|
01 Feb 08 - 05:23 PM (#2250877) Subject: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Cuddles We need him back again John's Folk Music |
|
01 Feb 08 - 05:48 PM (#2250905) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Shimrod So, let's get this straight. You're saying that John Lennon was a folk singer and 'we' need him back? (i) Where is the evidence that he was a folk singer? The 'YouTube' clip that you cite seems to have nothing to do with folk music. (ii) Who, exactly, "needs him back" - who is 'we'? |
|
01 Feb 08 - 06:00 PM (#2250914) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Cuddles "You're saying that John Lennon was a folk singer and 'we' need him back?" Yup! :-) Got it in one! "Where is the evidence that he was a folk singer?" On the Youtube video there "The 'YouTube' clip that you cite seems to have nothing to do with folk music." Bet you wouldn't say that if Dick Gaughan were singing it. ;-) "Who, exactly, "needs him back" -" We do. "Who is 'we'?" You and me, them, us, we. This apathetic world that has ceased to care, ceased to take to the streets, ceased to have 'a voice' So tell me, as I'm pondering at present, if you'll pardon the expression. What's the difference between Bob Dylan and John Lennon? If this thread had had Bob's name on it, I doubt you'd have twitched a muscle.... Here's another great folk song of his, that inspired and motivated 'the people' Another of John's Folk Songs |
|
01 Feb 08 - 06:07 PM (#2250917) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: AllanW Cuddles, I admire your bravery. I once sang a Lennon song in a folk club and was jeered by a 'folk singer' who complained that it wasn't 'folk' He went on to sing 'It's a Hard Life Wherever You Go' by Nanci Griffith, which apparently is!?! |
|
01 Feb 08 - 06:37 PM (#2250947) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Big Al Whittle No you guys have got it wrong, Folk music is about a tradition of middle class guys and their kids singing songs that nobody outside of some gipsy famililies and two folksinging families have ever heard of. dance tunes nobody dances to. Its very exclusive and you don't count. Live with it. As for getting your music on a BBC folk programme, forget it. Its been sewn up for years. There are people on mudcat who will spit in your eye rather than admit real folk into folk music. Your music isn't folk music. You aren't a folk. I have it from experts. |
|
01 Feb 08 - 06:49 PM (#2250959) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton A genuinely funny and incisive post, WLD. |
|
01 Feb 08 - 06:55 PM (#2250964) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Apropos of not very much, latterly I just can't seem to get "Nowhere Man" out of my head...I don't even know whether this one was Lennon's or McCartney's, but a timeless, poignant and eminently hummable melody nonetheless (as good a criteria for "f*** music" as any, IMHO). |
|
01 Feb 08 - 06:57 PM (#2250967) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Leadfingers How do you know THAT'S a Folk Song ??? --- I Never heard a Horse sing it !!! Folk songs are songs that Folk sing ! |
|
01 Feb 08 - 07:17 PM (#2250980) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Neil D I first heard "Working Class Hero" on an early Thanksgiving morning at a low time when I felt like nothing of the sort. It reached inside me and grabbed my heart. Like, wow, somebody gets it! This song has always been something very personal to me and I play it every Thanksgiving so I don't forget the old times, the sad times, the bad times, the high times. So I don't forget the true human voice that was torn from our lives well too soon. No other song has ever touched me like that and I am so past caring whether it is a folk song or not. It can however, be a real hoot reading some of you all arguing about it so....carry on. |
|
01 Feb 08 - 07:23 PM (#2250985) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Jeff 'Nowhere Man' is definately a Lennon song. Paul may have helped some on the lyrics. |
|
01 Feb 08 - 07:27 PM (#2250989) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Rogthedodge It's a good song but not a great song, it's certainly not folk music. 'You' may need him back but 'we' don't |
|
01 Feb 08 - 07:50 PM (#2251017) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: katlaughing Cuddles, thanks for the links. I love remembering the passion and bravery in wanting to make a CHANGE back then. I was just young enough to not get to participate very much, but I DO remember it and I love Lennon's songs. One of the saddest days of my life was the day he was murdered. I think this thread probably broke the record in how quickly the negative slagging off started. It's a shame...Mudcat used to be a kinder, gentler place, esp. in the music threads. What must newcomers think of it nowadays. I still can't listen to THIS ONE without crying. |
|
01 Feb 08 - 08:05 PM (#2251034) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Betsy When "us" lot have gone - and the some of the traditional songs (to the youngsters)i.e "Have you heard how the wars began"? etc etc become irrelevant another generation will be playing Beatles songs for evermore. There are Places .....(In my mind)- a great folk song,and not easy for the 3 chord player - have a go. !! It will be their day(s) and nothing we can do about it..... |
|
01 Feb 08 - 08:27 PM (#2251053) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Peace It's kind of flattering that people see songs that have 'social conscience' as folk, and people who sing those songs as folksingers. |
|
01 Feb 08 - 11:56 PM (#2251189) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,QuestionMark Are y'all forgetting John Lennon was in an English skiffle band before the Quarrymen and then the Beatles. Seems to me, English skiffle music was a direct descendant of the folk music, ala Rock Island Line, etc. Lennon played music in the folk realm before he played rock n' roll. Has one also forgotten the headlines of "The Beatles Go Folk", circa the Rubber Soul album...much primarily having to do with Lennon and his meeting up with Bob Dylan. Seems to me, when the Beatles first came to America they were very enthused about hoping to meet not only the early blues artists (folk musicians, also), but also were very aware of The Kingston Trio (although they were referenced only as the folk trio who was so popular in America.) Plus, Lennon's regularly contributed acoustic guitar work in both the Beatles' music and in his solo years. Seems to me, he also originally played the banjo his Aunt Mimi taught him(though, I've never been clear if it was a tenor banjo or a 5 string) before he played guitar. Am I missing something here? It isn't far fetched to consider Lennon as a folkie or at least highly influenced by folkies. QM |
|
02 Feb 08 - 04:11 AM (#2251259) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Jack Blandiver John Lennon... back from the dead... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXILMn7fk7g |
|
02 Feb 08 - 04:44 AM (#2251269) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Shimrod "If this thread had had Bob's name on it, I doubt you'd have twitched a muscle...." Yes I would - Bob Dylan isn't a folk singer either! |
|
02 Feb 08 - 05:03 AM (#2251278) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Cuddles Sedayne, sorry but that video, to me, is highly unpleasant. Folk music, again, to me, is music sung by people, whoever they may be, which relates to what is happening around them. Songs that you can get an idea of history from and especially songs that the 'ordinary' person of that time can relate to. They can be songs about local dances, birds, hedgerows or wars. They can be about unrest or about how society has been so unhappy and the causes behind that unhappiness, it doesn't matter. A folk singer, personal opinion once more, is one who takes his/her observations about the time they live in, out to the people. An exceptional folk singer is one who is able to rouse passions in those people, so much so that they will take to the streets in a determination to try and change their world. When I showed my daughter the 'Give Peace A Chance' video she couldn't believe how people took to the streets back then, how they took it into their own hands to try and change the world, and how they managed it too in some case, such as helping to bring about the end to the Vietnam War. Now, The Sound Of Silence has never been so deafening! We have let it all go, we have turned away, buried our heads. And the generation who DID take to the streets back then seem to have given up, become jaded and indifferent, apathetic and bitter. Where is their belief? Where is their passion? Why was it not passed down to their children? Sorry Shimrod, but we need the people and songwriters like Lennon back, we need those with the belief that Lennon had, that the world CAN be changed, and it can. If John Lennon were here today, looking at what was going on around him, I doubt very much that he'd be silent. I don't hear Dylan's voice raised in anger anymore, I hear no-one's voice, just this deathly, deathly silence. Tony Stringfellow From Tony's blog, his poem that asks the question we should all be asking: VOICE? by Tony Stringfellow "I hear no voice As I turn my ears to the crowd, Just a silent muttering Sighs of discontentment in a maze of opinions. Pale faces of placid expression Mouthing words of shallow intention, Eyes lost in a glaze of chat room jargon. Where is your voice? In a world wide connection Comes the distraction, Souls lost in a web of virtual backchat. Faces masked by an illusion of user names and passwords. Your words are safe within their cyber disguise, The narrator cannot be traced, He cannot be faced to account for his debate, Where is your voice? Lennon called for peace, Geldof called for food to end starvation, Bono called for money to banish poverty to extinction. Dylan called to us all, The angry protest singer Who denied the label. Joan Baez marched in anger Hand in hand with each rebel. Punks stood up to be counted - in zips, The causes of youth dripping like spit from their lips. They brandished sex pistols at authority And were obscene with clarity. They all had a voice! Where is the spunk of youth? It is twitching on keypads, Over texted on phones, Lost in reverberating drones and monotones Of abbreviated conversation With meaningless direction, A wasted labrinth of vocabulary. Where is your voice? Where is the passion of protest, The scream of discontent, The eruption of brave intent That gives you breath to breathe? Where are the violent shouts of compassion That vomits from the essence of youthful abstraction? Where are the flag bearers of your minds? Where is your voice?" |
|
02 Feb 08 - 06:15 AM (#2251305) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman John Lennon the voice of the people,Dont make me laugh. Ewan Maccoll was a far better songwriter. john lennon was a pop singer who in his latter years developed a social conscience,after he had finished doing ridiculous things with Yoko in bed[that was a waste of time]. but did he acheive any more or any less than Bob Geldof.less I would say |
|
02 Feb 08 - 06:49 AM (#2251321) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Doug Chadwick I suppose I should have been inspired when the millionaire John Lennon sang Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world but he never shared any of his wealth with me. DC |
|
02 Feb 08 - 07:26 AM (#2251339) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Big Al Whittle Me thinks they doth protest too much.... John Lennon and his ilk came up with songs about things people could relate to, that people loved singing. Yet the people are not judged to be 'folk'. Listen to a very large number of traditional songs without Martin Carthy's genius guitar and his singing ability - in the mouths of ordinary people, floorsinger types and they often come apart. The words are unmemorable, they have neither wit not songwriting skill. You take your choice of course, but I know which is my folk music. Of course there are some traditional songs which we all like. But so many of these rediscovered classics should have been left where they were in the library. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 07:47 AM (#2251350) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,wordy Agreed weelittle. The song moves on and the song moves forward. The people choose which ones to remember and if a song lasts more than two generations it's a folk song in my opinion no matter where it came from. The nay sayers are actually a folk song preservation society, somewhat akin to the National Trust. I think they do valuable musical work by their preservation, but they do damage by their judgemental attitude. All movements in the arts end up with this split between the conservatives and the progressives and Mudcat exhibits this in abundance. My reading about these schisms in the past always show that the progressives win, and then a generation or two down the road they become the conservators. No doubt in the future there will be those defending Beatles songs and preserving them in aspic! |
|
02 Feb 08 - 07:47 AM (#2251351) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman john lennon did not consider himself a folk singer,neither did any of the other Beatles, they were primarily Rock and Roll Singers who moved on and started to write some songs, some good, some not good. [Listen to a very large number of traditional songs without Martin Carthy's genius guitar and his singing ability - in the mouths of ordinary people, floorsinger types and they often come apart]Quote WlD. the same can be said for some of the Beatles songs And many other songs[Including a numberer of contemporary folk songs] ,when performed by mediocre performers they are exposed for what they are mediocre junk. however many traditional songs have stood the test of time,and been processed by the folk and do stand up as good songs, despite poor performances by floor singers. can anyone tell me HOW John and Yokos Love in changed the world ,a couple of self important, self indulgent,publicity seekers,making themselves look foolish. Dick Miles |
|
02 Feb 08 - 07:52 AM (#2251352) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Shimrod Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear - here we go again - I don't think I've got the energy for this! You can make a great big box, label it 'Folk Music', and shovel everything that you like or approve of into it if you like - nobody can stop you. But it still doesn't make the contents of the box 'Folk Music'! |
|
02 Feb 08 - 07:53 AM (#2251353) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: dwditty After considerable research, I have found Lennon's one utterance that reflects the sentiment of ALL folksingers throughout the ages, thereby qualifying him for inclusion in that sacred circle: "Genius is pain!" |
|
02 Feb 08 - 08:00 AM (#2251356) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman Wordy,you call the People progressive who describe John Lennon as a a folk singer. John lennons songs are generally described as pop songs,they could be decribed as Art songs. but whether they are good or not, they are not folk songs,because they have not been folk processed.,the lyrics are sung exactly as Lennon wrote them. Stephen Fosters, Gentle Annie has become a Folk song,it has taken on new verses,and changed, it has been folk processed. neither you, nor WLD,or Cuddles, clearly have any idea of what you are talking about.,just because you like his songs it doesnt make them folk songs John Lennon would be turning in his grave if he knew he was being described as a folksinger. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 08:01 AM (#2251357) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: van lingle I don't care about the John Lennon public persona, it's the music and lyrics he wrote that endure. Along with his frequent collaborator Paul McCartney he was one of the best composers of the 20th century and to catagorize him as a Folk singer or a Rock and Roll singer diminishes his art. I've been listening to a lot of Beatles lately (after a decades long break) and am again astonished at their brillance.vl P.S. IMHO |
|
02 Feb 08 - 08:46 AM (#2251385) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: AllanW "You can make a great big box, label it 'Folk Music', and shovel everything that you like or approve of into it if you like - nobody can stop you. But it still doesn't make the contents of the box 'Folk Music'!" And no one has ever explained to me with any reliable certainty what is! My box doesn't need a label. Labels are troublesome things, be gone with them, especially those little yellow ones, ugh! |
|
02 Feb 08 - 09:19 AM (#2251409) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,wordy C'apn I agree with you. But song moves on. If you're happy to believe that the evolution of song stopped with recording and notation, then fine. Enjoy the past. But once, the past was the present, and people wrote songs to express themselves and their times.Most of the people in Britain don't know what you define as folk songs, my urban parents certainly didn't, but they sang a lot, and some of those songs are still sung today, many of them over 100 years old. So when do the songs of the past qualify as the folk songs of the present, or is the museum closed so that no new artifacts can be added for the appreciation of the folks? |
|
02 Feb 08 - 09:56 AM (#2251437) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: bankley On Monday, NASA will be beaming Beatles song "Across the Universe" to Polaris , the North Star.. another first... it'll take over 430 yrs. to reach it's destination. Maybe some intelligent life form will hear it but send it back, cuz it ain't folky enough....or rocky enough, or jazzy enough.... then again.... hmmm |
|
02 Feb 08 - 10:13 AM (#2251447) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman ifJohn lennon is a folk singer because his music is popular,and alot of people sing it.then so is George Gershwin,Nat king cole,westlife,Ray Davis,CliffRichard ,Daniel ODonnell,RollingStones.and UncleTom Cobbleighand all. Try the 1954 definition. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 10:23 AM (#2251456) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: bankley "tagaroo day valla... nothin's gonna change my world" |
|
02 Feb 08 - 10:50 AM (#2251489) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Big yawns to the 1954 definition. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 11:03 AM (#2251500) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Nerd Yes, well big yawns to the "music sung by people, whoever they may be, which relates to what is happening around them" definition, too, which is utterly meaningless. Or the "A folk singer, personal opinion once more, is one who takes his/her observations about the time they live in, out to the people" definition, which applies to every songwriter, insofar as one can even figure out what it means. ("takes his/her observations...to the people?" what does this actually mean?) Shimrod has it right: "it's folk because I like it, and if you say it's not folk it's an attack and you must not like it" seems to be Cuddles's position. Zzzzz..... |
|
02 Feb 08 - 12:26 PM (#2251579) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice I've found that people who yawn and find other peoples opinions and tastes boring generally are that way themselves. "but don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant." you're not doing too badly in the rant department yourself are you "Guest"? We are all entitled to out opinions whether other people like them or not and John Lennon as a folk singer is a none issue right from the start. One more small thing...no singer of any musical genre, to my knowledge, has ever actually changed anything. The "Bono" Syndrome I believe it's called. Charlotte (listening to music for the music) |
|
02 Feb 08 - 12:52 PM (#2251597) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ernest I always wonder why people insist that someone they like has to be "folk". John Lennon and others wrote/made great music - no doubt about it. But still they are not considered folk musicians by the general public (even if they started their career playing skiffle etc. - but hey: we all started music singing traditional children`s songs ;0) Maybe those people think that pop music is something inferior and (even more horrible) commercial. Must have something to do with political opinions and views of "class" that are even more outdated than the traditional stuff they dislike.... Well, her`s some good news: "pop" is derived from the word "popular" which is in turn derived from the latin word "populus". Which means folk. Does that ease your pain a little? Regards Ernest |
|
02 Feb 08 - 12:56 PM (#2251600) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: alanabit I don't know why the punch up starts as soon as someone says what "folk music" means to himself or herself. I can't get worked up enough about it to start spitting bile at everyone, who has a different opinion to me. I think there is a good chance that the most enduring of twentieth century pop music will end up as folk songs. Just what the "folk process" is these days will need a bit of distance to define. We have experienced barely a century of being able to accurately record performances of music, so the future folk process looks likely to take a different form, to the one which was described in the nineteenth century. To me John Lennon was a very entertaining rock singer, who was about a century short of becoming a folk singer. However, I can't get passionate enough about defending my definition that I want to start hurling abuse at anyone. Why is it so important that everyone else is wrong? |
|
02 Feb 08 - 01:00 PM (#2251603) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice "Well, here`s some good news: "pop" is derived from the word "popular" which is in turn derived from the latin word "populus". Which means folk. Does that ease your pain a little? Quite right, Ernest...infact John Tams has referred to the genre as popular music, as well he should...it is VERY popular! *LOL* Charlotte (popular with her children when she's handing out money) |
|
02 Feb 08 - 01:17 PM (#2251621) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Waddon Pete Take the ordinary person in the street. Ask them to sing a folksong. OK that was disappointing..... Now ask them to sing a Beatles song. Well....what do you know! Not that that proves anything.......but.....all down the ages the "pop" songs of the day have become the folk songs of tomorrow..... I, too, can't be doing with labels...especially those very sticky ones that leave a layer of glue behind that you can't get off for love nor money! Best wishes, Peter |
|
02 Feb 08 - 02:03 PM (#2251677) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Waddon Pete - PM Date: 02 Feb 08 - 01:17 PM Take the ordinary person in the street. Ask them to sing a folksong. OK that was disappointing..... Now ask them to sing a Beatles song. Well....what do you know! Not that that proves anything.......but.....all down the ages the "pop" songs of the day have become the folk songs of tomorrow..... I, too, can't be doing with labels...especially those very sticky ones that leave a layer of glue behind that you can't get off for love nor money! sorry Pete,the pop songs of the day all through the ages have not become the folksongs of tomorrow.Since when has, Rock around the Clock,OR Are you lonesome tonight,Catch a Falling Star,How much is that Doggy,become a folk song,they are what they are POP SONGS. AND Furthermore if Ihad sung them at your folk club,at Croydon[or any of the other surrounding south east folk clubs]Iwould not have enjoyed all the return gigs that I got. people went and go to folk festivals/clubs not to hear Tin Pan Alley and the aforesaid popsongs,but to hear folk music,be it JackHudson/ Dick Miles,Jo Anne Kelly or Willie Scott, we all know the approximate boundaries. neither Paul Macca or John Lennon OR Perry Como are folk singers,They are singers of popular/art songs. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 02:12 PM (#2251682) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Waddon Pete "neither Paul Macca or John Lennon OR Perry Como are folk singers,They are singers of popular/art songs." Precisely..... But if you go further back in time........ Best wishes, Peter |
|
02 Feb 08 - 02:20 PM (#2251688) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Shimrod I don't think that I've 'hurled any abuse' at anyone, or 'spat any bile' (eeeuucchhh!!). I just don't like to see things misrepresented, that's all, and, as all the 'it's all folk music' crowd SHOULD agree, I'm entitled to my opinion (... except, possibly, if it's different to theirs ...?). |
|
02 Feb 08 - 02:24 PM (#2251693) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: AllanW "One more small thing...no singer of any musical genre, to my knowledge, has ever actually changed anything." Now that's where you're wrong Charlotte. I changed my underwear this morning. Allan (listening to the music, for the off chance of pinching something) |
|
02 Feb 08 - 02:35 PM (#2251704) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Peace The one thing I don't understand about all this is why everyone assumes folk music is sacred or the best music there is. Certainly it is great, but it ain't alone in greatness. People who think it is maybe should look a bit deeper into music. IMO. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 02:47 PM (#2251717) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: AllanW Oops Peace, that's like showing a train spotter the Space Shuttle |
|
02 Feb 08 - 02:47 PM (#2251719) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice "Now that's where you're wrong Charlotte. I changed my underwear this morning." My husband says the same thing.... |
|
02 Feb 08 - 02:52 PM (#2251723) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: AllanW "My husband says the same thing...." Ach, rumbled again!! :) |
|
02 Feb 08 - 03:10 PM (#2251744) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST Why did your husband change Allan's underwear? |
|
02 Feb 08 - 03:14 PM (#2251747) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Just to clarify: I love traditional songs. I even sang a few at my last paid gig. It's just that purists depress me a little...always have done, probably always will. Maybe the thread title should be "John Lennon - Folk Songwriter"?? (Dives for cover) |
|
02 Feb 08 - 03:20 PM (#2251755) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: katlaughing Like Craig Ferguson's opening song ditty says...Tomorrow's Just a Future Yesterday... |
|
02 Feb 08 - 03:37 PM (#2251771) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: number 6 Peace .... I fully agree. biLL |
|
02 Feb 08 - 03:52 PM (#2251788) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's hill billy Apprentice actually I remember my father and late mother saying once that they'd see Rodney Dillard (the banjo player) at a venue somewhere and he did an incredible version of I've Just Seen a Face (The Beatles as bluegrass) Charlotte (sitting on the porch strummin' on the old banjo) |
|
02 Feb 08 - 03:57 PM (#2251793) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Waddon Pete Mary McCaslin does some great versions of Beatles songs! Best wishes, Peter |
|
02 Feb 08 - 04:01 PM (#2251800) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Cuddles "Shimrod has it right: "it's folk because I like it, and if you say it's not folk it's an attack and you must not like it" seems to be Cuddles's position. Zzzzz....." No, that's why I stressed over and over that it was just my opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own. However, there has been a somewhat personal attack in here, on someone not even in this thread, as far as I can see. Most odd, but I find those sorts of post are always best left well alone. Good to see that most of you are enjoying the thread. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 04:03 PM (#2251803) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: AllanW Me and my boy folking up a Beatles toon. It was as good a time as any to let this one slip out... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUo6G_ObdDA |
|
02 Feb 08 - 04:13 PM (#2251811) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: katlaughing Beautifully done, AllanW.! |
|
02 Feb 08 - 04:40 PM (#2251839) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Rog Peek Yea you two, brilliant, and as good a folk song as I've heard. Rog |
|
02 Feb 08 - 04:42 PM (#2251842) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ruth Archer "However, there has been a somewhat personal attack in here, on someone not even in this thread, as far as I can see. Most odd, but I find those sorts of post are always best left well alone." LOL!!!! Run for the hills folks - she's back. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 05:32 PM (#2251886) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Cuddles "Me and my boy folking up a Beatles toon. It was as good a time as any to let this one slip out..." Very glad you did Allan, that is lovely! |
|
02 Feb 08 - 05:58 PM (#2251898) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Shimrod "The one thing I don't understand about all this is why everyone assumes folk music is sacred or the best music there is. Certainly it is great, but it ain't alone in greatness." Again I'm puzzled? Who is saying this? My own position is that it's not "sacred", or "the best" or even "great". It is what it is - and that is distinctly different from other types of music. And it happens to be the type of music that I go to folk clubs to hear. I'm wasting my breath, though, because some people just can't seem to separate the objective from the subjective. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 06:12 PM (#2251907) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman yes Ruth. If I go to a jazz club,I expect to hear Jazz,not Paul Macartney,or Westlife, if I go to a folk festival/ club,I do not expect to hear Daniel O Donnell or Cliff Richard/Barry Manilow,or Pavarotti[R I P]. JohnLennon is no more a folksinger than I am a Jazz singer. Dick Mileshttp://www.dickmiles.com |
|
02 Feb 08 - 10:35 PM (#2252075) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Jeff Please, Allan would you and your son do some more songs and post them? W/all the differences of opinion contained in this thread your video brings all the 'folk-not folk' nonsense to a grinding halt. It's a father and a son playing music together because they love playing music together. What a lovely moment to have shared. Thank you, so very much. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 10:37 PM (#2252076) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Peace Shimrod: every post ain't addressed directly to you. NO one said that. Just my distillation of some things that HAVE been said. Now, be polite or, ya know! |
|
03 Feb 08 - 03:25 AM (#2252122) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Guest Guest No is not a folk singer because: A. John Lennon was a real musician, he could actually write and play music that meant something B. He would frequently write and perform using an acoustic guitar C. His songs were frequently songs of protest or insightful observations about the conditions of life for the little people. D. He did not wear the regulation uniform beloved by the little fellows who delight in regaling others with tales of having used the same toilet as Pete Seeger. E. He would not have performed Michael Rowed the Boat Ashore at gunpoint F. He never wrote any songs about working in a cereal factory during the summer when he was pursuing his degree in sociology. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 03:40 AM (#2252126) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Metchosin Brilliant AllanW. Absolutely delightful! |
|
03 Feb 08 - 05:00 AM (#2252149) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: AllanW Wow, I didn't quite expect that response. Thank you. I've talked about the 'folk not folk' issue over the years as a music lover, a radio folk show presenter, a folk club organiser, a pal of many different sorts of musicians, and I know how important it is for those steeped in the tradition to endeavour to keep their music apart from other music, and I don't want or wouldn't want to step on their toes. I just happen to be a bloke who likes songs and I'm fortunate that Liam has inherited much of that from me, with no bullying whatsoever. In fact when he went off to uni a few years ago I was forever hopping about in my room shouting 'where's me blimmin' Nic Jones cd gone now? - why couldn't he be into Portishead like other students?' We just hear a song, love it, and play it. Whether it's folk is immaterial. I don't know if Lennon, or in the case of the song you just listened to, McCartney, are folk singers or not, I just know that some of their songs are gorgeous. Thanks again Allan |
|
03 Feb 08 - 05:22 AM (#2252156) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Timmy As the main part of this thread is going round in circles & disappearing up it's own arse I thought I'd just add a clarification to this comment 'One more small thing...no singer of any musical genre, to my knowledge, has ever actually changed anything. The "Bono" Syndrome I believe it's called.' Obviously very few things ever get changed by one person or one action, however the Bono thing is interesting. Politicians generally are suckers for seeking "credibility" or "coolness" and Bono & others are on record as saying that what they can do is use their perceived celebrity to bypass the normal channels you have to go through before you get access to the real decision makers, enabling them to push issues they are concerned with direct to those that can make the difference. Campaigns like "Make Poverty History" would never have had the same access to politicians without the "celebrity" element. It's also a lot easier for a politician to change their stance if they've been "convinced" by a high profile campaign promoted by "celebrities" than if the same is being supported by rival politicians. If a rival leads a campaign then any decision to support said campaign, is viewed as a victory for that rival - so a professional politician would be reluctant to agree regardless of the merits, but this is not a problem if its a Bono or Geldof fronting it. In a similar way politicians can also use campaigns lead by "celebrities" to generate massive non-party-political support & publicity to pressure and cajole politicians from other countries to agree to support an issue. The Live8 concerts & Make Poverty History campaigns were just such a thing, with Tony Blair and others collaborating with the campaigns to generate public pressure on leaders of other countries to support their political aims. So while 'no singer of any musical genre, to my knowledge, has ever actually changed anything' they can help to enable change which would be much more difficult to achieve through purely political processes. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 05:22 AM (#2252157) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive) Nice version, Allan. How about trying 'Tomorrow Never Knows' or 'I Am The Walrus' next!? I love the later stuff by the Beatles, especially Lennon's songs. It's never occurred to me to wonder if they're folk or not. It still doesn't... I always thought of it as good quality english pop/rock, and none the worse for that. The folk question, in my view, is immaterial. Cheers Nigel |
|
03 Feb 08 - 05:28 AM (#2252162) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: AllanW I've just tried scraping a kitchen knife up and down my mandolin fretboard Nigel, I think we're onto something here... |
|
03 Feb 08 - 05:43 AM (#2252169) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: KeithofChester Rubber Folk is pretty good proof to me that Lennon & McCartney songs can certainly sound "folk". That Waterson: Carthy messed up Norwegian Wood a bit was a shame, but that was more than made up by John Tams treatment of Girl. The older a song becomes, the less the artificial descriptions of "popular" or "folk" mater anyway. Some folk manage to tie themselves up in knots as to whether it is folk or not by making a destinction regarding the lyrical content. However, I defy anyone to tell me what is so different as to the lyrical contezt of Girl and Greensleeves. For those folk that say it's not "folk" unless it's been sung by someone associated with the Waterson or Carthy or Copper clans, well a deed poll changed John Winston Lennon into John Ono Lennon and I'm sure John Lennon-Carthy would have been feasible if he were still with us. Fortunately the buskers round me don't need to know if Eliza has covered a 40 year old song before they will play it and they won't in another 40 years either. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 07:16 AM (#2252209) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Cuddles "and I know how important it is for those steeped in the tradition to endeavour to keep their music apart from other music, " That's one of the main problems with 'folk' music, for me, that it has been kept so apart by a select group of over-intense people. All they've done is ensure that young people aren't interested, don't know about it and don't give a darn. As many people as possible should be 'steeped' in the traditions of their countries, it should never be 'kept apart' Music, I feel very strongly, does have the power to change the world, of course it does. If that music comes from one particular person, then of course they are/were the inspiration behind a movement that can/did spread like wild fire around the world. It is I feel one of the main reasons why you no longer hear powerful, intelligent songs on the radio or tv any more, for those in power want a population where individuality, inspired free-thinking and anger is suppressed. They want a population that is nothing more than a vast well of non-thinking consumers who never question. As I said way back, we need John Lennon back, but that is obviously impossible. However, his songs can inspire a whole new generation, as can the songs of many others. But they have no voice anymore, they have been silenced, by 'the powers that be' and by a generation that does what it's told, en masse, from cradle to grave. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 08:14 AM (#2252238) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: TheSnail Cuddles That's one of the main problems with 'folk' music, for me, that it has been kept so apart by a select group of over-intense people. All they've done is ensure that young people aren't interested, don't know about it and don't give a darn. As many people as possible should be 'steeped' in the traditions of their countries, it should never be 'kept apart' Would you like to supply some jusitfication for that bizarre statement? |
|
03 Feb 08 - 08:18 AM (#2252243) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Cuddles "and I know how important it is for those steeped in the tradition to endeavour to keep their music apart from other music, " It is all in the above Mr. Snail. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 08:20 AM (#2252246) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ruth Archer Oh Snail, be realistic - this is Lizzie. WHen has she ever been able to justify her more bizarre allegations? We've heard this rant from her endless times - each time complaining about the mainstream media's supression of political music, always complaining that the folk community is exclusive, often shreiking at the very people who are actually doing something to try and make sure people DO have access to folk and traditional music. Blah blah blah... |
|
03 Feb 08 - 08:36 AM (#2252250) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: KeithofChester Joe McCarthy obviously trained you well. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 08:56 AM (#2252262) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ruth Archer Please. It's unfair for people to hide behind multiple identities. Lizzie's been banned from this forum many times, and for good reasons. If she is going to post, why shouldn't people know who they're really talking to? |
|
03 Feb 08 - 10:06 AM (#2252298) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Cuddles "Please. It's unfair for people to hide behind multiple identities. Lizzie's been banned from this forum many times, and for good reasons. If she is going to post, why shouldn't people know who they're really talking to?" I would say it is far more unfair for you to use a messageboard to 'victimise' one person. Pray tell, why do you not complain about every single 'Guest' on here, if such is your outlook? None of us know who a guest is. It doesn't bother me one iota. I do not know who you are or care either. All I have gathered, from the way you have hounded me, is that you have a problem with people who mention Seth Lakeman or Show of Hands, or who dare to have an opinion of their own. It seems that you pore over posts searching for this person, which strikes me as disturbing,sad and very unhealthy, however my sympathy lies with your victim, not with you. Now, if you have nothing further to contribute to this thread, about this thread, perhaps you may wish to go elsewhere. For myself, I'm returning to watch Allan and his son sing their Beatles number on the Youtube link above, for it makes me feel very pleased this discussion was started. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 10:13 AM (#2252306) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ruth Archer Lizzie, the self-righteous indignation is really quite funny. How am I victimising you by simply saying who you are? |
|
03 Feb 08 - 10:20 AM (#2252310) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: van lingle Wow Allan, it's like hearing that tune for the first time,thanks. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 10:27 AM (#2252315) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Cuddles 'Allan & Son' is now in the Youtube Permathread. :-) |
|
03 Feb 08 - 12:13 PM (#2252390) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman Cuddles is Lizzie Cornish?very very similiar style of writing anyway. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 02:09 PM (#2252512) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: TheSnail Sorry Ruth. I was thrown by the fact that she hadn't mentioned Show of Hands at the start. I was just intrigued by the discovery that, as someone involved in running a folk club, I am part of a "select group of over-intense people". I didn't realise the power I wielded. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 02:16 PM (#2252518) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice wI wonder if it's ever going to be possible for one single thread on the Mudcat website to actually proceed without an all round Mudslinging..or just maybe the mame of the website should be changed.... Charlottle (pondering this view from Ma and Pa's piano stool) |
|
03 Feb 08 - 02:36 PM (#2252539) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: AllanW Charlottle, you must take your laptop over to the table and stop resting it on the piano keyboard, your typing is becoming atrocious. ;) |
|
03 Feb 08 - 02:46 PM (#2252554) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice yer point being what exactly? I noticed one of the other court jesters, (there does seem to be alot of them here) has posted a Brittany Spears as folk singer thread....having a bad day are we? |
|
03 Feb 08 - 02:59 PM (#2252566) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Stringsinger Lenon is an important singer/songwriter but doesn't represent any specific culture. He crosses over many. I really like him but the only song that is easy to sing is "Give Peace a Chance" if you don't do the first part of the chant. Oh well, maybe "Hey Jude" but it's not a folk song yet. When it gets kicked around for a few decades maybe it can claim folk status but today everything is "folk" in the public mind. Those wonderful old folk songs are being forgotten except for a few officianados who try to keep them alive. And many of the "experts" manage to piss off the public. Frank |
|
03 Feb 08 - 03:06 PM (#2252572) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole catcher's Apprentice I suppose, by the definition "if everyone whistles/sings/hums them" their folk songs...then music hall ditties qualify...just a thought Charlotte (hmmmm...father's papered the parlour) |
|
03 Feb 08 - 03:36 PM (#2252607) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Stringsinger - PM Date: 03 Feb 08 - 02:59 PM Lenon is an important singer/songwriter but doesn't represent any specific culture. He crosses over many. I really like him but the only song that is easy to sing is "Give Peace a Chance" if you don't do the first part of the chant. Oh well, maybe "Hey Jude" but it's not a folk song yet. When it gets kicked around for a few decades maybe it can claim folk status but today everything is "folk" in the public mind. Those wonderful old folk songs are being forgotten except for a few officianados who try to keep them alive. And many of the "experts" manage to piss off the public. Frank exactly the point I made earlier, his songs have not been folk processed,they are Art songs,some of them are good. just because his songs are popular that does not mean they are folksongs and it doesnt make him a a folk singer either. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 03:51 PM (#2252617) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: AllanW "yer point being what exactly?" You were perched upon Ma and Pa's piano stool, there were typos, I tried to make a joke.. I failed. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 05:36 PM (#2252692) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Nerd "Hey Jude" was a McCartney song, though credited to the duo...but let's not start a Macca thread, okay? |
|
04 Feb 08 - 11:00 AM (#2253179) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Bryn Pugh I find that frequently Shimrod and I are in agreement. For this thread, and to my great surprise, I am in agreement with the good Captain Birdseye. It seems to me - and this admits of neither argument nor challenge, for it is my opinion - that whether a song is a folk song, it's a bit like the elephant. I know an elephant when I see one, but as for my describing it to you, forget it. Similarly, I flatter meself that I recognise a folk song when I hear one, but I couldn't tell you why to save me life. I saw the Beatles live at Oasis, South Street, Manchester, just before 'Please, Please Me' charted. Cost me 5/6 in real money. That's 27 & 1/2 pence in Mickey Mouse coinage. I enjoy Lennon's music, whether with or without The Beatles. But, if he is a folk singer, and Britney whatserface and Mr Sinatra are folk singers, then my private is a bloater. I never saw what all the fuss was about with Bob Dylan, though I do not deny your right to enjoy his work. I have posted previously that, similarly, I do not care for a fair bit of Ewan McColl's and Peggy Seeger's non-traditional work. I have me own theories as to why 'Folk Music' was (and perhaps is) seen as 'exclusive'. My own dear Mother, when I first bought 'Folk Roots, New Routes' said of the album 'how the Christ can you listen to that ?' It has to be listened to - it cannot be 'musical wallpaper' - not that I say that the Beatles, or Mr Lennon, fall into this category. Folk music - FOR ME - it ain't. Wasn't it Satchmo - Louis Armsrong - who first said - All music's folk music - I never heard no horse do it ' ? |
|
04 Feb 08 - 11:37 AM (#2253201) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Allan at work "My own dear Mother, when I first bought 'Folk Roots, New Routes' said of the album 'how the Christ can you listen to that ?' " My mother displayed a similar reaction to Trout Mask Replica filtering through the floorboards of young Allan's bedroom. My wife showed similar dismay, so too my daughter. My son fortunately loved it more than his dad, hence it's absence from my cd shelf! hmmm The Captain ain't no folk singer! Or is he? DOH! |
|
04 Feb 08 - 11:51 AM (#2253207) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Waddon Pete I wondered when the horse would show up! I whisper but my horse doesn't listen! Best wishes, Peter |
|
04 Feb 08 - 12:37 PM (#2253243) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman guest Allan at Work,employment of the double negative[TheCaptain aint no folksinger]means that he is. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 12:51 PM (#2253251) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: AllanW I knew it, I knew it! |
|
04 Feb 08 - 01:06 PM (#2253277) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Apropos of not a great deal yet again (apologies), I've found myself working up an acoustic arrangement of "Nowhere Man" over the last couple of days, 'cos it just won't go away. 5 chords is quite adequate, well within reach of a guitarist of only modest prowess, and the central melody is just so strong it realy doesn't NEED much doing with it. So, strong melody, good lyrics, has carried for more than 2 generations...still ticks all the boxes for a folk song as far as I'm concerned! (Hides in a strategically-placed ditch) |
|
04 Feb 08 - 02:22 PM (#2253346) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive) Is nothing sacred, Gene? Aren't we allowed to keep any of the decent tunes for pop music? |
|
04 Feb 08 - 02:42 PM (#2253371) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Waddon Pete - PM Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:51 AM I wondered when the horse would show up! I whisper but my horse doesn't listen! Best wishes, Peter . its no good whispering to horses peter its the horses that need to talk,and tell us who is going to win the 3 50 at Uttoxeter |
|
04 Feb 08 - 02:42 PM (#2253373) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman 100,sorry leadfingers. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 03:22 PM (#2253411) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Nigel, I think I've stated elsewhere that I view "folk" primarily as an adjective denoting quality rather than type. (But, as I'm feeling generous, I'll let the popsters keep anything by Broccoli Spears...I'm not on the crystal meth this early:)) |
|
04 Feb 08 - 03:24 PM (#2253414) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Peace I think too many people are taking themselves too seriously. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 03:28 PM (#2253420) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton How DARE you!!! |
|
04 Feb 08 - 03:41 PM (#2253436) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Peace Hi, Gene. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 03:44 PM (#2253441) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Sorry, Bruce, that was supposed to be humourous. It's been a long day... |
|
04 Feb 08 - 03:47 PM (#2253443) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive) But I like good quality pop music, Peace 'n' Gene. If the folkies insist on nicking it all there'll be nothing left for the popkids but the dregs! I'm tempted to start a thread called 'Peter Bellamy: Now THAT'S what I call pop music'... No? Ok then. Though I sincerely believe St Etienne are a folk group. Cheers Nigel PS Gene - how about putting your Nowhere Man on Youtube? |
|
04 Feb 08 - 03:49 PM (#2253445) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: LeTenebreux Folk Songs Covered by the Beatles: Maggie Mae, (are there any more?) Songs by the Beatles that made it into "Rise Up Singing": Yellow Submarine Octopus's Garden Here Comes the Sun ..........there are probably a few more.... |
|
04 Feb 08 - 04:04 PM (#2253451) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: dick greenhaus Rise Up Singing, of course, is NOT a collection of folk songs, and never claimed to be. It's more of a campfire songbook for the 1970s. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 04:06 PM (#2253455) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Peace Gene, I thought it was funny. Heck. Sorry I came across like I did. |
|
04 Feb 08 - 05:04 PM (#2253509) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton No apology required, Bruce...(by now I'm thoroughly confused as to whether you're responding to "how dare you" or my last post...one of the downsides of heavy irony being it doesn't always translate across cyberspace...I can only try!) Nigel, that reminds me, I've GOT to check out Peter Bellamy. I don't think I've ever heard him, but from what I've heard ABOUT him I've a hunch I'd like his singing a lot. My version of "Nowhere Man" is still a little too tentative for pulic airing...I think perhaps I need to slow it down a bit to give my voice room to do the song justice. I do mean to look into the technology/knowledge required to upload videos when finances permit,though...I've a Youtube-based idea bubbling under, as it happens. I need a proper income, though! |
|
04 Feb 08 - 05:21 PM (#2253520) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Rog Peek Beatles song covered by folk singers: "You Shoulda Known better" - Phil Ochs and Eric Anderson. Rog |
|
04 Feb 08 - 05:24 PM (#2253521) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Joseph de Culver City Charlotte said...actually I remember my father and late mother saying once that they'd see Rodney Dillard (the banjo player) at a venue somewhere and he did an incredible version of 'I've Just Seen a Face' (The Beatles as bluegrass)... Only in the spirit of instruction (not correction)-Douglas Dillard was the banjoist in The Dillards, Rodney Dillard played guitar and was the cutup of the group. Your mother was right (again), they did a lovely version of that song. Check out the (non-folkically-correct) collaboration Douglas Dillard had with Gene Clark (original lead singer of the n-f-k group The Byrds) after he left The Dillards. I'm sure that some of you have seen The Dillards on 'The Andy Griffith Show' over the years. Peace |
|
05 Feb 08 - 02:03 AM (#2253809) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ernest thread creep: The Dillard`s version of "I`ve just seen a face" is on their cd "Mountain Rock". Back to the original topic: Italians love the opera. Does that mean that opera is italian folk? This whole concept of claiming popular artists as being "folk" is - to quote sir jOhn - rubbish. Best Ernest |
|
05 Feb 08 - 02:37 AM (#2253816) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton "Italians love the opera. Does that mean that opera is italian folk?" Yes. Why not? |
|
05 Feb 08 - 02:56 AM (#2253819) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ernest Gene, that means that every music is folk. And it means that folk has no meaning at all. I still disagree. "Folk" is one genre of music, "Opera" is another. As "Jazz", "Pop", "Rock", "Classic" etc.. Thats why. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 03:57 AM (#2253853) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Waddon Pete "Gene, that means that every music is folk. And it means that folk has no meaning at all." Ah.......music is not about labels.....it is about quality and artistry, enjoyment and spiritual refreshment. If a performer is best known for a certain repertoire, then they will be labeled by those that need labels. Actually, because they are an artist they can turn their hand to many different repertoires, as their need to perform and communicate dictates. That's why we get so many wonderful musical experiences! Best wishes, Peter |
|
05 Feb 08 - 05:37 AM (#2253899) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton And if folk is only a genre of music, where does that leave the concept of a living tradition? I do NOT, however, believe that "every music is folk". Here, preserved for dubious posterity, is my definition of folk music from a previous thread. "A folk song, to me, is a song with a strong (ie. readily hum-able) melody and intelligent lyrics, sang either with optional acoustic backing or unaccompanied. This may be a Traditional song (by which I mean an old song still widely sung and composed by somebody whose name is lost to posterity and thus credited to Trad); or it may be a song written by someone whose name is known and may be either dead or alive, however recent or otherwise. But the two most important identifying features of a folk song are a strong melody and intelligent lyrics." |
|
05 Feb 08 - 06:06 AM (#2253910) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: KeithofChester But the two most important identifying features of a folk song are a strong melody and intelligent lyrics. Indeed, and that is why I don't distinguish between Lennon's Girl and Trad's Greensleeves as to which is "folk". |
|
05 Feb 08 - 07:21 AM (#2253947) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ernest So everything with a strong melody and intelligent lyrics is a folk song - even if the artist/arrangement etc. clearly indicates a different genre? What about a weak melody and silly lyrics from a well known folk-musician? Is there any underling-genre less worthy you would file it under? Sounds a bit like musical imperialism to me. The concept of living tradition has nothing to do with it. Of course songs within the folk genre are written today (a good few by mudcatters btw). Your definition on the other hand would exclude the use of electric instruments, if I understood it right? |
|
05 Feb 08 - 07:33 AM (#2253953) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton "What about a weak melody and silly lyrics from a well known folk-musician?" Wouldn't survive in people's memories long enough to ever be widely sung, therefore not folk. "Is there any underling-genre less worthy you would file it under?" I dunno..."Bad Music"? But folk, to me, isn't a genre but an adjective denoting quality and staying power. "Your definition on the other hand would exclude the use of electric instruments, if I understood it right?" That's a good question. I think it's possible to play folk songs in a way that whilst the nature of the song itself remains folk, the instrumentation isn't. The best-known example being folk-rock, of course; though folk-classical, folk-jazz, folk-metal etc. of course are also perfectly feasible. So the songs are folk while the backing is not, if you get my drift. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 07:37 AM (#2253957) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Sorry, folk-classical is a bad example, because that would imply acoustic instrumentation anyway. Scrub that out. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 07:51 AM (#2253960) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Bryn Pugh Weak melody and silly lyrics ? Try 'Poor Murdered Woman' . . . |
|
05 Feb 08 - 07:53 AM (#2253962) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive) Gene, your definition would exclude a fair few traditional songs... but maybe you think that's for the best!? The upside is that it's so subjective, each individual could include and exclude what they wanted depending on their definitions of 'strength' and 'intelligence'... Defining strength and intelligence makes a nice change from defining folk, mind... Nigel |
|
05 Feb 08 - 09:26 AM (#2254022) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Can't actually think of very many traditional songs with silly/inane words...apart from the Whistling Gypsy Rover which I mentioned on the other thread, none spring to mind...and none at all with weak melodies (presumably because virtually by definition, if they weren't singable they wouldn't have survived beyond the lifetime of their creator). Melodic strength = Can you hum the tune back to yourself after (say) an hour since hearing it for the first time? Intelligence = Not banal, inane, or gratuitously obscurantist. (BTW thanks for your message re Bellamy- will respond later today/tonight) |
|
05 Feb 08 - 11:38 AM (#2254112) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Nerd Gene, I don't think from your last comments that you've looked deeply into the tradition. There are many folk songs with neither a "strong melody" nor "intelligent lyrics." Work songs are a good example; the point there is rhythm, not melody, and the words can be literally whatever the singer thinks of at the time: It's 'round Cape Horn we all must go Go down, you blood red roses, Go down. 'Round Cape Horn in the frost and snow. Go down, you blood red roses, Go down. cho: Oh, you pinks and posies, Go down, you blood red roses, Go down. Or, say, American banjo songs. The melody tends to be almost non-existent, and the words just silly stuff like: Yonder comes Sal with a snicker and a grin, groundhog. Yonder comes Sal with a snicker and a grin, groundhog. Yonder comes Sal with a snicker and a grin, Groundhog grease around her chin, groundhog. There are also plenty of traditional ballads that I think many of us would find pretty inane. The truth is not that they wouldn't have survived in tradition; they did. They did not, however, survive in the revival, because they're not to modern folk-revivalists' taste. (Folk revivalists are a generally image-conscious bunch in their way, and especially concerned that their music and lyrics be intelligent. The people who sang these songs a hundred years ago had other criteria.) Then there are the songs that are melodically so hard to sing, you have to be bloody good to make a go of it. Not, in other words, readily hum-able. "The Streams of Lovely Nancy," for example. That song also has some lines so obscure, no-one knows what they mean. It survived, I believe, because it was beautiful, not because it was readily hum-able or lyrically intelligent. The real problem for your "definition," though, it that the two main criteria are really just value judgments. What you find "strong" and "intelligent" will be very different from anyone else. I know this might not seem important to you, but what is the point of even having a category of "folk music" if it's just, as Shimrod and others have said, "what I like and approve of?" If you want to define music that way, just call it "stuff Gene thinks is strong and intelligent." We won't necessarily disagree with you on the individual songs, it's just that many of us think that pop and classical and jazz can be lyrically intelligent and melodically strong, without requiring that it therefore also be "folk music." |
|
05 Feb 08 - 12:47 PM (#2254175) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton "Gene, I don't think from your last comments that you've looked deeply into the tradition." Well, Nerd, you must have managed to get to know me better than I know myself, and all from the other side of a computer screen. How comforting it must be to be omniscient. For your part, maybe you know the tradition inside out, maybe not- I don't know you from Adam and I wouldn't presume to judge. However many songs you know, though, it's self-evident that you don't know how to LISTEN to music, because you're completely wrong about "Blood Red Roses". It's probably three or four years since I've actually heard anybody sing the song, yet as I read the lines you quoted every single note of the vocal melody came back to me. I don't think this is because I have an exceptional musical memory, I think it's evidence of a very strong tune. (also, I didn't say lyrics couldn't be obscure. I said they couldn't be WILFULLY obscure- a subtle but very important distinction. Usually in traditional songs obscure lyrics are that way for reasons specific to the purpose of the song, "Nottamun Town" being one particularly obvious example). |
|
05 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM (#2254189) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman John Ono Lennon, (Formerly MBE, returned the award in 1969) (born John Winston Lennon; October 9, 1940 – December 8, 1980) was an English rock musician who gained worldwide fame as one of the founders of The Beatles. he was an English rock musician according to the Encyclopaedia,Not a Folksinger. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 01:41 PM (#2254232) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ernest Gene, Nerd mentioned "Blood red Roses" etc. as an example for silly lyrics, also not as an example for a weak melody, but for a memorable rythm (which he considered more important for a worksong). Apart from that I still think you are are confusing quality and style. "Good" and "bad" are criteria for quality (and more subjective) while "Folk", "Folkrock", "Jazz" etc. are describing styles and thus are less subjective (you can prove that a musician is using elements of a form of music, but simply "good" od "bad" is purely subjective). Following your logic you wouldn`t be a folk musician if I didn`t like your music. If I was to organize a gig for you I would consequently have to announce it as "An evening of bad music". This would be insulting to you and also a bad business move - thats why there are genres. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 01:52 PM (#2254245) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice "he was an English rock musician according to the Encyclopaedia,Not a Folksinger." Oh, Oh...weve been rumbled by The Captain...*serious folkie alert**LOL* Charlotte (falling off the piano stool laughing) |
|
05 Feb 08 - 01:56 PM (#2254249) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ernest You need a seat belt Charlotte.... why don`t you join up, you seem to enjoy it here? Best Ernest |
|
05 Feb 08 - 02:01 PM (#2254254) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton "An Evening of Bad Music" Believe me, that'd be an improvement on some of the publicity I've had recently! I actually think that'd attract more punters than it'd turn off, purely out of reverse psychology. Back to the topic, though (sigh)... the point I've been trying to make is that folk cannot be defined by the same kind of strict parameters as other forms of music, because (alone among all forms of music) folk songs are dependent on the passage of time to prove their long-term fitness to remain as part of the canon. Thus folk songs cannot be folk songs unless they have proved of sufficient QUALITY to remain in the canon; and thus defining folk IS a qualitative judgment. I HOPE this is sufficiently clear... |
|
05 Feb 08 - 02:11 PM (#2254265) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Mole Catcher's Apprentice (inactive) "why don`t you join up" I'm already a member, most of the time it's quicker to post without signing in.. Charlotte (the view's the same from Ma and Pa's piano stool) |
|
05 Feb 08 - 02:25 PM (#2254277) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ernest Gene, I still disagree... Charlotte: glad to see you are a member! The first one that is using a piano stool with a computer keyboard.... |
|
05 Feb 08 - 02:55 PM (#2254315) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Mole Catcher's Apprentice (inactive) It works as a piano stool and a computer stool, saves money as well*LOL* Charlotte (thrifty but not cheap) |
|
05 Feb 08 - 08:14 PM (#2254611) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Forsh Yep.. this is a fun thread. Working class hero already cited, ... Folk Music .. "Cuddles, I admire your bravery. I once sang a Lennon song in a folk club and was jeered by a 'folk singer' who complained that it wasn't 'folk' He went on to sing 'It's a Hard Life Wherever You Go' by Nanci Griffith, which apparently is!?! " Well,I was in a late late session with a bunch of folks & folkies, some from a near-by caravan site, and, all enjoyed the 'Folk' songs. Then a fair young lass, asked if she could sing a song; and she sang 'Crazy' .. pitch perfect in perfect time, Patsi K couldn't have touched her that night. I have said it before: " Folk Music is what Folk want to Sing, Folk Want to hear, & Folk enjoy; Just becausem you say it aint folk, don't make it so, Shimrod et al, Heck, Cecil Sharp himself would've collected some of Lennons stuff, I expect. I could be more contentious here, and say that some of the lyrics of 'Madness' are quite folk-orientated (Our House, for instance), but that's another argument! :) Dave (Forsh) Give Peace a Chance! |
|
06 Feb 08 - 12:00 AM (#2254761) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Nerd Gene, sorry if I jumped to conclusions. It seemed to me someone living in England who's never heard Peter Bellamy probably hasn't been seriously into traditional music for all that long. It's all relative though, of course...most of the folks on here are (ahem!) a few years older than you. In any case, the idea that only songs of great quality (strong melody, intelligent lyrics, or what-have you) survived in the tradition is a romantic notion at best. If you look through the big printed collections, the ones by people printing everything they found, not the best of what they found, you find tons and tons of dross among the great songs. If you've ever recorded the repertoires of traditional singers, you've probably found some not-so-admirable items, even from some of the best singers. Like Walter Pardon's "Chimney Pot": On the chimney pot, you old bitch Fol-the-rol, fol-the-rol Chimney pot, you old bitch Fol-the-rol, fol-the-rol You're the sweetest old man alive, live, live You're the sweetest old man alive. Chamber lie, you old bitch Fol-the-rol, fol-the-rol Chamber lie, you old bitch Fol-the-rol, fol-the-rol You're the sweetest old man alive, live, live You're the sweetest old man alive. lyrically intelligent? If you say so. Forsh, only someone with no familiarity at all with the attitudes of Cecil Sharp would suggest he would collect John Lennon songs if he were around today. His idea of folksong is less inclusive by far than mine! He'd have no interest in anything Lennon had written. With respect, "Folk Music is what Folk want to Sing, Folk Want to hear, & Folk enjoy" is silly; everyone enjoys something different, and everyone is "folk." So you're just replacing the category of "music" with "folk music." Fine, but we already have the category "music," so your definition is redundant. Listen, I'd be perfectly happy if someone sang a Beatles song at a folk club, because I like a lot of Beatles songs, and variety is the spice of life. But if someone got a folk club gig and spent the whole time covering Beatles songs, I might wonder why they decided to make that their set, and I expect the folk club wouldn't have them back. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 02:29 AM (#2254809) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: AllanW "But if someone got a folk club gig and spent the whole time covering Beatles songs.." I personally frown on anyone who gets up in a folk club and sings more than one song from any one particular artist of any description. It somehow all of a sudden becomes 'tribute night', unless of course, they are all self-penned! I wonder if this thread would have gone on ad nausium if Cuddles had titled it 'John Lennon's Folk Songs', instead of declaring him a 'Folk Singer'? And for those who brought Dylan into the discussion, we already know he's not a folk singer, he's a 'song and dance man'! :) |
|
06 Feb 08 - 09:14 AM (#2254917) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Hmmm, not sure how I could reasonably be expected to have heard Peter Bellamy if I'm too young to have seen him live and his recorded work (as Nigel tells me) is notoriously hard to find and mostly on vinyl...but I'm happy to let the matter rest. I admit I've never heard "Chimney Pot"...did you just make that up?? Is anybody actually singing the song NOW, though...I would guess not, which raises the question as to whether it has "survived" in a true, living sense (as opposed to just on one or two "source" recordings). An interesting debate, nonetheless...when you're bored and unemployed! |
|
06 Feb 08 - 09:33 AM (#2254929) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Ruth at work Gene, you're not too young to have heard Peter Bellamy. I picked up a double CD called Fair Annie at Towersey two years ago, which means it's probably available via Rocking Chair/Mrs Casey. It's got loads of his best songs on it. Be warned: he takes some getting used to, but he's completely addictive. To be honest, someone somewhere is probably singing Chimney Pot. God knows there's a terrible lot of crap that gets trawled out at singarounds. I love the tune of Blood Red Roses, BTW, esp as sung by the Watersons. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 09:37 AM (#2254931) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Cuddles "An interesting debate, nonetheless" Ooh...so I *could* escape being hanged, drawn and quartered after all then? Chuckle ;-) You'll all be thrilled to know that I don't think Paul McCartney's a folk singer. Met him, been there, done that and wasn't impressed. Sorry Paul. Now George....ah...George.......Does anyone........ (Dives under bombproof table double quick, whilst taking out tin hat at speed) |
|
06 Feb 08 - 09:45 AM (#2254939) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST "Cecil Sharp himself would've collected some of Lennons stuff, I expect." You expect wrong, methinks. I love all these Mudcat people who re-invent Cecil Sharp in their own image. They think of him as some sort of big cuddly folk uncle. Sharp was didactic, and prescriptive, and bowdlerised songs whose lyrics he felt "inappropriate", and was horrible to poor Mary Neal. He was the original Chief of the Folk Police. That's not to say his role wasn't an invaluable one. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 09:56 AM (#2254948) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Cuddles Ooh...you'll be on the scaffold for saying that 'guest'...they'll be after you as sure as eggs is eggs! ;-) HEY! LOOK! LULU IS A FOLK SINGER! LULU AT CROPREDY 2007 Heavens to Betsy but that woman is gorgeous isn't she! (I'll say that for the lads as they're not 'allowed' to say that anymore) I know she openly admits to having 'everything possible' done, but I must find out what she's had and who did it..because I SO need something, tuck, nip, nip, tuck..grins wildly (it's the only way to keep those wrinkles at bay) Maybe it's her folk lifestyle that's helped keep her so gorgeous, boogeying on down at Cropredy and such. Isn't that a great song by the way, hope you're all joining in on the chorus as you boogey on down. I think I'll have to go there this year, I could come back looking like Lulu! Cuddles :-) |
|
06 Feb 08 - 10:00 AM (#2254949) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Cuddles Heehee! I've linked the wrong video...Oh b*********! Heehee! Hang on...normal service will be resumed in a tick... |
|
06 Feb 08 - 10:01 AM (#2254952) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Ruth at work That guest was me, BTW. No, I won't, Lizzie - because it's true. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 10:09 AM (#2254957) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Cuddles Puff! Puff! Here I am...back again...all the way from Youtube... I've NO IDEA who those lads were in my earlier video, pretending to be Lulu! ;-) OK...I'm spluttering here....spluttering... :-) Naughty lads they are! I think they're possibly the main members of the Lulu Appreciation Society at their Annual Convention. Anyway, I've shut them away for a minute (although they're darn brilliant aren't they, I think they could go far you know, given some encouragement!) And now...ladies and gentlemen we're proud to present that well-known Folk Lassie from way up North... Miss Marie McDonald McLaughlin Lawrie with a traditional Scots R&B folk song.. Let's try that again - LULU AT CROPREDY 2007 Hey, Lulu's 59 you know! Sock it to 'em Lu... |
|
06 Feb 08 - 01:54 PM (#2255146) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: PoppaGator Is a busker/streetsinger a folk musician? I think so. You may differ. When deciding upon a repertoire, a person trying to make some money singing and self-accompanying on the public street will want to include selections that are: Recognizable to the public; Enjoyable to sing and to hear; Meaningful to oneself, to make a long day and/or night as endurable as possible; Able to be recognizably performed using the portable (and usually acoustic) instrument of one's choice. Many songs that may not fit the strictest definition of "traditional/folk" make excellent selections for street performers. Many Beatles songs, obviously enough, would qualify. Quite a few other Beatles songs would be very likely NOT make the cut, notably those late-career compositions whose very identity is tied up with electronic studio-produced sounds (e..g., "I Am the Walrus," etc.) I assert, quite firmly, that "buskable" songs are, ipso facto, folk songs for today, the embodiment of a living tradition. Of course, there are many who believe that only those songs that represent a long-gone historical tradition are "true" folk songs. Everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion. Whether a repertoire composed exclusively of such songs will actually appeal to living listeners is an interesting question. The skill and talent of the performer, in the end, will usually determine the music's success. If a singer truly and passionately believe that the material he/she chooses to present (old or new or both) is uniqely worthwhile, the performance will be valid and appealing and certainly should find its own audience. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 01:47 AM (#2255668) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Nerd Gene, If you're looking, it's not difficult to find Peter's music. You can hear samples of it here Enjoy! To clarify my point, Walter Pardon was a traditional singer from Norfolk who died in 1996. He was probably the best-known and best-documented traditional English singer of all time. AND he was a great influence on most revivalists, including the aforementioned Mr. Bellamy, who championed Walter back in the day. So no, I didn't just make it up. "Chimney Pot" survived in tradition at least until 1996. I can't be sure if it's still sung today. My point is simply that such songs do survive in tradition, without "intelligent" lyrics. I think it may be the case that in folk REVIVALS, "intelligence" of lyrics is a quality that helps songs survive, but not so much in oral tradition. If this one doesn't convince you, you can take any number of folksongs. How about "groundhog"? Yonder comes Sal with a snicker and a grin, groundhog. Yonder comes Sal with a snicker and a grin, groundhog. Yonder comes Sal with a snicker and a grin, Groundhog grease around her chin, groundhog. Groundhog grease running down her chin, groundhog. Groundhog grease running down her chin, groundhog. Groundhog grease running down her chin, She licked it off and swallowed it again, groundhog. This is a perennial favorite in the American mountain south, in the Appalachian and Ozark regions. Everyone knows it, and that's been the case for over a hundred years. It was the first song Frank Proffitt senior heard his father Wiley play on the banjo. (Wiley was born in 1874.) Frank's son, Frank Jr., learned it from his dad. Frank Junior died in 2005. It's not got overly intelligent lyrics, nor a hummable melody, but it has other qualities that help it survive. People enjoy eating groundhogs, and they also identify with the critters (like Cajuns with crawfish), so they sing silly old songs about them. Ruth, thanks for backing me up on Cecil Sharp. Like Child, Sharp is re-made by many folkies in their own image; "if he were around today, Child would be studying rap" and the like. We can only assume the folkies don't actually read what these scholars have written. Which, actually, is fair enough...it takes a certain kind of specialization to even care what they thought. But don't expound on what they'd be doing today without a little thought! |
|
07 Feb 08 - 03:47 AM (#2255701) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ruth Archer All of that crap stems from a fundamental lack of understanding about what it was that the collectors actually did. The idea that they'd be studying rap, or John Bloody Lennon, is absurd precisely because nothing that is so prevalent within popular culture NEEDS collecting! It's not like Sharp was interested in preserving, say, music hall songs, which were ten a penny. He actively sought out stuff that had a certain obscurity, even in his day. Otherwise he wouldn't have had to trundle around the flippin' countryside on a bike looking for it. "But don't expound on what they'd be doing today without a little thought!" Indeed. "My point is simply that such songs do survive in tradition, without "intelligent" lyrics. I think it may be the case that in folk REVIVALS, "intelligence" of lyrics is a quality that helps songs survive, but not so much in oral tradition." Indeed again. i think Gene is coming to this discussion from an almost purely revivalist, singer-songwriter's perspective, as is evident from his definitions of folk. Which have very little to do with traditional music. This is why I think "folk" is almost a useless term now - it means too many things to too many people. It's difficult for a singer-songwriter with little experience of the tradition to have a meaningful discussion about folk song with a traditionalist. Essentially they're discussing two completely different things. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 05:02 AM (#2255733) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton "a singer-songwriter with little experience of the tradition" Ruth, you really shouldn't be making sweeping, condemnatory statements about people you don't know. FYI I'm both a songwriter and an interpreter of (mainly traditional) folk songs. The melodies (and sometimes the lyrics) I write myself are very often heavily influenced/drawn on by traditional melodies; and in my singing of traditional songs I draw from what I've heard in folk clubs over the last few years (OK, I've largely moved on from the folk "scene" now but it's left a lasting impression), as well as from the singing of my Dad who's grounded in the tradition. I do think opinions have more credibility when expressed on their own merits, rather than on personal attacks on those who think to the contrary. P.S. I'm DEFINITELY far, far too young to be a "revivalist"!!! Nerd, thanks very much for the link, most welcome. I believe Nigel's been kind enough to burn off a Bellamy CD for me, which is eagerly anticipated...BTW, I rather like the words to "Groundhog"...there seems to be a smutty undercurrent there which is maybe only apparent after a few listens, which for me implies a degree of sophistication in the writing...or maybe that's just my filthy mind...:) |
|
07 Feb 08 - 06:07 AM (#2255764) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST Lisa, you haven't a bleedin' clue what Sharp did because all you know is what you've read in a couple of paragraphs on some dodgy website. But heck - don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. The truth "as you see it" is based on no in-depth knowledge or - god forbid - research, it is simply your bonkers ideas pulled out of the air. As conjecture, it is worthless. But I love how you're on first-name terms with Cecil Sharp, regardless of the paucity of your knowledge. My opinions on the uselessnes of the word "folk" are ones I've shared before and am happy to do again. EFDSS' name has strong historical roots. Again, you know nothing about EFDSS and have no experience of its work - name-checking people and organisations doesn't make you big, or clever. In fact, usually it just gives you the opportunity to wave your underlying ignorance like a flag. There isn't really a good word, IMHO, to replace folk, but I think that these days it causes more problems than it solves. Gene: I was basing my comments about your singer-songwriter background quite simply on the definition you gave for folk music. It is, as Nerd said, a definition that would be accepted by many revivalists or singer-songwriters, but not by many whose main frame of reference is the body of traditional music. That's all. It was not meant to undermine your music or your credentials. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 06:08 AM (#2255765) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Ruth at work guest above is me. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 07:42 AM (#2255802) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: John MacKenzie Does anybody ever get to the end of Lizzie's maundering diatribes? |
|
07 Feb 08 - 07:46 AM (#2255806) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: KeithofChester As John Lennon said. There is a line about peasants later in the song too. As soon as your born they make you feel small, By giving you no time instead of it all, Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all, A working class hero is something to be, A working class hero is something to be. They hurt you at home and they hit you at school, They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool, Till you're so f'ing crazy you can't follow their rules, A working class hero is something to be, A working class hero is something to be. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 08:19 AM (#2255831) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: KeithofChester The Lennon version of his own song is good, but perhaps the finest variant is the version that was "collected" and then re-interpreted by Marianne Faithfull, as here. Working Class Hero |
|
07 Feb 08 - 08:23 AM (#2255836) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Cuddles This is a stupendous version of his song Keith. Thanks for posting it. Marianne sings it with incredible feeling! |
|
07 Feb 08 - 08:55 AM (#2255854) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman Subject: RE: Dick Miles jazz singer From: Captain Birdseye - PM Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:16 AM what I am prepared to discuss,if you provide the 1954 definition is how it can be applied to modern songs such as John Lennons,with the proviso that the 1954 definition[has flaws and is not perfect]but is the best definition that is not subjective. This is Different from, What I expect to see,when I go to a Folkclub as a paying visitor[because thats my subjective feeling],which does not have to be logical but can be emotional. An example of illogicality, but emotional gut feeling,is the use of Traditional music for toothpaste adverts.It could be argued that getting traditional music to people who have never heard it before must be agood thing,. but in my opinion using it as an advert for toothpaste demeans it. logically this argument can be defeated,but it still doesnt alter how I feel[subjective emotional],in the same way turning up to pay to see someone at a folk club is subjective[emotional],not necessarily logical.Dick Miles |
|
07 Feb 08 - 10:05 AM (#2255902) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman Subject: Isthe1954defining,improvable From: Captain Birdseye - PM Date: 21 Sep 07 - 03:51 AM Definition of Folk Music ,decided by the International Folk Music Council in 1954. Folk music is the product of a musical tradition that has been evolved through the process of oral transmission. The factors that shape the tradition are: (i) continuity which links the present with the past; (ii) variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or the group; and (iii) selection by the community, which determines the form or forms in which the music survives. The term can be applied to music that has been evolved from rudimentary beginnings by a community uninfluenced by popular and art music and it can likewise be applied to music which has originated with an individual composer and has subsequently been absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community. The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready-made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk character." |
|
07 Feb 08 - 10:20 AM (#2255929) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton "Folk music is the product of a musical tradition that has evolved through the process of oral transmission"..."...music that has been evolved...by a community uninfluenced by poular and arts music". This being the case, it would follow that new folk songs can only be created in cultures where music playing/recording technology is wholly absent; and furthermore untouched by mass popular culture. Um, I think that only leaves the interior of Papua New Guinea and maybe the remoter parts of the Amazon rainforest...not a very positive prognosis for the continued existence of a living folk tradition in the Western world! I still prefer my definition... |
|
07 Feb 08 - 10:24 AM (#2255939) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton By the way, are there any fans of Poular music out there?? Should of course read POPULAR music. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 10:50 AM (#2255966) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST Well you would, Gene. I have problems with the 1954 definition as well, but equally, your definition basically describes singer/songwriter music and doesn't really say anything meaningful about the tradition. My own definintion would be completely different to both. This is what I mean. Folk means too many things to too many different people. As a term of definition, it has pretty much lost its meaning. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 11:28 AM (#2256005) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,ruth - arrrgh! sorry - one day I will remember to fill in my name every time... |
|
07 Feb 08 - 11:31 AM (#2256007) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Traditional songs were written by songwriters...do you think they appeared as if by magic in a puff of smoke at the beginning of time? Your distinction between the two is specious...and also rather insulting to those responsible for the creation of those songs, whose names, alas, are lost to posterity. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 12:08 PM (#2256033) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Ruth - arrrgh! Gene, I just think your terms are bit too broad. "a timeless, poignant and eminently hummable melody nonetheless (as good a criteria for "f*** music" as any, IMHO). " " strong melody, good lyrics, has carried for more than 2 generations...still ticks all the boxes for a folk song as far as I'm concerned!" there are loads of jazz, modern blues, pop, classical choral and probbably even rap songs that fit this description. I don't see the value in clumping it all together in an "If I like it, it must be folk" attitude. The whole concept of folk music becomes meaningless, which is what we've seen happening in recent years. I have nothing against singer/songwriters and I listen to a wide range of music that many people would consider folk - from the Demon Barbers to Chris Wood to the Voice of the People to Peter Bellamy. But for me, folk music at the very least uses the tradition as a jumping off point - look at the Imagined Village and what they've done with traditional music. Brilliant. But if the tradition is not there, at the very least giving some sort of context, then it ain't folk, IMHO. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 12:18 PM (#2256035) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive) Could I just add (in reference to what Gene said, in passing, about 15 posts back) that it's an out of print, commercially unavailable lp. Nigel |
|
07 Feb 08 - 12:22 PM (#2256038) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Well, I'd quibble with your inclusion of rap, because rap by it's nature is spoken, not sung, thus has no vocal melody and isn't, in the strictest sense, singing, let alone folk singing. But Jazz, blues, choral etc...all indigenous folk/roots forms to the respective people groups with which they originated. But this raises the question of whether the originators of, say, English traditional folk songs would themselves have conceptualised their creations as "folk"...more likely they saw themselves as popular songwriters and it is in more modern times we've attached the term "folk" to their songs, in recognition of their quality and staying power. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 12:26 PM (#2256041) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Sorry Nigel- I should have made that clear myself. Didn't mean to set the Performing Rights Gestapo on your trail! |
|
07 Feb 08 - 12:50 PM (#2256058) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST Rap can be traced back to the call and response music of field singing and to Jamaican toasting. It also incorporates music. If all that other stuff is folk, then so is rap. Of course they didn't consider themselves folk singers - the term wasn't even invented when many of these songs were created. And folk as a term was not initially used to recognise "quality and staying power" - it was a largely pejorative term used to distinguish peasant crafts and pastimes from the "high art" created by the educated classes. I think a lot of your perspectives are rooted in a late-20th century notion of what "folk" means. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 01:10 PM (#2256079) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton "I think a lot of your perspectives are rooted in a late-20th century notion of what "folk" means." Yes. I was born in the late twentieth century, you see. Pray forgive me for not yet having mastered time travel. Unlike some particularly enlightened individuals on this forum, I am not omniscient. Just clever. (Chuckle). |
|
07 Feb 08 - 01:12 PM (#2256081) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST I was born in the late 20th century, too. But I still know about some stuff that happened before I was born. Like, from books an' that. I think if you're going to discuss this subject, you need to be able to put it into context. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 01:20 PM (#2256089) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Well, it's self evident that everybody is rooted in the time in which they live...it'd be strange if things were otherwise. If we're trading academic credentials, I have a degree in History, not that it's ever done me any bloody good. I think it was Alan Bennett who said it's ultimately just one fucking thing after another... How about putting a name to your postings? |
|
07 Feb 08 - 01:45 PM (#2256100) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Nerd Actually, many folklorists would have less problem talking about rap as folklore than John Lennon songs as folklore. If you were around the streets of New York in the 1980s, as I was, you heard lots of rapping that was directly a product of not only Jamaican toasts, but African American toasts (a la "Signifyin' Monkey.") Gene may certainly be right that it's not singing, though! In practice, rapping in those days was somewhere in between, more sing-song than speech, less melodic than singing. Folklorists are interested in spoken traditional folklore as well as in singing per se, and rap has its strongest roots in that tradition, so folklorists are still interested in it. Gene has actually gotten to an interesting, if arcane, issue with the category of "folk." As Gene says, it was never a category that people applied to themselves, until the folk revival. There is a simple reason for this: "Folk" as a qualifier for the various arts was not invented at all until 1773, and it was invented by a German, Johann Gottfried von Herder. It was not incorporated into English for another fifty years, and the word "folk-lore" not coined until 1846. Folklore remained a scholarly concept, rather than a generally-known one, for some time after that. Thus, the turn of the century revivalists (the era of Grainger and Sharp) were the first generation of people applying the word and publishing it widely in connection with music and dance. People had a variety of terms for what we call "folk song" now, including (in England) "country songs," "old songs," and other terms. Research into the attitudes of the singers from whom songs were collected suggests that, although they may have liked and sung other kinds of songs, such as music-hall songs, they made a distinction between these and older traditional songs. Unfortunately, interest in the attitudes of that generation of singers roughly coincided with their dying out, so not that much is known! Still, it's pretty certain that they only would have used the word "folksongs" under the influence of the revival. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 01:57 PM (#2256108) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Ruth - arrrgh! Gene, I don't think I mentioned academic credentials. All I said was that this is, as Nerd has demonstrated in his post, an issue with quite a long history. I think for any meaningful discussion to take place, that history and context has to be acknowledged - not just the recent past. I wasn't hiding behind anoymity - it's just that many people here already know who I am. I don't keep it a secret. My name is Joan Crump. I run a festival and programme a venue, and manage a folk development and outreach programme. And I am on the National Council of EFDSS, though the views I express here are my own and don't represent the Society in any way. Nerd, I agree with all you've said - but I would still say that rap has its roots in singing! |
|
07 Feb 08 - 02:43 PM (#2256151) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Come on, Joan/Ruth- how on earth was I going to figure out you were Joan/Ruth if you didn't enter a name?? As I said, I am NOT omniscient...yet. I'm afraid I cannot in all conscience feign sufficient interest in rap to engage with you or anyone else on the subject, and I will happily bow to anybdy's superior knowledge on the topic. I'm not aware that I've made any statements which negate or belittle the historical context of traditional music. If anything, I raised the issue of whether the writers of trad folk songs considered their songs to be folk songs in an attempt to put the discussion into some kind of historical context. My point being, if they themselves didn't necessarily consider themselves folksingers, who are we to limit the concept of folk to their songs? |
|
07 Feb 08 - 02:50 PM (#2256165) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive) Shock! Horror! Not another 'what is this beast, the one we call folk?' thread on Mudcat... actually, I quite like them on the sly. This thread has always threatened to become one. The 1954 definition is now 54 years old and predates the explosion in accessible communication and information storage technology... These days it would be bloody hard to 'forget' who wrote what song (except things like football chants). I reckon the '54 definition could almost be described as having entered the tradition - except its authorship has not been forgotten and it seems strangely resistant to being altered or adapted by oral transmission/the folk process... Over time, the meaning of some words change with a changing world and changing culture. I reckon 'folk' is one such word. It's a good while since it was synonymous with 'traditional' and I think we simply have to accept that and use a different word to describe traditional music (and original music deeply rooted in tradition). Like... erm... I know! Traditional music! You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The first 'folk' music I heard that I liked was the Pogues, the Men They Couldn't Hang, Malcolm's Interview, The Band of Holy Joy, The Fishwives, The Whiskey Priests, Blyth Power etc. It's doubtful by many definitions whether any of these are actually folk on any level. But that was the first time I heard songs by, say, Ewan McColl and the first time I heard 'folk' in a context that made sense to me as a young post-punk type. When that scene went off the boil I didn't listen to any more 'folk' for years till my interest got reawakened by reissues of late sixties and early seventies 'acid folk' albums. Again, hardly 'folk' by most definitions (even if the wonderful Forest did start as a Watersons/Young Tradition inspired vocal trio...). I don't really care what people choose to describe as folk music. Some of it I'll like and understand, some of it will leave me cold. But as a description of a recognisable type of music, I don't believe the term has ANY meaning in 2008. Go to bars and live music nights and you'll find hip young things with acoustic guitars making great original music that they call folk, and whilst some of the music is a bit twee and wafty, a lot of it is really good (and there are a hell of a lot of them around and they all look like members of the Stone Roses, even the women!). Whilst, praise the lard, very few of the ones I've seen are introspective singer songwriters, they also generally have little interest in the tradition or the revival(s) - they're too busy enjoying themselves - and have a tendency to disparage 'proper' folk as 'three blokes with a beard'. So any arguments we have at Mudcat about the meaning of folk, especially if we're coming from the turning-back-the-clock perspective, are ones we've already lost. 'Folk' has moved on. When it comes to defining traditional music, however, that's an entirely different matter... We should be a lot more rigourous if we believe what we have needs to be kept. Cheers Nigel PS: personally, I think if Cecil Sharp was around these days, he's be into collecting rare northern soul 7" singles. Only joking. Really. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 02:53 PM (#2256167) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice "Does anybody ever get to the end of Lizzie's maundering diatribes? " does anyone besides me get tired of this MacKenzie person's stupendous rudeness? Charlotte (better raised than that) |
|
07 Feb 08 - 04:39 PM (#2256278) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ruth Archer "they also generally have little interest in the tradition or the revival(s) - they're too busy enjoying themselves" But there are also a lot of other bright young things, Nigel, who have respect for and interest in the tradition. Malcolm Taylor, the library director at Cecil Sharp House, says the people coming in are younger and younger: kids in their 20s who want to know where all this stuff came from. Then there are the kids doing the folk music degree in Newcastle, who study the tradition as part of their course. They're there because they want to be - because they think it matters. So to assume it's only old farts like us (and given some of your early folk influences, I reckon we must be around the same age) who are interested in the traditional, or who equate it with folk, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater... |
|
07 Feb 08 - 05:06 PM (#2256310) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice "people coming in are younger and younger: kids in their 20s" I was playing The Transports the other day (the silver anniversary edition) and my 12 year old wanted to know who and what it was..I asked her if she liked it, the answer to that is, I can't stop her playing it now. Charlotte (converting one person at a time) |
|
07 Feb 08 - 05:52 PM (#2256351) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive) Hi Ruth! I listen to lots of traditional music by young people - its probably what gets the most airplay in my house and it's really brilliant that it's happening. But here in central Manchester there are sod all traditional music events, and those that do happen, such as Les's lovely singaround here in Chorlton, are mainly populated by people quite a bit older than me (and I'm 44...). Lots and lots of young people - what someone I was talking the other day calls 'fashionable fake folkies' - here in Manchester go to these sort of nu-folk nights though, often to see unsigned local acts. It's very healthy, but exists in a parallel universe at present... and one that probably sees forums like this as 'the man'! Cheers Nigel |
|
07 Feb 08 - 06:04 PM (#2256363) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ruth Archer wasn't there a feature in one of the broadsheets recently about that phenomenon in Manchester? It seemed to be centred around one club, but justified by the fact that they were planning to open similar clubs in other cities... I doubt it's a "folk" that many people here would recognise - but that's because folk and acoustic have become interchangeable terms in the media and recording industry. But this is also an example of what a broad spectrum of young people is represented by the word folk. And another exmple of why the word has lost any intrinsic meaning, TBH. Maybe we should just give the F word to them, and find another word for the stuff we do... |
|
07 Feb 08 - 06:11 PM (#2256370) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice "Maybe we should just give the F word to them, and find another word for the stuff we do.." nope, I'm not surrendering the flag to anyone. Charlotte (keeping on keeping on) |
|
07 Feb 08 - 07:54 PM (#2256438) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Oh, we DO need Folk. No doubt about that in my mind. We need a term that recognises the melodic quality and universal truths about human experience which are a) Encapsulated in those traditional (ie. without known author) songs which have survived to be sung to the present day AND b) Given added resonance through the contribution of those contemporary songwriters worthy of assuming the mantle. The concept will wither if confined solely to one or the other. The term Folk is vital in order to illustrate the thread which links our past with our present. That's why this debate, to me, is far from purely theoretical. It's OUR music; it doesn't belong to any one cultural or socio-economic sub-group; and as such it must be recognised for what it is, and championed. (BTW, the EFDSS do some great work, and I won't hear a word said against them. Then again I may be a tad biased...) |
|
08 Feb 08 - 03:02 AM (#2256575) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive) "wasn't there a feature in one of the broadsheets recently about that phenomenon in Manchester? It seemed to be centred around one club, but justified by the fact that they were planning to open similar clubs in other cities..." That article was essentially an extended avertising piece for one bar, (which is 500 yards from my house and very nice it is too - they even occasionally let us old farts in!). However there are plenty of other 'nu-folk' events in Manchster that pre-date it. It's only been able to do as well as it has because of the existence of a thriving scene, I think. Most of that scene is low-key, DIY and fiercely independent - quite punk in spirit, in fact - and well supported. Cheers Nigel Not that this has anything to do with whatsisname, that multimillionaire pop singer who wanted us to imagine we had no possessions and then had the temerity to 'wonder if we could'... |
|
08 Feb 08 - 03:17 AM (#2256578) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ruth Archer "b) Given added resonance through the contribution of those contemporary songwriters worthy of assuming the mantle." But see, here's where the argument starts to become circular again. For you, Gene, it's just about good quality songwriting. For me, contemporary music can't be folk unless it uses the tradition, at the very least, as a starting point. It can be great music; but I'd categorise it as acoustic singer/songwriter music, rather than folk. I say again, I'm not a purist. I love music that takes the tradition in new directions. I'm LOVING the new Chumbawamba CD - whether I'd categorise it as folk is another matter. I loved Suzanne Vega in the 80s - but I don't think she's a folk singer. I guess my point is that you're never going to get a definition that everyone agrees on. Even the very broadest definitions will have their detractors, and - as I tried to express yesterday, though not very successfully - the broader they are, the more meaningless they become. We're never going to get ownership of the F word back - it's been co-opted and commodified by HMV and EMI and every lazy journalist looking for the Next Big Thing: Acid Folk, Nu-Folk, Twisted Folk...blah blah blah. Media noise. Against such odds, how can we ever hope to reach concensus? |
|
08 Feb 08 - 06:53 AM (#2256652) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: The Sandman Ruth, I agree. |
|
08 Feb 08 - 07:07 AM (#2256660) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST Now THERE's a first, Dick! :) |
|
08 Feb 08 - 08:10 AM (#2256701) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Quite! |
|
08 Feb 08 - 08:14 AM (#2256702) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Although, having said everything I've said on this thread...I've just been listening to The White Album...and it can't be denied, when all's said and done...McCartney was the greater talent!!! (LOL) |
|
08 Feb 08 - 11:23 AM (#2256840) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice "the first person who ever sang a song of his/her own invention was an acoustic/acapella/singer/songwriter. Get over it." and THIS is the final word is it?*LOL* Sorry, sunshine, it's not....get over it Charlotte (get's over nothing) |
|
08 Feb 08 - 11:26 AM (#2256845) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton This thread'll get to 200, or my name's not Theophillus Goon... |
|
08 Feb 08 - 11:33 AM (#2256854) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice and considering, at least in my opinion, this whole thing seemed to start out as something less than serious, 200 is a remarkable feat Charlotte (as responsible as anyone for extending the joke beyond its shelf live) |
|
08 Feb 08 - 11:35 AM (#2256856) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ernest The first who ever sang a song of his/her own invention was NOT a songwriter because singing was invented before writing. Fortunately no one started a thread called "Birds - Folk Singers" yet. Hopefully, no one will. Those who are thinking about it: Beware - most birds are fierce traditionalists. ;0) Ernest |
|
08 Feb 08 - 12:02 PM (#2256883) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton "singing was invented before writing." Was it?? I must admit, that's news to me. (Assuming your remark about birds is tongue-in-cheek...technically bird "song" is nothing of the sort, because there are no words. You need both words and melody to have a song. And, come to think of it, most bird "song" is largely a-melodic, too...I mean, could you hum it back to yourself?) AARGH!!! NURSE! NURSE! IT'S THE VOICES AGAIN!!! |
|
08 Feb 08 - 12:09 PM (#2256887) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice ummmm...taking the thread a little bit too seriously are we? ..."the screens, nurse" Charlotte (registered little voice) |
|
08 Feb 08 - 12:16 PM (#2256897) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton ...and most of the birds I've dated couldn't sing their way out of a paper bag...maybe that's why I'm single now (sigh...) |
|
08 Feb 08 - 12:22 PM (#2256901) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice Now that's one venue I've never sung in, a paper bage... Charlotte(doesn't wear one on her head either) |
|
08 Feb 08 - 12:34 PM (#2256918) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton I'd imagine if you kept your mouth just the right distance away from the sides you could achieve an interestingly distorted, kazoo-like effect...you could then walk just behind any obese people who happened to be passing and provide an inpromptu soundtrack to their wheezing journeys...much cheaper entertainment than watching a Beatles tribute act! |
|
08 Feb 08 - 12:38 PM (#2256924) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton "Maybe it was because you kept dating turkeys Gene. Next time I'd try taking a woman out, it may make all the difference to your love life." Most amusing, Lizzie. Now, who do I complain to?? |
|
08 Feb 08 - 12:38 PM (#2256925) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Oh, and...200!!! |
|
08 Feb 08 - 12:46 PM (#2256937) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton If your postings get deleted, does that bring the total back down below 200, or do they still count...I'm getting worried now... BTW, if it WAS you who started this thread, seriously, thanks. I've had probably hours of free entertainment as a result. Now where IS that kazoo? |
|
08 Feb 08 - 01:02 PM (#2256957) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: KeithofChester Here's my go (with alittle help from Trevor Lucas) Two thousand and eight was the year I remember so well they put my father in an early grave and slung my mother in gaol now I don't know whats right or wrong but they hung Cuddles on nails 6 kids at home & 2 still on the breast they wouldn't even give her bail CHORUS: Poor Cuddles, you're better off deadat least you'll get some peace of mind you're out on the track they're right on your back boy they're gonna hang you high You'll need to put a few English placenames in the next verse in place of all the Australian ones. |
|
08 Feb 08 - 01:25 PM (#2256979) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ernest "singing was invented before writing." Was it?? I must admit, that's news to me. (Assuming your remark about birds is tongue-in-cheek...technically bird "song" is nothing of the sort, because there are no words. You need both words and melody to have a song. And, come to think of it, most bird "song" is largely a-melodic, too...I mean, could you hum it back to yourself?)" Gene, you are mixing up language and scripture now.... |
|
08 Feb 08 - 01:37 PM (#2256995) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Gene Burton Oh, I see what you're driving at...splitting hairs, really, isn't it? OK, so the first songs may not have been physically WRITTEN, but the point is that somebody had to come up with them... BTW, the deletion of Lizzie's postings has made me look like I've been talking to an imaginary friend in MY last few postings. Was it REALLY necessary? I mean, it's not as if there was anything said that was abusive or inflammatory, and the jibe about turkeys I found genuinely funny...surely we aren't THAT easily offended? |
|
08 Feb 08 - 01:55 PM (#2257019) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Ernest Hairsplitting??? Oh, I thought I mentioned that I am a lawyer.... ;0) Ernest |
|
08 Feb 08 - 02:09 PM (#2257039) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,guest Didn't seem that offensive to me either. Lizzie if you are reading this I choose to remain anonymous. I am on a few of your myspace pages. I have no beef with you personally, but while everyone is entitled to their opinions, you do come on strong. Say what you feel, disagree, but leave it at that. I find a lot of the problems people have with you is that you don't simmer down. Step back a moment and ask yourself, is this a little over the top? To stress about conspiracies against you and the music by everyone from the BBC to froots? I can agree with you that a lot of the music that we mutually like is criminally under played, and ignored, but using that as the basis for your diatrabes against others is wrong. And I do have one other thing to say, again as someone who is on some of your myspace pages. I had a, shall we say unhealthy internet addiction some time back, before I decided enough, I would use the internet for an occasional bit of research, or wholesome fun like youtube or myspace, band websites, etc. Judging by the time you spend updating your websites, time spent on lengthy arguments on here, time spent looking all the stuff you write about on here, could it be possible that you have an internet addiction? I mean that seriously, no humour intended. I'm not just talking about mudcat, but it seems to me like you spend way too much time online. Please consider this as some friendly advice. Cheers |
|
08 Feb 08 - 02:32 PM (#2257062) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice funny, keeping websites updated seems to me to be a necessity, far better than letting them go to hell in a handcart, but that's just my opinion. I personally spend time on the internet while at the same time working on other off-line projects, nothing wrong with multi-tasking. To be quite honest with our mystery guest (is this What's My Line?) I see absolutely nothing wrong with enthusiasm, lord knows this place could use some, what with all the "serious folkies" who, also, seem to spend an inordinate amount of time here Pleas consider THIS as some friendly advice...... Charlotte (what's my line again?) |
|
08 Feb 08 - 02:59 PM (#2257088) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Anon "ANON" There's no name on the stone I sleep under today There's no book that can tell of my time But you know me so well when you sing roundelay For you're singing my tune and my rhyme I am "Anon", you know me that way I had something to say about life in my day So I made a song and somewhere the sound of it goes round and round, to be lost and then found And that is the way that life is That is the way it is with songs It was in the alehouse, I would sing with the rest then I made up a tune of my own And a full harvest moon put the words in my head As I trudged 'cross the fields to my home When I sang it next day, my friends asked me how Did I find my own song in the blade of my plough So I asked in return how the stonemason saw A sweet face in the stone on the old quarry floor They asked "Is that the way that it is?" I said "That is the way it is for me." So they learned every word and they sang every note Till my song was a work of renown And within a six month I heard boys from the school Whistling my tune in the town And I smiled when I heard what came out of the sky coming now from a child as he quickly ran by Would it pass from that child, when as father he'd sing To a child of his own? Who'd believe such a thing But that is the way that life is That is the way it is with time It was 20 years gone, when our parson came home From a journey he'd made far away He shook my hand hard, said the inn where he'd stayed Had some men who sang there every day And he'd listened with joy as one, with a bow sang the song that I'd found in the blade of my plough So he told them my name,but they said that my song Was as old as the hills, and our parson was wrong I asked "Is that the way that life is?" He said, "That is the way it is my son." So I planted and ploughed till my bones bowed and bent I made up no more verses to sing And it seemed that my life had been wasted and spent on the curses my hard days would bring Soon death came to call with a voice that cried "Now!" And the song that I'd found in the blade of my plough Leaped from my heart as I journeyed on And I knew it would live even though I was gone And that is the way that life is That is the way it is for us all There's no names on the stones we sleep under today There's no books that can tell of our time But you know us so well when you sing roundelay For your singing our tune and our rhyme We are "Anon", you know us that way We had something to say about life in our day So we made our songs, and somewhere the sound of them Goes round and round to be lost and then found And that is the way that life is That is the way it is with songs |
|
08 Feb 08 - 03:05 PM (#2257093) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,guest...again No...no problem multi tasking either, and no problem with enthusiasm. But the vitriolic fervor which accompanies most of the answers to her posts should tell her, that maybe she is a little too enthusiastic! I used to thank jazzers were too serious, but man, too many stiff shirts on here sometimes! And myspace pages that lizzie created are fan sites, not official, so updating them is for her enjoyment, she's not drawing a salary for her work. Charlotte, I wrote this, you will notice not as a personal vendetta. I have not slagged her off once. Its just an observation that maybe, just maybe, she needs to understand why people have a problem with her. She says she doesn't give a toss about what others think, but I think thats a problem too, If you write about things as much as she does, wouldn't you through reasonable discourse hope to persuade someone one way or another? Wouldn't you enjoy that same discourse for being what it is, rather than holding onto some conspiracy theory regarding the BBC? Debate and discussion are a wonderful thing, and when it gets heated, you need to step back and tell the other person, hey...no offense, you're entitled to your opinion...we'll have to agree to disagree, etc? That is something that Lizzie doesn't seem to grasp very well |
|
08 Feb 08 - 03:44 PM (#2257127) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice I believe the phrase "some people" have a problem with her...a small equally vocal minority...the usual suspects, if you will. I'm not one of them, but, then again, I'm not tking sides either, this simply an observation Once you start a website or Myspace, space that is based around a musican or group, it might be fan-based (and quite frankly I've seen fan-based sites that are far better than the so-called "official" websites) but it still must be kept up, and there's nothing, necessarily wrong with that. Now, as this is off topic, this is my final word on the matter. Charlotte (keeping it folkie) |
|
08 Feb 08 - 05:53 PM (#2257256) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,Whipcrackaway A child with an enchanting voice singing the haunting 'A Day in the Life'. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytmw_4t3FCY I think that a song deserves the 'folk' label when it is passed through the generations and endures through continued performance. And I don't mean karaoke machines or on CD or on radio - I mean in live performance. 'Norwegian Wood' always struck me as a superb melody that ought to have had a decent narrative. I bet it won't be performed and it won't last as long as 'Day in the Life' for that very reason. I really enjoyed Allan and his boy's Youtube appearance. Wonderful stuff! Thank you. |
|
09 Feb 08 - 11:56 AM (#2257710) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice Hasn't Rubber Soul been described as The Beatle most acoustic album? Now I'm not saying it's folk mind you, but it is definitely very acoustic. Charlotte (drives her own car) |
|
09 Feb 08 - 12:25 PM (#2257735) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: KeithofChester Rubber Soul is indeed very acoustic. There is a John Lennon Acoustic album, released a few of years back, that showcases a lot of his later solo work in very pleasant stripped back arranggments. I think the source of quite a bit of it was demos, although songs like his version of Working Class Hero were always pretty sparsely arranged anyway. Let It Be was also much improved when Yoko Lennon-Carthy relented and let Paul Waterson-McCartney remove the worst of the Phil Spector excesses to produce Let It Be Naked. |
|
09 Feb 08 - 01:02 PM (#2257770) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice Let It Be has become much the better record, without the excesses of Phil Spector. Sorry to say (and it maybe my relatively young age speaking here) I, for one, have never quite "got" Phil Spector (thread drift..I know *LOL*) Charlotte (somwhere along The Long and Winding Road) |
|
09 Feb 08 - 03:02 PM (#2257896) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive) Neither did I, but oh the hair... big flippin' hair |
|
09 Feb 08 - 03:56 PM (#2257938) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: Waddon Pete Hey guys....you've missed that great contribution from Anon. That is a very fine piece of work. Whoever you are, Anon, you should also post it on the writers thread! Writer's corner If you are still out there...has it a tune? Best wishes, Peter |
|
09 Feb 08 - 05:21 PM (#2257980) Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice Anon and Trad. Arr, the two most prolific writers in musical history :-D Charlotte (one of THEM) |
