|
25 Oct 20 - 07:48 PM (#4076842) Subject: Solo folk performers vs groups over time From: matthewdechant Hello all, brand new here. Specifically for English and maritime folk- why do you think solo folk performers gone out of style in favor of groups? In the early days you had the greats like A.L. Lloyd, Ewan MacColl, Peter Bellamy, and relatively few famous groups (you had people the Corries and the Young Tradition, but they weren't as big as the solo acts). Later on there was more of a mix- groups like Folly Bridge, but still prominent soloists like Stan Rogers. Today, groups like The Young'uns and the Longest Johns seem to be the only folk performers, and even soloists like David Coffin are best known as a part of their respective groups (the Revels chorus). Why do you think this is? (and to address my underlying message, how can a young solo folk performer be relevant today?) |
|
25 Oct 20 - 08:15 PM (#4076847) Subject: RE: Solo folk performers vs groups over time From: Lost Chicken in High Weeds Well, the most obvious aspect is that most listeners of "popular music" these days are more into the "beats" and sounds than the lyrics/stories. I'd imagine that's what more or less started the trend way on back and it just became overwhelming as overstimulation became more and more the norm. When the solo ballads were "a thing" people were far more lacking in "things to do" or really all that many options in general. Any "revivals" have mostly only been "big" amongst a relative few. By far the most general public success with the revivals were primarily with the more saccharine examples. |
|
26 Oct 20 - 03:38 AM (#4076871) Subject: RE: Solo folk performers vs groups over time From: r.padgett The British scene has changed a good deal ~ pub sessions and folk clubs are what they are ~ pubs and evening folk clubs continue to close and the audiences on weeknights tend to stay home ~ alcohol consumption like smoking have both diminished Tendency for weekend and Friday nights to be popular although some long established clubs continue Lack of folk club venues tends to focus on more mainstream venues where joining in on choruses is not necessarily encouraged ~ groups have safety in numbers and the usual long time served artists can survive, although main artists in duos and groups tend to be booked by those organisations that can afford them and have the capacity for audience numbers Really folk clubs tend to be for their members to entertain themselves unless run as concert clubs ~ booking artist individually or in groups ~ Folk festivals do tend to cater for groups and solo artists: making a living is paramount for some and artist have become University lecturers on degree courses ~ EFDSS continues to provide good links etc Fay Hield, Eliza Carthy, Nancy Kerr, Jon Boden, Matt Quinn, Jamie Roberts, Damien Barber, Kathryn Roberts and Sean Lakeman, O'Hooley and Tidow, Geoff Lakeman, Rosie Hood Dan Quinn, Bryony Griffith ~~ then of course there are the defined "traditional" singers ~ not to be confused with the revival singers aforemention Ray |
|
26 Oct 20 - 03:54 AM (#4076873) Subject: RE: Solo folk performers vs groups over time From: The Sandman groups tend to be short lived on the folk club circuit, i speak as a professional of 46 years,i made a living for that period as a duo and solo artist, its economics. however when i started as a pro, i played drums in a ceilidh band as well and later played concertina in a ceilidh band. I have been earning a living at it for longer than any of the people Ray mentioned, however my decision to move to ireland 30 years ago, meant i could work in two places easily., with less travelling other longer standing professional solo artists include brian peters,pete coe, martin carthy, nic dow, steve turner]also music instrument dealer,martin wyndham read[antique specialist]chris foster |
|
26 Oct 20 - 12:20 PM (#4076919) Subject: RE: Solo folk performers vs groups over time From: Tattie Bogle It is perhaps rare for groups to survive a long time with the same line-up, but there are a good number of groups that have kept going for a long time with various changes of personnel, going under the same band name. And some their members are in more than one group, so are almost acting as session musicians for some of their commitments. Among the solo artists are some who have always played solo or perhaps with a single accompanist, while others split their time between playing solo or in groups. There does seem to be a trend for younger emerging artists to feel obliged to form the “Joe Bloggs Band” - suggesting that it’s really “Joe Bloggs + backing musicians” rather than other groups where most of the band members get a chance, in turn, to take centre stage. And if you are putting together a festival concert programme, it is sort of expected that you will have a mix of acts, soloists and bands, older and younger, male and female, and often, but not always, the biggest and loudest band rounding off the final act. (The exception being when you have a big name soloist,) |
|
27 Oct 20 - 07:37 AM (#4076995) Subject: RE: Solo folk performers vs groups over time From: Johnny J Solo and duo performers tend to be more prevalent in the folk club scene than groups. Possibly because of the more intimate atmosphere but also because they are generally cheaper to book. Festivals and larger concerts are different and, in these situations, groups seem to be preferred. They are often seen as more interesting and exciting than solo performers even although that might not necessarily be the case. |
|
27 Oct 20 - 08:53 AM (#4077002) Subject: RE: Solo folk performers vs groups over time From: GUEST,Peter In an intimate setting a duo or a solo performer is best but on a stage, or on a recording, I tend to prefer a larger band. |
|
28 Oct 20 - 05:58 AM (#4077079) Subject: RE: Solo folk performers vs groups over time From: Howard Jones Firstly I would take issue with your assumption about the 'early days'. There were lots of duos and trios on the folk scene, as well as some larger groups, and most of them were working the folk clubs. As for not being as big as the solo acts, Young Tradition were huge, and the Spinners had their own prime-time TV show, while the Dubliners got onto Top of the Pops. The intimate atmosphere of folk clubs really suited solo artists, but a solo performer can seem a bit lost on a large stage. I think what has changed is that there are far fewer folk clubs booking guests, so performers are turning to larger venues. There is then an incentive to put on more of a show by becoming a group or adding backing musicians, which in a larger venues (which also usually charge more than folk clubs) becomes financially justifiable. There is also a desire to replicate on stage what you have done on an album, where guest musicians are often brought in to add interest. Also, being in a band is a lot more fun. It's a lonely life for a solo musician, whereas playing with a band not only provides companionship but is musically rewarding. |
|
28 Oct 20 - 01:50 PM (#4077132) Subject: RE: Solo folk performers vs groups over time From: The Sandman whereas playing with a band not only provides companionship but is musically rewarding. quotHowardJones being a solo artist can be musically rewarding. as well plus you are totally in control, you do not have to sit and watch somebody else lose an audience, you can do it totally on your own, and you can also prevent it happening |
|
28 Oct 20 - 03:22 PM (#4077141) Subject: RE: Solo folk performers vs groups over time From: GUEST,Howard Jones I didn't mean to suggest that being a solo performer is not rewarding, just that playing with others offers additional opportunities. |
|
29 Oct 20 - 03:14 AM (#4077201) Subject: RE: Solo folk performers vs groups over time From: The Sandman different opportunities might be more apt? |