|
22 Feb 04 - 03:30 PM (#1121256) Subject: A new definition of Folk? From: greg stephens Judging by what I've seen on the TV over the last few years, I would say that the working definition of folk music at the BBC would be "music which includes Ian Carr playing the guitar". This makes a nce change from horses, sweaters, beards, tankards or the rural peasantry. |
|
22 Feb 04 - 03:32 PM (#1121258) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: Clinton Hammond I wasn't aware there was EVER a definiton of 'folk' music.... |
|
22 Feb 04 - 04:20 PM (#1121284) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: The Borchester Echo Anything which includes Ian Carr playing the guitar as much as possible is fine by me. |
|
22 Feb 04 - 04:22 PM (#1121285) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: Allan C. Arr-r-r-r-rgh! |
|
22 Feb 04 - 05:09 PM (#1121310) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: Mooh Oh brother, here we go again...Mooh. |
|
22 Feb 04 - 05:32 PM (#1121329) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: Walking Eagle Not a peep from me. I won't even go there. |
|
22 Feb 04 - 06:50 PM (#1121398) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: GUEST, Mikefule It's all folk - I ain't never heard a horse sing. Etc. Yawn. :0) |
|
22 Feb 04 - 07:03 PM (#1121413) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: Richard Bridge Clinton. Just look it up. |
|
22 Feb 04 - 07:30 PM (#1121436) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: mooman The inclusion of this new definition now offically makes the book "The Definition of Folk Music" the longest book in the world and eligible for the next edition of The Record Book of Guinnesses. Peace moo |
|
22 Feb 04 - 07:47 PM (#1121443) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: greg stephens The point of this thread, I suppose, (sorry if I'm a bit lateral) was to say I think ian carr is a very good guitarist, and manages to get an enormous amount of TV exposure.(Yhe recent Kate Rusby concert being the one that started me off on this). |
|
22 Feb 04 - 09:16 PM (#1121472) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: Bill D ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~etc.............since I have never HEARD of Ian Carr over here in the colonies, I can't say he isn't quintessential folk, and since I am on record as to what is NOT, you don't need to hear more. |
|
22 Feb 04 - 10:35 PM (#1121507) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Bill D, Amazon lists some cds by an Ian Carr, but they are in the range of $US 22.00. They seem to be imports from England. The descriptions don't say what instrument(s) are involved. With track titles like elements 1 and 2, they could be electronic folk. |
|
23 Feb 04 - 02:41 AM (#1121567) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: greg stephens The ubiquitous Mr Carr appears on every British TV folk programme. it doesnt matter if the lead performer is a singer or fiddler, or where they come from. They are always accompanied by Ian Carr. The latest manifestation was the Kate Rusby band. You also find him recording and performing with Karen Tweed, either as a duo, or in the Two Duos Quartet, or in the Anglo-Swedish outfit Swap. He used to be in the Old Rope String Band. |
|
23 Feb 04 - 03:01 AM (#1121573) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: GUEST, Hamish, no cookie Ah, Q - I made that mistake recently, too. I'd been listening to a retrospective on the other Ian Carr on Radio 3. (The one who is a prominent jazz band leader, trumpeter, moulder of early UK fusion (jazz/rock). Blody good, too. And certainly he ain't no horse, but 'twould be stretching most people's definition of folk a bit too far.) When someone mentioned him in a folk club. "I've just been listening... etc". I never did own up about the the mistaken identity. (Unitl now - and you won't tell, will you?) Ian Carr - the folkie - doesn't have any solo albums out as far as I know. But lots of collaborations. His two with Karen Tweed are wonderful; and also with Swap, too. |
|
23 Feb 04 - 04:12 AM (#1121596) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: GUEST,noddy and the definition of a definition?????? |
|
23 Feb 04 - 04:20 AM (#1121602) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: Dave Hanson I aint ever heard no horses sing either but I've heard the ' singing dogs ' and my cat does a great falsetto when he's arguing with the other local tom cats. eric |
|
23 Feb 04 - 06:28 AM (#1121645) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: sian, west wales And apparently there's a Performing Dogs (or is it Animals?) Annual Festival in Jersey. Don't know if any of them 'do' accoustic ... sian |
|
23 Feb 04 - 06:45 AM (#1121656) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: Steve Parkes Well, I've never heard of Ian Carr on this side of the pond. I didn't even know there was folk on the telly -- although I think I might have heard something along those lines being on BBC 3 TV a while ago, now I think about it. Of course, here in Milton Keynes we have the Oldest British Cable TV Network In The World: you have to put a shilling in the meter and throw a six to start. And since the council sold it off to NTL we have to pay for what everyone else gets for free; the off-air signal is crap and Channel Five is non-existent (so it's not all bad news), and we might just get digital freeview or not (I'm not wasting money on an aerial and a box to find we can't), and we can't get broadband 'cos the cable's not up to it, and we can't get ASDL becase BT's not up to it. None of this stops NTL and BT telling us about all the goodies they could sell us if we moved somewhere ese. Bitter, me? Nah! Sorry, what was the question? |
|
23 Feb 04 - 07:34 AM (#1121680) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: matai Find Out Like (it) or Knot |
|
23 Feb 04 - 08:00 AM (#1121693) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: GUEST,T-boy If you knock Channel 5, you're seriously out of date. |
|
23 Feb 04 - 08:42 AM (#1121708) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: Dave Hanson Porn channel, nowt else. eric |
|
23 Feb 04 - 01:58 PM (#1121923) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: GUEST For ages the "definition" has been anything with an acoustic guitar. |
|
23 Feb 04 - 02:42 PM (#1121966) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: michaelr Ian Carr has one of the most distinctive and original "voices" on the acoustic guitar I've ever heard. As an accompanist for tune players, he's simply brilliant, never playing what you'd expect, but creating parts that work in surprising ways. If the BBC has discovered his genius, I say great for him! Cheers, Michael |
|
24 Feb 04 - 07:41 AM (#1122495) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: GUEST,ivor bigginin Ian Carr is an overexposed pretentiose prick and a complete waste of skin and hair. He knows as much about singing as my arse knows about snipe shooting. |
|
24 Feb 04 - 07:45 AM (#1122496) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: greg stephens I think you'll find he's not got all that much these days. And he never did sing really, though I noticed him mumbling a few fol-deriddle-idoes with Kate Rusby the other night. But, as I have said, he is a fantastic guitarist. |
|
24 Feb 04 - 07:51 AM (#1122499) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: Dave of Mawkin Say what you want, but I think Ian Carr is good, up until a week ago I didnt really have any rhythm guitarists to look up to (apart from Peter Booth) and so when I listened to Ian Carr on Knock John I was pleasantly surprised to hear a guitarist compliment folk in a considerate but also inspiring way, I dont think Ian is a folk guitarist just a good guitarist, and I believe what makes him good is the ability to compliment somebody elses playing without sacrificing his own skill. Good job Ian Carr, I look forward to hearing more even if you are a waste of skin and hair, your hands aint. |
|
24 Feb 04 - 08:02 AM (#1122507) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: GUEST,circumnavigation Why do you all want to keep going round in circles ? |
|
24 Feb 04 - 09:01 AM (#1122557) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: fiddler Agreed circumnavigation..... sometimes the threads here start get quite exited and then never know when to stop - we could call them slip Jigs! A |
|
24 Feb 04 - 09:13 AM (#1122570) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: greg stephens My previous post was carelessly phrased. I was trying to say Ian Carr hasnt got so much hair these days. As to skin, I imagine(without having examined him closely)he probably has about as much as ever, enough to cover him. Except for teeth and eyeballs, that is. |
|
24 Feb 04 - 08:13 PM (#1123042) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: Art Thieme Oh, by all means---REFRESH !!!!! Art |
|
25 Feb 04 - 07:33 AM (#1123343) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: fiddler *GRIN* |
|
25 Feb 04 - 04:07 PM (#1123749) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I like Ian Carr from the recordings I've heard that he did with Karen Tweed. I would hope he could come to this side of the pond. |
|
25 Feb 04 - 04:57 PM (#1123776) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: Bill D oh, but Ron...you're eclectic! ;>) |
|
26 Feb 04 - 03:58 AM (#1124141) Subject: RE: A new definition of Folk? From: GUEST,noddy Circumnavigation every one knows the cirle must be unbroken |