The Guardian Vs 'Catters?

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
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 08:06 AM

Has the Guardian published their traditional correction yet?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Scrump
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:23 AM

Where are the voting figures published?

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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GRex
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 04:37 AM

Methinks the Guardian has a very large spoon.

                GRex

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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. ;-)