I'll go ahead and do it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:34 PM

" The key here is tolerance of, and respect for, each others musical tastes"

LOL!

That's hillarious BM!!!!!!!

,-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:36 PM

Why is it so necessary to define the music you like by telling us what you don't like?    Same thing with movies, literature, religion, clothes. In complaining that others don't like what we like by saying we don't like what they like, you end up doing exactly what you're criticizing someone else for doing.. putting down something that they like. You can always say that they started it.

Are we there yet?

Jerry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:36 PM

Damn! This is a popular thread in'it? I can't post before someone's already replying! That's great!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:38 PM

Well, my words may not have been the best choice, but I do agree with what you say - except for calling it a "stupid" debate. I think it is an important debate because obviously there are great divides amongst us. Ignoring it won't make it go away.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:43 PM

Yer welcome to disagree... I think as a 'debate' though, this topic can go pound sand...

I'll happily -discuss- this topic though...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:45 PM

pounding sand is a worthy pastime too!! :)

I'm glad you aren't above discussing this Clinton! It is good to have your input! Most of us on are on the same page, just different corners!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:49 PM

The problem with "purists" is that they think that their musical tastes are "pure"--No music is pure--its all derrivative and cross-pollinated---


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:50 PM

We're only human... We're bound to disagree. That's what this is really about. Right?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Peace
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 04:52 PM

Wrong, Chris, wrong.
























LOLOLOL


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:02 PM

Exactly!

LOL


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: George Seto - af221@chebucto.ns.ca
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:04 PM

Hi Ron. I meant that this seemed to be a "troll" meant to provoke argument, which I feel is why the BS: prefix was invented.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:07 PM

Any time a group of people with common interests get together, an "US & THEM" mentality seems to rear its ugly head. Human beings are inherently tribal, I guess.

Purist music of any stripe has its venues, applications, and rituals. No reason to threaten it or feel threatened by it or for it. If people stop caring about it, it will go away. It's not right or wrong; that's just the way it works.

I'm not interested in the bulk of popular music put out by the recording industry today either, but generally it's the stuff with quality that lasts any length of time past the shelf life of radio and music videos. Most people listening to it aren't really "music" fans anyway; it means something else to them. But I don't feel threatened by that. I have a pretty broad musical palette otherwise. And a few gems still get through the industry these days too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:09 PM

As a general rule, I have found purists closed minded to any kind of experimentation. This is expecially true in the bluegrass music I have particpated in for years. There have always been purists who have to do it strictly the way "Bill" (Monroe) did it and anyone else was scorned.

Unfortunately, it is this attitude that tends to take any excitement and sponteneity out of the music. Purists tend to play it just like a record: the same every time. There is much room for variation, personality, and experimentation in evven the most purist of folk music. The two schools of thought I believe will never co-exist 100%.


Martin, I agree with you completely. Nothing irritates me more than having a good feast of spontaneous music interrupted by someone who has to have the details match their version. I understand that you were addressing a different definition of "purist" than was being used originally in this thread.

I don't understand it, and I really enjoy playing with others who feel as I do.

P'raps we should boogie down together sometime and see what comes out. You might be surprised what a good liberal can do bending them strings. LOL!

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:12 PM

Nothing wrong with being a purist - but several buts.

People call me a purist - but I do 3 of my own songs, a fair bit of 60s, one Bad Company song, two Stones songs, one Who and one Small Faces, as well as quite a lot of Irish Scottish two Welsh and a fair bit of contemporary. It seems to me that the modernists actualy don't want to hear any folk music at all.

And if you trot off to the thread about an academic dissertation about folk and contemporary music (can't be bothered to find it and make a blicky, you should have been there, rather like the 60s (BG)) you will find a reassonably sensible discussion (for the most part) about the definition, and the assertions here are not worth bothering with.

Activist "folk" and punk differ considerably in kind. Many activist "folk" songs (particularly Dylan, whose perfomances I hate beyond measure but whose songs include many of musical merit) were structured, coherent, and musical. Well, of punk and near-punk that is about limited to "Peaches" and "Eton Rifles". That was the point of punk - the rejection of the hippy aesthete thing. The excitement of ugly. Bovver boots, skin'eads, the culture of violence. Hell I was DJing reggae dance halls back then and I saw it. It had a different merit.

A lot of modern pop and urban music is not rooted in creation but in cynical assembly of profit. Yet more of it in the same rejection of the current ***ocracy (whichever it was) that punk, early British reggae (and some Jamaican reggae), some of the 60s scene (maybe "Night of Fear" just so I can cite an example) and indeed early Presley had. The dispossessed will eventually attack their dispossessors, but it is not necessarily the precursor of great music (oddly the Irish revolution, the politics of which I hate, did create some very good music). The important thing is not to reject the genre as such (there was some good even in punk, once upon a time, although I wonder about 60 year olds still turning it out now - EG Welsh band the Sharpsters) but to winnow the wheat from the chaff.

The UK AGB seem to reject all traditional song. And denigrate it.

And, with respect, dear Americans, if you have not experienced the UK current situation, your opinions are less valid. Examples about Monroe's style are not the same thing as the discussion of the rejection of the entire musical tradition.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:15 PM

OH really?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:35 PM

I know what I like to listen to and I know what I like to play. I don't play everything I like to listen to but I like everything I play. As it is I am in one of the few Irish Folk bands that features yodeling, Jimmy Rogers and Western Swing. Some day when I get brave I am gonna introduce Little Anthony and The Imperials to Sunday afternoon at Coleman's Pub.

Maybe I'll start this fight. There is nothing wrong with being a purist... just don't be an elitist.

Don


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:39 PM

Amen, friend Don.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: John C.
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:43 PM

Do you know, I think I've hit a nerve here! I drift off to watch a bit of telly and there's 40 replies!
I also I have to say that there's lots of very thoughtful and heartfelt stuff and not so much abuse as I expected - thanks everyone.
I grew up in the 50s, in the UK, and when I was a little kid I didn't get rock n' roll - it seemed noisy and alien and it even scared me a bit. As I got older I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about - was this 'Emperor's new clothes' syndrome, I wonder - or do I flatter myself?
At school we learned English folk songs and I loved them (although I was not too keen on the teacher or his style of teaching). In my teens I discovered the Beatles (well, in the mid '60s I couldn't really miss them, could I?). They temporarily changed my views on pop music but by the late '60s, and my late teens, I was beginning to find them a bit pretentious. Around this time I went to my first folk club and heard trad. songs sung as they were meant to be sung (allegedly...possibly...at least not plonked out on the piano). I became a fan of this particular music, learned to sing and made lots of good friends (a number of those friendships are still going strong today).
I also felt that I had stumbled on something worthwhile and meaningful - but folk clubs began to change and the old songs were gradually eased out by lots of stuff which seemed to me only very tenuously related to folk song - if at all. And those doing the easing out often seemed to be me to be much more narrow-minded and prejudiced than they often accused me of being.
Again, I should re-iterate that I don't believe that I have any right to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't listen to but I do have strong personal preferences and I do have a right to state my opinions. Also, when I attend a folk club I expect to hear, at least, some folk songs - I really don't think that that is unreasonable!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 05:59 PM

I can see it from different views. There is folklore in folk music.
Part of the thrill of resurrecting a trad tune is learning about the cultural background and history of the song. Then the song has meaning. Also, there is the joy of learning traditional playing styles and techniques on musical instruments based on learning from traditional players as well.

Then, there is the need some of us have to be creative with it.
This might be devising arrangements of songs we like or writing or rewriting songs and this might not be considered by some folklorists and academics to be traditional.

Sometimes there is an intersection of the creative and the re-creative.

I have never been a purist but have had that label thrown at me.
I do however think it's important to learn about the tradition of folk music in a cultural and historical context but I have tried to extend that to all kinds of music and found that when I explore that side, the music comes alive for me.

I think that the role of the folklorist and musicoloigist is important to providing a substructure in interpreting a trad song.

Instead of the word "purist" I would prefer a different label that would imply a kind of musical integrity based on understanding of the idiom.

Folk music studied this way is like the process that jazz musicians go through. There is a certain amount of musical analyzing that goes on so long as it doesn't get in the way of expression. I think that most definable musics have parameters.
Using for example sophisticated chord progressions seem to obstruct a folk song performance unless they relate somehow traditionally. This is a creative judgement call.

I understand I think what traditional folk music attempts to preserve (its parameters). I think that this might be labeled "purist" in someone's book but I would prefer to think of this as a preference for a stylistic integrity.

Tradition and history also have a role here.

Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 06:03 PM

Richard Bridge,

Is this the thread you meant? Contemporary Song in Folk Music

And, with respect, dear Americans, if you have not experienced the UK current situation, your opinions are less valid. Examples about Monroe's style are not the same thing as the discussion of the rejection of the entire musical tradition.

I find this a rude and dismissive characterization of a the points of view of a major part of the Mudcat membership. It diminishes your whole argument when you make pronouncements like this. Or is it your ham-handed way to tell us that you don't have a clue as to what is going on in the American folk music scene so the same must be true for Americans vis-a-vis British music?

SRS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 06:07 PM

Good point, Frank. A great deal of what my dad was doing was along the lines of musicology. It evolved from that purist interest in folk music (particular emphasis in Child Ballads) though, so they still are closely knit terms for me.

SRS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

  Share Thread:
More...

Reply to Thread
Subject:  Help
From:
Preview   Automatic Linebreaks   Make a link ("blue clicky")


Mudcat time: 8 December 1:20 AM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.