The Guardian Vs 'Catters?

Subject: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Alec
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 03:12 AM

Learned article in today's Guardian about Seth Lakeman & The White Hare.Mudcat isn't mentioned by name but there are little snipes at "The Folk Police" & "Outraged of Tunbridge Wells" in respect of the controversial nature of this song's claim on being traditional.
Erm,I think they may mean us.
Anybody else get that impression?

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 03:31 AM

The article is here.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Alec
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 03:32 AM

Thanks Captain.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 03:36 AM

It's a bit, er, snide, isn't it? It's almost like a spun press release from Smooth Ops!

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 03:37 AM

'The Folk Police' is one of those nasty terms used about anybody who expresses a view contrary to that of the majority.
Welcome to the club!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Alec
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 03:53 AM

"... almost like a spun press release from Smooth Ops"
It has a little dig at "conspiracy theorists" as well. ;-)

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:01 AM

"the lyrics were adapted from a legend familiar to anyone living in Devon or Cornwall, which he put to a tune he'd heard in a pub session years earlier without recalling its title or who played it."


Carefully crafted just to avoid royalty payments or recognition to others and followed up with a healthy dose of publicity from a newspaper hound (a dying breed) who wouldn't know a folk song if he had one stuck to his traditional arse!
I would take comfort in the fact that while Seth Lakeman was lapping it up at an award show, the best Folksinger of all was probably driving through a snowstorm somewhere, heading for his/her next gig.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Hawker
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:11 AM

Who cares? Labels are for jam jars! It's all hype and bollocks anyway.
Cheers, Lucy

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:14 AM

"The 150 folk "experts" called on to vote from different fields of the industry can nominate whatever they like, and are then asked to vote again on the shortlist of four. Nine judges voted for The White Hare in the original nominations - fewer than half the number who voted for the ultimate winner, Tim Van Eyken's inspired arrangement of John Barleycorn."

So, at last we have a number! Nine people started this fiasco.

Colin Irwin is an experienced and jounalist with much experience of things folk and he ought to know better than write this kind of article. Will I get a better coverage of folk music if I move to the Daily Sport?

Nice to think we made enough noise to be heard so far away.

I would still like to reitterate the point that this was never about Seth. He is a fine and exciting musician and from all accounts a good bloke. John Leanard made the mistake and refused to back down. Not good at all.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,Keith
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:14 AM

That Guardian piece says "Many of the "Outraged of Tunbridge Wells" missives bombarding the BBC demanded the expulsion of The White Hare, to be replaced on the shortlist by whatever finished fifth in the original nominations. (Their reaction would have been interesting, as the next in line was Lakeman singing King & Country.)".

"King & Country" is credited on my copy of Freedom Fields as written by Seth Lakeman". I don't know what it says on Freedom Fields Revisited or the single Seth released a week ago last Monday. I haven't bought that single as the arrangement I've heard sounds almost exactly the same as the original. Anyone know where it got to in the chart? It didn't seem to be in the Top 75 on Monday when I was hunting for it and "Roots".

I'd still like to know if Freedom Fields or Freedom Fields Revisited that was the best album too...

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,Keith
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:21 AM

"Colin Irwin is an experienced and jounalist with much experience of things folk and he ought to know better than write this kind of article".

Since Colin reviewed Freedon Fields (original version) for Mojo, devoting a whole page to it and giving it 4 stars, he should have been in a position to know "King & Country" wasn't trad either. So yes, Colin does know better and shouldn't be spinning Leonard out of the hole he dug for himself.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,John Robinson
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:28 AM

If this PR is aimed at any message board activity it is more likely to be aimed at the activity on the BBC (Smooth Ops run) message board than anything happening here.

Don't forget that there was also a piece on Radio 4's Feedback programme.

I don't think "Catters" are on these folk's radar.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:31 AM

Colin Irwin is a crap folk music journalist, and John Leonard ' one of the good guys ' my arse. They are both pissing in the same pot.

eric

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:33 AM

And he's still not kept his word to publish voting details of the ' best trad track ' award.

eric

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Alec
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:33 AM

That did occur to me John, though to be fair their are a significant number of us who post to both.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:33 AM

How about suggesting another category - 'Going to be Traditional eventually'?

LTS

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GRex
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:37 AM

Methinks the Guardian has a very large spoon.

                GRex

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Alec
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:38 AM

Sounds good to me LTS. I nominate "Heartbreak Hotel" in that category.
Though there again that song has been around longer than some "Trad".

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Scrump
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:42 AM

The article said that Seth singing "King & Country" was fifth, and would have replaced White Hare if the latter had been removed from the nominations.

But it isn't just on Mudcat that the s**t was flying - there's the BBC message board, the usenet folk groups and others that also had a lot of similar discussion about the issue. So no need for paranoia :-)

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:45 AM

I had a quick Google but could not find an e-mail for Colin.

I am really warming to this role Colin has given me as an Agent of the Folk Police. I think it is time we paid brother Colin a visit to point out that TWHINATS and that snide articles (1392 words in all) in the Guadian will NOT change that small indisputable fact.

Just out of interest who wrote Dave Swarbricks obit. for the evil Daily Telegraph?

Now, where is my Night Visiting stick

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,Outraged of Tunbride Wells
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:17 AM

The article was aimed at anyone and everyone who thought that the classification of a fluffy bunny pop song as traditional was wrong.
My response is much shorter - 'bollocks' (to Irwin, SmoothOps and the Guardian) - and yes, I can be quoted.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Surreysinger
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:20 AM

I personally think its a cunning plan to generate a few more sales for the Guardian - write an inflammatory article which will get bandied about on the newsboards, and then people will either go out and get the paper, or look for the article on the net! A theory about as valid as THAT song being a traditional one.....

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:26 AM

RE: Obits. Certain famous people have their obits already written, even though they aen't ded yet. The Queen Mother had hers written when she was 80 something so they had to keep udating it for when she finally popped off 20 years later. These obits are stored, waiting for the day when the news finally arrives that some famous person has shuffled off this mortal coil. The obits are then quickly updated and pasted in. It saves an awful lot of time and research if the information is already there. That's why some news media have obits before others, and why it's so easy to print a whole page on the strength of one phone call.

LTS

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Scrump
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:30 AM

And I wonder why he waited until well after the Folk Awards before writing the article? Seems a bit like old news to me. Perhaps he's only just heard about the (former) controversy.

If this is an example of how up to date the Grauniad is with 'news' then I'll stick to watching the news on telly and listening to R4.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Dazbo
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:34 AM

The logical extension of Colin Irwin's argument, it seems to me, is that there is no difference between trad or written by. Therefore what is the point of having two categories? Best Song full stop! It's the BBC/Smooth Ops who set up the categories so if they've either got to police it properly or scrap the difference and go for only one category.

I wonder also if a song has been nominated in both categories and been hushed up?

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,whistleblower
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:04 AM

9? Nine? only NINE? Good grief! (and why and I not surprised)?

How can nine possibly constitute enough votes to justify a nomination for such a major and prestigious national event?

And (and this is the bit that really matters) how many of those nine had a vested interest in SLs career?

Still. At least we can assume it's the true figure. And at least it finally proves that the system is shamefully unfit for purpose.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Alec
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:11 AM

Well, whistleblower the article stated "The 150 Folk "experts" called on to vote from different fields of the industry..."
Interesting that they should use the term "industry",I felt.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,Keith
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:15 AM

"I wonder also if a song has been nominated in both categories and been hushed up?"

Apparently The White Hare did appear on both the contemporary and tradditional lists. Leonard let that out in his Feedback interview, which is another fact conveniently omitted from the Irwin PR job. Just like Leonard & Seth always conveniently forget to mention in any interviews that The White Hare single was issued with a written by Seth Lakeman credit for both words and music.

It will be interesting to know if The White Hare actually got more votes as "Best Contemporary Song" but lost out being on the 4 nominees there because the spread of votes was different.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Scrump
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:23 AM

Where are the voting figures published?

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:23 AM

Who ARE these 150 'experts' in the field of Folk Music? I bet we could supply 150 from the Mudcat and they'd be more 'with it' and cognizent of the folk industry than those so called 'experts'.

LTS

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:23 AM

Colin Irwin (who I like very much) says "In the end, none of it matters."

I disagree. The Best Traditional Track award is the only one dedicated specifically to acknowledging traditional music in all of the BBC Folk Awards. If the tradition matters at all in the context of folk music and how it's promoted, then this issue matters. It's that simple.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:33 AM

Spot on, Wor Lass. Folk is steadily eliding into 'accoustic' in many ears, and there's a desperate need to recognise the traditional aspect.
Lord knows we have reason enough to be grateful to generations of singer songwriters, so let us not forget the ones who are now forgotten but for the drops they put into the great river of our culture.
To insist on having The White Hare as a traditional track is to stick two sneering fingers up to that heritage. It's the same lazy and self-centred "I don't care, it'll do for me" mentality that puts plastic windows in a Georgian house.
John Leonard may once have been "one of the good guys", but he deserves the epithet "Judas" more than Dylan for his fat-heated arrogant stubbornness on this issue.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,Keith
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:35 AM

"Where are the voting figures published?"

Only in the Guardian (so far). You wouldn't expect the BBC F&A web site to carry them, would you? Smooth Ops run that for them...

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:38 AM

Good point Ruth.

It also matters because Seth is well liked and respected and he doesn't need this hassle. It also matters because it brings the Awards into disrepute.

[e-mail].

You need to add your home address and a day time telephone number

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:38 AM

So a song which isn't actually traditional didn't get an award as a traditional song.

My God what a world-shattering story.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Scrump
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:41 AM

"Where are the voting figures published?"

Only in the Guardian (so far). You wouldn't expect the BBC F&A web site to carry them, would you? Smooth Ops run that for them...

Thanks Keith - but I can't see them in that article. Are they on a separate page or what?

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,Keith
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:43 AM

Here. Just in this para and ONLY for the trad song award, and not for all the entries, just WH and Barleycorn.

"The 150 folk "experts" called on to vote from different fields of the industry can nominate whatever they like, and are then asked to vote again on the shortlist of four. Nine judges voted for The White Hare in the original nominations - fewer than half the number who voted for the ultimate winner, Tim Van Eyken's inspired arrangement of John Barleycorn. Many of the "Outraged of Tunbridge Wells" missives bombarding the BBC demanded the expulsion of The White Hare, to be replaced on the shortlist by whatever finished fifth in the original nominations. (Their reaction would have been interesting, as the next in line was Lakeman singing King & Country.)".

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Bee
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:46 AM

As I have never heard this song and only read some relatively cryptic joking about it on a previous thread, can someone explain to me what the controversy is about?

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:49 AM

The BBC Folk Awards have one category for best performance of a traditional song.

The White Hare is not a traditional song (TWHINATS). It is just a very small point.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:49 AM

I have to say - on reading the piece again, it is rather naughty. It seems to be of the school of journalism which starts out with a perspective on the issue and then seeks out other similar perspectives as evidence.

There are, after all, musicians here and on the BBC forum who have been some of the chief instigators in keeping this issue alive, and in trying to gert the BBC to be accountable for the decision to keep the song in the running - why not consult them on why they think it's important? A bit more balance would have been appreciated.

The other thing that makes me cross is the implication that the underlying motive of the people who complained was to have a pop at Seth, when it's been pointed out ad infinitum that this was never about him, or the quality of his music, and that even those of us who don't condone the nomination ackowledge the great job Seth has done in bringing new audiences to folk.

Just because he's a good bloke and is doing good things for folk, doesn't mean that the nomination should have gone unchallenged.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: avrosimones
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:53 AM

I agree with you Ruth. I also agree with what Martin Carthy had to say.

Of course there should be a debate about the definition of what a 'traditional' track is. At least there's some folk news in the paper for once, makes a change from reading about the Brit Awards!

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:56 AM

The article is a good example of what makes jounalists as popular as politicians.

Get facts wrong, get opinions wrongly attributed, suggest differences where none really exist, exagerate reasonable points fo view. This is what the Sun, the Mail and the Express are like everyday.

As a fan of both jounalism and poitics I find this type of article dissappointing but not surprising.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Stu
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:57 AM

"Folk is steadily eliding into 'accoustic' in many ears"

But it always has - folk music is a broad church and the lines between acoustic contemporary music and folk is blurred - and I am glad it is. It shows folk music has a place in the context of modern music.

Where do you draw that line? If you listen to Mike Harding's programme, which Leonard produces, you hear lots of contemporary acoustic music and not a huge lump of 'traditional' material. Martin Carthy pretty much hits the nail on the head in my opinion, although I guess poor old Seth lakeman must feel pretty unhappy after so much negativity being punted his way by the more myopic of the folk old guard.

Irwin's article is typical of the sort of blige the modern press prints when the 'F' word comes up (At tleast The Grauniad prints articles about folk - can anyone point to an article in the Mail, or the Express or any of the red tops?). Most of what is written by both him and some of the more crusty old folk types on the various internet forums I read doesn't apply to folk music in the sessions I play in, where for the most part folk music is a living, evolving tradition which is inclusive and exciting and not a museum exhibit to be preserved intact and unchanged to be taught by rote to a disinterested audience.

Anyway, John Barleycorn won so that should keep everyone happy.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:57 AM

At the bottom of the piece it says:
You've read the piece, now have your say. Email your comments to film&[e-mail]
Go on!

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:59 AM

"At least there's some folk news in the paper for once,

Excellent point avrosimones, but what an annoying waste of space. The Guardian reviewed 5 albums under the heading Jazz, world, folk etc today - 4 Jazz, 1 world no folk - no change there then!

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 07:10 AM

Fair points, Stigweard, but what got on my chimes about this issue was the attitude of Leonard and Smooth Ops - effectively saying that the word 'traditional' was meaningless.
I'm afraid their attitude reminds me of the comments of various New Labour education wallahs to the effect that history isn't important and that Latin and Greek are pointless.
Yes, folk is evolving, but for some of us its origins are more than a mere taxonomical tick-box.
Put another way, it's as simple as having Ricky Tomlinson nominated for best female actor category in the BAFTAs!

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,Keith
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 07:14 AM

At least The Grauniad prints articles about folk - can anyone point to an article in the Mail, or the Express or any of the red tops?).

You missed the thread here about the Nic Jones article in The Mail about a week ago. There are quite lot of posts on it

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: avrosimones
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 07:41 AM

I agree Les, it's disappointing that the only article about folk in The Guardian is a negative one.

I just hope that any article about folk (whether good or bad) will incite some sort of interest in the genre, which is so under-represented in the press. You never know, people might go out to buy the Seth Lakeman album, which might lead them to Carthy, etc.

It's both easy and popular for the press to bash the traditionalists, but without them the line between trad and contemporary would be even more blurred – and people like Seth Lakeman and other younger folkies (like myself) might never have found the sources and songs that inspire new workings of traditional tunes.

Hope that made some sense!

-David

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,Folk Policeman
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 07:42 AM

Let's not forget that this is the same Colin Irwin who described Nic Jones' "Penguin Eggs" album, on it's re-release several years ago, as fine musicianship, applied to dated and irrelevant (i.e. traditional) material. As a folk journalist, Irwin has a good nose for the latest trend, and is always happy to tug his forelock to the aristocracy, but to expect any understanding of the meaning or significance of the tradition would be to overestimate the man.

And did Martin C. *really* say that WH is "in the process of becoming traditional"??

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: skipy
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 07:46 AM

if E=MC2
& space & time are curved.
That means that songs that not been written yet are already traditional!


I.ll get my coat.
Skipy

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Stu
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 07:51 AM

"You missed the thread here about the Nic Jones article in The Mail about a week ago"

That serves me right. I'll have a pike at that one - thanks for the heads up Keith.

I suppose all you have to do is listen to Mike Harding's show to get some insight on the Smooth Op's view on how they view folk. Their view is as valid as any, but the cynic in me wonders if they kept Lakeman in because of the value of having a high-profile crossover artist (a dubious term methinks) in the best tradtional song shortlist.

But how do you define traditonal? My dictionary gives these definitions of traditional:

existing in or as part of a tradition; long-established : the traditional festivities of the church year.

produced, done, or used in accordance with tradition : a traditional fish soup.

Given these definitions, and assuming Lakeman's account of writing the song is true (and it'd be pretty rotten to even suggest he's lying about it), then perhaps the song is traditional and Martin Carthy and everyone else is wrong.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 07:54 AM

Ooer; treading on dangerous ground there, stigweard!
Next thing, someone will ask, "Well, what is folk anyway?, and there'll be a blue flash, a puff of smoke and a horse's head will appear...

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Alec
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 07:59 AM

If the song were genuinely traditional would he have claimed sole writing credit on the single?
Personally I like to think not.
Frankly it may be true that this song is (more accurately may be) in the process of becoming traditional. However this would hold true in all similar cases E.G. the works of The Arctic Monkeys.
We will all have been a long time dead before the word Traditional can be meaningfully used in respect of contemporary music.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 08:06 AM

Has the Guardian published their traditional correction yet?

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Grab
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 08:20 AM

The other thing that makes me cross is the implication that the underlying motive of the people who complained was to have a pop at Seth, when it's been pointed out ad infinitum that this was never about him, or the quality of his music, and that even those of us who don't condone the nomination ackowledge the great job Seth has done in bringing new audiences to folk.

Only by *some* of those who didn't condone the nomination. From my memory of the threads on this topic, there were more than a few posters who saw this as further evidence of the evils of "folk going pop", and *were* using this as a stick to beat modern folk artists with.

That's the problem. You've got one lot of people who are rationally making a point that this song, whilst it may later *become* traditional, is not actually traditional now, even though the tune and story are traditional. They're being quite sensible about this. Standing alongside them, you've got a vocal minority jumping up and down shouting "Judas" because they fundamentally don't believe that new music can be folk music or that anything modern can be worth listening to. Guess who gets the press coverage?

Graham.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,ChorleyBob
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 08:21 AM

Colin Irwin has a fine track record as a music journalist and has been around since God was a lad.He knows as well as anyone about the significance of the tradition and the ongoing debates that have raged down the years. Whether you agree with him or not, he is probably one of the few people with the perspective, the literacy and the knowledge to bring this debate to a wider, non-folk audience.
I thought it was a very well-argued piece, good humoured, fair ( all sides were reflected) and the fact that so many people have popped up to tear it to shreds illustrates his central point perfectly.
It troubles me that anyone who dares to question the idea that the White Hare row is a fuss over nothing is instantly dismissed with side-swipes about conspiracy theory etc ....by so many on this thread.
BTW - I am not Colin Irwin's mother , nor have I have ever met him - only know of him through meloday Maker and Froots etc..

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 08:42 AM

Chorleybob, I agree with much of what you say about Colin, but I don't think the article is fair and TWHINATS and the fuss is about something not nothing

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,ChorleyBob
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 09:01 AM

I appreciate your respectful response Les - even though we disagree.
Sadly, many posters on this issue will tear to shreds anyone who dares question their logic. Then the mud starts flying and so you get somethign of a one-sided argument, beacuse those on the "other side" don't like the idea of being slagged off so vehemently.

Can't we agree to differ?

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 09:07 AM

Yes, I know what you mean. It seems that most threads potter along for 20 odd posts then some people get bored and start to lob in all kinds of extreme nonsense.

I take my life in my hands here but the mearest smell of Ewan McColl often throws us to the strangest of extreme views.

OK, I suppose I have poked a stick at those who live under the bridge so to speak

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Stu
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 09:09 AM

Captain Ginger - after I pressed the submit button I realised that those questions would be threads of their own, and they've been done many times before I'm sure.

Following on from ChorleyBob Colin Irwin's Rough Guide to Irish Music is excellent, but my copy is a few years old now. And his book In Search of Albion is pretty good too.

Ah heck. What do I know?

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 10:12 AM

ChorleyBob: you say the article was fair. Did you notice thqat every quote he included backed up his argument? Colin Irwin is a journalist, He attacked a whole group of people in that article(including me). Did he include a single quote from any of the musicians he was attacking? No.
   Now, he's entitled to disagree with me, and I with him. I think a genuinely investigative journalist would have given me, and the other musicians involved, a ring and asked us a for a direct quote. And not put made up opinions(that we don't actually hold) into our mouths.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Scrump
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 10:19 AM

Dazbo was right - if there's no difference between a traditional song and any other song, why make the disticntion at all? Why not just have a "Best Track" award?

Then there would be no argument (but I bet somebody will think of one!)

And Grab is right. It's the Lakeman-bashers (who used the White Hare issue as an excuse to have a go at him), who have weakened the argument and got the rest of us a bad name (hence The Folk Police, etc.)

Maybe next time there's something like this, those people who used this as ammo to try to shoot down Seth Lakeman, Show of Hands, or anyone else they don't happen to like, might consider keeping their opinions to themselves and focus on the important issue, which this time was a non-traditional song being nominated as traditional.

As some of us said, the fact that the nominee happened to be Seth Lakeman is completely irrelevant. It would be equally wrong if one of John Kirkpatrick's or Dick Gaughan's songs had been nominated.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,ChorleyBob
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 10:51 AM

"Did he include a single quote from any of the musicians he was attacking? No."

My reading of Irwin's piece was that it was a reflection on how steamed up the folkies had become over what was, in his opinion, inconsequential. And that this was not without historical precedent in a musical genre that's been riven with factional strife since the year dot. I don't think he set out to create a piece of "investigative journalism" .
Whether or not you agreed with his take, it was, to my eyes, refreshing to see a well-written , wry piece on folk music in the mainstream press that didn't feel the need to apologise for the music or resort to the usual beardy-sandals cliches.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 10:58 AM

How would Melody Maker (does it exist any more? and Froots be of relevance to "traditional folk music"?

The tune from the session might have been traditional - in which case that might merit an award if anyone knew what it was. The words were not.

That song was no more eligible than the one I wrote (called the Folk Musician's Lament, using the probably traditional (by now) tune to "The Old German Musicianer") for an award as a traditional song. It's purely a matter of definition.

Likewise, for example, the songs written by the late Peter Bellamy, using his tunes to old (but of known authorship, Kipling) were not traditional and would not have been eligible.

I would however go somewhat further and say that Lakeman attributing the item as Trad arr Lakeman was wrong, and if he is one of the modern folk music graduates (I thought he was) as an academic he should have known it was wrong. He may or may not be an admirable musician or performer, or person, but the issue is whether the song was eligible and whether its inclusion was the result of incompetence or dishonesty, for there is no other possibility.

Perhpas the solution would be to rename the category as "Best track that is traditional or inspired by traditional or probably traditional sources".

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 11:15 AM

Chorleybob,

"My reading of Irwin's piece was that it was a reflection on how steamed up the folkies had become over what was, in his opinion, inconsequential."

Then his opinion is ill-informed. He is imply supporting the Leonard line by ignoring the central truth and the central issue - TWHINATS.

He even falls foul of his own quote:
"Martin Carthy, the great sage of Brit folk, describes Lakeman as "upstanding and noble" for crediting The White Hare as traditional, but still thinks it absurd that it was nominated."

By joining JL he seems to have doubled the number of people who think the WH is trad. We only ever made a small point. A small nugget of truth in a sea of confusion?

Yes we folkies love a row but I have always found those in the Front for the protection of the Tradition (F.POTT) to have a clear and honest line whilst those in the Peoples Organisation For the Renewall of the Tradition (P.OFROT) to be confused and illinformed. And as for those in the .............

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 11:19 AM

Colin Irwin has a fine track record as a music journalist and has been around since God was a lad.

Sacked as a singles reviewer on Melody Maker because he described Rod Stewart's "Sailing" as a "big fat miss"?

Went to the Sheffield carols and misheard "While Shepherds Watch their Flocks by Night" as "O Come All ye Faithful"? (December 1978)

Wrote Dave Swarbick's obituary when he was still alive?

It is only my short term memory that is going. Sorry to disappoint you.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 11:24 AM

As a newly recruited member of The Folk Police I am looking for action, especially with brother Irwin. Trouble is people speak of good books that he has written.

In which case we would be looking for a much stiffer sentence on the grounds that he should know better (HSKB)

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 02:19 PM

Why were no Amy Winehouse or Arctic Monkey songs nominated? They are all traditional according to the Irwin/Leonard position. Possibly the reason might be that their agents, publicity people, marketing people etc aren't on the folk voting panel?

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: synbyn
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 02:50 PM

As one of the few Catters actually to come from Tunbridge Wells, can I say that I am not, nor ever have been........
though a bunch of us who sat outside Seth Lakeman's set at Broadstairs last year found the noise a bit much- sounded like his current output is based on rhythm rather than melody. I find White Hare the most approachable song on his album, and the lyrics are well-crafted for their purpose- and agree that if he wrote it it ain't traditional yet.
Should I be worried that I'm insufficiently steamed-up?

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:12 PM

a genuinely investigative journalist But he's not an investigative journalist. Just writes the odd column on something he doesn't know too much about. Like quite a few more people in that respect.

Here's the YouTube of the song in question. First time I've heard it.

Miss Jean Brodie put it very well when she said "For those who like that kind of thing, that is the kind of thing that they like." Pleasant enough, but... I missed him at Broadstairs - with all the fuss I was wondering if I should have gone along with my season ticket. I can't remember what I did go tom instead went to, but I think I probably made the right choice.

I wonder whether, if David Beckham were nominated for an award as Best Cricketer of the year, would Colin Irwin's opposite number in the Sports Guardian describe people who commented adversely on that as "cricket police"?

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:18 PM

Guest ChorleyBob.

So it was a well-written piece about folk music.

A few points.

It refers to the lastes in a string of controversies but the controversy he quotes is 1965. Err....a mere 42 years old.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:51 PM

Sorry about that last post. It got posted as a short draft.

I meant to post this......

Let's take a look at this well written piece of journalism.

It quotes how the folk world is constantly getting its knickers in a twist. The example quoted is 42 years old.

It says the latest controversy is about when is traditional song not a traditional song. It isn't and it has constantly been repeated ad nauseam that it isn't.

It describes Seth Lakeman as a young crossover star. Well if you think 29 is young I suppose he is.

He fails to point out that there is a BBC Folk Awards definition of the category of best traditional track and "White Hare" does not fall into it.

He says the row "was triggered by last week's BBC Folk Awards". It was started months earlier as he himself admits in the next paragraph but two.

John Leonard's definition of s traditional song as "a song of no known composer that has passed through many hands" is not particularly good but it certainly does not fit the "White Hare" which is a song whose words have a known composer. We don't know anything about the tune.

He fails to point out that Seth Lakeman singing "King and Country" wouldn't have qualified either.

Nic Jones's description of the oral process is good as it goes. How many times has Seth changed "White Hare" in the same way? Suppose he did and the words changed each time he sang it so that in the end it became unrecognisable as the original song. Do you imagine the record company would like that?

In the end none of it matters.

Compare and contrast with the description on the BBC Folk Awards Page

The BBC Folk Awards event was started in 1999 as a way of celebrating the past year's achievements in the folk music world. It was seen as an opportunity to get artists and folk industry pundits together and say thank you for their work over the previous twelve months. It was also seen as a chance to showcase to the mainstream media just some of the artists and albums that we, the people who work in folk music, have been particularly proud of during the year.

Well-written article by Colin "Dave Swarbrick is dead" Irwin?   Sure?

But I am an open minded person. Tell us why you think it is well-written.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:58 PM

Dave,

what a job well done,

Folkiedave for Investigative Jounalist fo the Year!

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:39 PM

Fine writing it's not!

"It was seen as an opportunity to get artists and folk industry pundits together and say thank you for their work over the previous twelve months."

Does that mean they say thank you to each other? Or is there someone else saying thank you to them? And what is the work a "folk industry pundit" is engaged in? Is a "folk industry pundit" different from "we, the people who work in folk music".

Pundit: A learned Hindu; one versed in Sanskrit and in the philosophy, religion and jurisprudence of India;or a learned expert or teacher (joc)

I take it the learned expert or teacher is the relevant definition. But I somehow doubt if too many of Colin Irwin's "folk industry pundits" would really measure up to that.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,ChorleyBob
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:40 PM

Sigh. You miss the point...and I suppose I miss yours, and that's why this sort of division continues on parallel lines.
Have a go at me , by all means, but I think it's a bit unfair to savage Colin Irwin. He's a good writer, he knows his stuff, he may have made the odd mistake down the years (hands up who hasn't ?) but most important, he's an enthusiast and has been a great ambassador for folk music, even through the wilderness years.

I shall leave you to re-inforce your own prejudices, and beat a retreat from Mudcat. Best of luck - Bob

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:50 PM

By all means beat a retreat Bob, I am sad that you feel that is a way forward. I'd prefer you to stay and argue your point.

Saying someone is dead when they aren't is not the same as spelling someone's name wrong. Personally I think he is a poor writer who he has made some horrendous mistakes and I can justify it.

You think he is a good writer and I have asked you to justify it.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Bainbo
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:00 PM

Whatever Colin Irwin's merits as a journalist - and I've read and enjoyed several of his pieces - it's probably wrong to blame him for killling off Swarb.

As Liz pointed out earlier, obits are often written while the subject is still alive. Although Irwin's name will have appeared on the piece, for the very good reason that he researched and wrote it, the chances are he had nothing to do with it appearing the paper. It was certainly someone's mistake. But I'm guessing that when the wrong info came through, they just reached for the already-written piece without consulting him.

I am bit perplexed, though, by his stance on White Hare-gate.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:21 PM

Let's accept the Swarb mistake wasn't his.

How come he wrote:

"Some are well-known carols applied to different tunes -it's is said there are over twenty versions of 'O Come All ye Faithful'. We hear a few of them this lunchtime in Dungworth hammered out with four-part harmonies,counterpoint harmonies and a lustful adoration".

Melody Maker December 30th 1978.

Now to me there is a world of difference between getting singers' names wrong - which he also did - and getting a whole series of songs totally wrong - songs which he describes listening to in detail. For those not familiar with this he really meant to say - "While Shepherds Watched Their Folks by Night".

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:22 PM

Or even Flocks!!

Dave

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Bainbo
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:29 PM

"While shepherds watched their folks by night
All singing in the bar."
Hey, they're new words to an old, old tune;
I'll credit it "Trad, arr."

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: RTim
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:46 PM

OK - So now (here in the USA) I have heard Seth Lakeman's White Hare - pretty and pleasant, but not what I call a Traditional "Story" Song.
What I want to hear now is the winning song - John Barleycorn from Tim Van Eyken. Having recorded it myself with a Sosaphone, E-flat Horn and many other instruments and singers in harmony, I want to hear what is considered the best traditional track.

Tim Radford (www.timradford.com - unfortunately no sound tracks, I will have to talk to my sin-in-law about that while on my March trip to the UK)

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,Captain Swing
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 08:31 PM

I think the Guardian article is very pertinent but I think Seth Lakeman could possibly consider more contemporary themes for his songs.

Captain Swing

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: greg stephens
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:09 AM

I don't really know what ChorleyBob's point was, apart from unthinking support for the status quo. I considered Colin Irwin's article shallow and dishonest because it set up straw man arguments in order to knowck them down. He did not deal with any of the legitimate points that have been raised. He didn't even identify, or interview, any of his his opponents. Very sloppy.
   For me, now as ever, there is only ne real issue(the "meaning of traditional" bit is interesting but not relevant, to me). My question remains the same always: nine votes gets you a nomination worth a lot of money.If you've got five votes you control, you're in the pink. Is this a good thing?

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:10 AM

Colin Irwin is not a particularly good folk music journalist, he's just the most well known, he merely repeats unfounded rumours, he is one of the people who continually perpetuates the myth that Ewan MacColl was born in Auchterarder, when most people know he was born in Salford.

And you can bet your life that he was on the ' panel ' of 150 ' experts ' who don't know the difference between traditional songs and recently written songs.

eric

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 05:29 AM

"For me, now as ever, there is only one real issue (the "meaning of traditional" bit is interesting but not relevant, to me). My question remains the same always: nine votes gets you a nomination worth a lot of money. If you've got five votes you control, you're in the pink. Is this a good thing?"

Greg - you have it bang on the nail.

No, it is NOT a good thing, morally or politically. It's not good for folk music, it's not good for the BBC (who look pretty stupid building such a huge concoction from such crumbs). It makes the winners look cheap, and the 'losers' seem even more cheated.

How Irwin can bring himself to support it defeats me, (unless of course he has some special reason for doing so).

The whole thing is a farce - but at least it's fully exposed as such now.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 06:08 AM

I don't think Colin Irwin had a hidden agenda.

Anyone who has followed this closely can see the origin of much of his writing on the BBC message board. We'll never know whether he went through the message board on his own or whether Smooth Operations who run it on behalf of the BBC took out selective quotes for him.

He was clearly given the transcript to the BBC programme too.

He was given access to the nomination figures.

Clearly all this came from Smooth Operations in one form or another.

It was a very poor PR exercise on their behalf. A decent PR firm would have said "Take the heat out of it - publish the figures". Its advice would not have been "Give Colin Irwin an interview, that'll take the heat out of it".

It hasn't and it isn't finished yet!!

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 06:23 AM

and why did an experienced journalist like Irwin agree to act as Smooth Operations' apologist?

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 06:27 AM

You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to.

Humbert Wolfe

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Alec
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 06:47 AM

I have just read an interview Lakeman gave last October on The Guardian's site.
At no point does he make any claim about his music being Traditional.
Indeed more than once he implicitly emphasises its newness and the fact that it is self-penned.
This is not intended as an attack on him (I quite like his stuff)
but indicates that its "Traditional" status was decided at a very late point prior to being nominated for this award.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,Deep Throat
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 08:10 AM

>>its "Traditional" status was decided at a very late point prior to being nominated for this award.<<

My own theory is that the song probably only became "tradional" after someone had discovered they had printed the lyric book in the first CDs inacurately. The printing on that lyric book is pretty awful anyway and it must have been dead hard to proof read.

That nine people then decided to nominate a song that from its structure was clearly a modern composition for the tradional category is between them and their therapists. Much has been made that they were led astray by what it said on the CD sleeve, but I get the impression that the Gang of Nine aren't the sort who check their facts by researching CD credits.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:05 PM

A decent PR firm would have said "Take the heat out of it..."

Why on earth would they have wanted to take the heat out of it? That would have been rotten PR, since heat generates attention in this kind of context.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,davetnova
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 01:28 PM

I think this may be the same song with slightly "folkied " lyrics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoPQVCQCdZc&mode=related&search=

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 01:42 PM

Stigweard wrote 'Following on from ChorleyBob Colin Irwin's Rough Guide to Irish Music is excellent, but my copy is a few years old now. And his book In Search of Albion is pretty good too.'

For the record, 'The Rough Guide to Irish Music' was co-written by myself and Sue Wilson, not Colin Irwin. Colin's Irish music book was 'In Search of the Craic'.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 05:23 PM

I didn't see any white hairs there Davetnova

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Alec
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 05:57 AM

I was expecting to see letters or some sort of follow on commentary about this in Today's Guardian.
But there is nothing.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,GUESTLY GUESTER
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 03:21 PM

COPY OF JOHN LEONARD'S POST (19-02-07)TO BBC FOLK MESSAGE BOARD ON THE SUBJECT OF THE FOLK AWARDS :


Hello everyone,

Firstly, let me apologise for breaking any house rules with the length of this post!

Secondly, I should introduce myself as the producer of the Radio 2 Folk Awards. I've been interested to read some of the comments on the message board about the Folk Awards voting system and the interview I did for Feedback on Radio 4, about the controversy surrounding the nomination of Seth Lakeman's 'The White Hare' as Best Traditional Track.

I believe there was some confusion over what I actually promised on Feedback. What I am happy to publish - in an attempt to clear up some speculation about the voting process for the Best Traditional Track category - are the numbers of votes that each nominee received in the nominations round. Here they are:

Barleycorn – Tim van Eyken (23)
Green Grows The Laurel – Kris Drever (10)
The White Hare – Seth Lakeman (9)
Grey Gallito – Salsa Celtica with Eliza Carthy (8)

Seth Lakeman's original song 'King & Country' did also receive nominations in the Traditional Track category, as Colin Irwin wrote in his Guardian piece on Friday ( music.guardian.co.uk... ), but it was not near the top of the list as suggested.

Just to clarify, these are the vote counts from the nominations round. Obviously the vote counts were different in the second round, when the panel chose a winner (Barleycorn) from the 4 nominated tracks.

When we started the Folk Awards back in 2000 we didn't have any nominations, just a winner in each category. The idea was for the Awards to be a celebration and a way of attracting new people to the music by doing a bit of flag waving. We didn't want the event to become a kind of competition. I understand that this was probably a bit naïve, because once you go down the awards route, it's a competition by default.

I was persuaded after a couple of years that nominations were a good idea as they would highlight the work of more people, and so it was decided to add a nominations round. I really think the resulting publicity given to folk music has made it a worthwhile process.


There seem to be a number of ways to pick award winners:
1. A small panel of experts who pick the winner, e.g. The Mercury Award;
2. A series of small panels of experts judging each category, e.g. The Sony Radio Awards;
3. A public vote, e.g. The Scots Trad Music Awards and parts of the Brit Awards;
4. A larger panel of people with knowledge of the music, e.g. The Country Music Association Awards.

I felt that a small panel was too narrow a range of opinions and a public vote gave an advantage to established artists with large mailing lists. So we went for our method of a panel of over 100 voters from a diverse range of activities across folk music and music in general.

There are currently 171 people on the voting panel. In the first round of voting, the panel are asked to nominate 3 different tracks. These tracks can be anything, as long as they were released during the previous 12 months.

Not everyone votes in each category and for some reason the Best Traditional Track and the Best Original Song attract the smallest number of votes, but the widest range of nominations.

In all, 67 people voted for Best Traditional Track, but they nominated 101 different songs and tunes. The vast majority of tracks only got one vote, and so the general knock on effect is that to get a nomination you don't need a lot of votes.

I understand that our system is by no means perfect, for example some years ago a number of people from the Scottish folk scene claimed that the panel was biased towards English music and Scotland was not sufficiently represented. Having looked at their complaints we agreed, and added new names to the panel that were considered to have a knowledge of Scottish music in an attempt to redress the balance.

It is not an infallible system, but given the aims of the Awards it seems to work pretty well.

Let me try and answer a few other questions that seem to keep cropping up. Some members on the board have asked whether there are vested interests in the voting panel.

Inevitably yes, there are, but only about 10% of the panel. Actually the folk scene tend to be a pretty honest and honourable bunch - I'm always surprised and pleased to see people voting for whichever artists they believe have done good work, regardless of their affiliations. If there was a draw for 4 nominations, we would look carefully at who had voted for an artist, and if it was just interested parties then we would ignore those votes. The majority of the panel do not have vested interests, contrary to a suggestion elsewhere on this board.

It has been suggested elsewhere on the message board that the panel should include people involved in the study of folk music. It does – there are, for example, representatives from such organisations as Folkworks and the degree courses in Newcastle and Scotland.

I realise these points will raise further questions, and I'll be happy to try and answer them over the next couple of days.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:16 PM

more from JL if anyone is interested.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:22 PM

Now I understand why you Brits have so many teacups.

It's to keep all your wee storms in, isn't it? ;>)


A

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:36 PM

No, it's to keep your mind in.

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:43 PM

100 !!

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:05 AM

Hello again,

Tom: Thanks for your notes. We're reluctant to tie any categories to the output of Mike's show, for a few reasons. For one, we are short of time on the show and can only play a small percentage of the tracks we think are worthy of a play. So it is possible that many great tracks or artists would not be represented. Surely it is better to have the categories totally open.

SO WHY DO YOU KEEP PLAYING THE SAME FEW PEOPLE OVER AND OVER?

Keith and others: There does tend to be a low vote for some categories during the nominations stage, but particularly Best Traditional Track and Best Original Song. Don't forget that there are no restrictions. People can vote for whatever they like and as a result around 80-100 artists/tracks/albums receive nomination votes in each category. Consequently the votes are spread and therefore appear low. Considering the vast field, I think it is a real achievement to receive enough votes to become a nominee, even if those votes might sometimes only total single figures. NO IT'S NOT, GIVEN THE MAKE UP OF THE PANEL. Here are the vote counts for the nominations round in the Best Original Song category:

Roots – Steve Knightley performed by Show of Hands (20)
Karine Polwart – Daisy (16)
Steelos – John Tams (14)
Jack Frost – Mike Waterson performed by Waterson:Carthy (10)

The White Hare received 5 nominations in this category.

40% of the panel cast votes in the nominations round for Best Original Song. 70% cast votes on the outcome of that category.

AND YOU THINK THAT'S ENOUGH VOTES TO SETTLE A CAREER-CHANGING AWARD? THERE ARE PLAINLY TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE PANEL WHO DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT FOLK MUSIC TO BE VOTING.

With regard to the point about folk shows on BBC local radio, representatives (usually presenters) from all of the programmes you mention are on the Folk Awards panel.

BUT THEY ARE OUTNUMBERED BY PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T A CLUE.

Almunecarblade: I'm sorry, I did say I would publish the votes and I have published the ones in the categories that have attracted the most discussion. ROGER BOLTON WAS ASKING FOR ALL THE VOTES, AND YOU AGREED TO PUBLISH. We do not want to publish any more counts or percentages, particularly with regard to the other categories, as we feel it is unfair to the artists who received richly deserved nominations and awards. It is a shame we have already had to publish numbers just to prevent guesswork and speculation. We want all nominations to remain of equal value to the artists.

9 VOTES GETS A NOMINATION, 8 VOTES DOESN'T. HOW 'EQUAL VALUE' IS THAT?

Greg: We have looked at the nominations for The White Hare and found, as we have in the past, that if any votes from so-called vested interests were removed, the song would have still received its nomination. Please refer to my previous statements. There is no funny business involved.

SO YOU SAY. OTHERS DISAGREE. YOU ARE SPENDING PUBLIC MONEY - SORRY, YOUR WORD IS NOT ENOUGH.

In fact, because Seth has recently gone the route of major label, and pretty much all of our panel are folk-related people, there is only one panellist I can think of who might have a vested interest in Seth's success.

ONE IS STILL TOO MANY. AND WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS ARTISTS?

With regard to your comment about having musicians on the panel, they do vote for the Folk Club of the Year. Other than that, we just felt it was the job of musicians to make the music, not to have to judge each others' work. If we were to invite some musicians on to the main panel, the question would be who?

HOW DID YOU DECIDE THE REST OF THE PANEL THEN?

K: Please refer to my previous statements re: vested interests on the panel. We have found that they have almost no effect on the nominations or outcome, and if they were ever seen to do so, we would consider discounting votes.

CONSIDER? IN ANY OTHER VOTING SYSTEM IT WOULD BE OUTLAWED.

There are a number of folk journalists on the panel, SOME OF THE BIGGEST UK PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT REPRESENTED - I WONDER WHY but I'm not willing to name names because as I have always said, we don't want them to be open to any kind of lobbying.

THIS INSISTENCE ON SECRECY JUST MAKES PEOPLE SUSPICIOUS. IF THE PANEL ARE PEOPLE OF INTEGRITY IT SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM KNOWING WHO THEY ARE. WE ALL KNOW WHO OUR MPS ARE.

In answer to comments made by several members: I'm quite happy with the category The White Hare was in, I'm happy with the definition of the traditional tag and I'm also very happy with the final result for Barleycorn (which was the song I voted for by the way).

AND WHO SAYS IT SHOULD BE UP TO ONLY YOU TO DECIDE? 99% OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED AN OPINION SAY YOU ARE WRONG. THEY ARE PAYING YOUR SALARY. THE BBC REQUIRES YOU TO BE ACCOUTABLE. IF YOU'RE BEING PIG-HEADED ABOUT THIS WHAT ELSE ARE YOU HIDING?

Thank you for all your comments and your continued interest in the Awards. Thanks especially to those who have written in support of our good intentions. (2)

I hope I have dealt with most of the points raised here. I'm afraid I can't devote any more time to discussing the issues on this thread, as other projects are taking up my time and I won't be able to give this as much attention as I'd like. However, if you still wish to share ideas with us, please contact the team through the contact form on Mike's showpage: www.bbc.co.uk/radio2...

IN OTHER WORDS, 'YOU PRATTLE ON AS LONG AS YOU LIKE. I'M NOT LISTENING.'

John

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,Keith
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:48 AM

The BBC Radio Two Folk Awards voting procedures remind me of a tale the MD of the company I once worked for used to tell about his time in Paraguay.

General Stroessner (President of Paraguay): "Mr xxxxxx, In the UK and Paraguay we both have the same basic system of Government, one man one vote. It is just that in Paraguay that one man is me".

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:27 AM

6. TRADITIONAL TRACK OF THE YEAR
The best performance of any traditional song or tune on CD released during the past 12 months. This is a category designed to recognise the work of people recording traditional material. It is to be a new recording of a traditional song, from any tradition

Now where in this category does the White Hare fit?

The answer is it doesn't............

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:58 AM

'e sounds like a bloody politician " I refer you my previous statement "

There is till no openness, I wouldn't buy a used car from John Leonard.

eric

Subject: RE: The Guardian Vs 'Catters?
From: GUEST,Keith
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:01 AM

Having been treated to Colin Irwin's piece of spin, complete with red herrings and conveniently missing facts, in the Guardian last Friday, I found this this in The Times morning. It starts well until the reporter gets off of what the lead singer looks like and to where she needs to really know who exactly is in the Seth Lakeman band and what some of the songs are called!

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/live_reviews/article1419830.ece