What is wrong with being a purist?

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.

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...

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

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!

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

Smoking causes cancer.

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"

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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

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...

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

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

:-)

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

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!!!!!

Subject: RE: What is wrong with being a purist?
From:
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.

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%.

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!!!

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

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.

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.

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

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....

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?