|
24 Jan 05 - 12:58 PM (#1387136) Subject: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: GUEST,Jim This post, from the "Folk Music in the US" made me smile: "I think we get a distorted picture of the size and influence of their group on the UK as a whole because they are such a strong presence here within the Mudcat Cafe. However, when you think about it, the fact that one or two hundred folkies scattered throughout the UK all seem to know each other so well might indicate that they're NOT a significant subculture in British society as a whole." It might make some of you cringe though Comments below: |
|
24 Jan 05 - 01:37 PM (#1387187) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: Les in Chorlton Significant to whom? |
|
24 Jan 05 - 01:49 PM (#1387203) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: John C. Does size matter? |
|
24 Jan 05 - 01:49 PM (#1387204) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: GUEST UK Folk inhospitable subculture ? insincere subculture ?? insane subculture ??? insanitary subculture ???? incontinent subculture ????? interbred subculture ?????? any more before the pubs shut .. ? |
|
24 Jan 05 - 01:52 PM (#1387210) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: John Routledge I thought the whole of the UK was insignificant to the great majority of of people in the US. :0) |
|
24 Jan 05 - 01:54 PM (#1387216) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: GUEST inbred subculture [West County subvariant] |
|
24 Jan 05 - 02:14 PM (#1387250) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: McGrath of Harlow No subculture is insignificant. Mice are just as fascinating as elephants. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 02:19 PM (#1387261) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: Ned Ludd I like being insignificant! I just read the other thread and declined to comment. I think 200 was a slight underestimate, but compared to the u.s we are insignificant. So??? |
|
24 Jan 05 - 02:23 PM (#1387265) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: Megan L Just checked who wrote the original, damb now i will have to go appologise to martin thoght it wis one of his drivells :) |
|
24 Jan 05 - 02:33 PM (#1387293) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: GUEST,Art Thieme Folks, it just doesn't matter. (One guy's opinion.) If others ignore us insignificant fish swimming in this little pond of ours, that's GREAT from where I sit. The more we can avoid the knashing teeth of the gears of show-biz, it's just that much better. As long as you can swim to the surface, sing your song, and go home with the rent and groceries, be happy. There's no better way to preservre that which you love than to stay below the sight lines and out of Flashy Gordon's "Death Ray From Space". Really, its best to be where you can be left alone to function on yours and your fellow singer's own terms. As Bob Franke said in one of his best songs, "As long as sentimental super salesmen make it big, and tell it wrong, I will make it small, and tell it right." Art |
|
24 Jan 05 - 02:35 PM (#1387297) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: Nigel Parsons Well, if there's only the 200 of us we don't need to worry about the projected licensing fees for gatherings of 6000+ Also, at a push, we could all get to Miskin without too much of a crush, just increase the order for beer & cider! Nigel |
|
24 Jan 05 - 02:41 PM (#1387304) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: jacqui.c Maybe the poster thought that all UK folkies are Mudcatters as well. I agree with Art - small can be good - it keeps out the commercialism that has affected so much of the music scene. As a result we can do our own thing without interference. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 03:54 PM (#1387382) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: Big Al Whittle Oh he's right and its a right pissoff. no folk music on tv this week. 200 channels and no folk music. what we need is an armed uprising. the trouble is with only 200 of us, they'd beat the shit out of us. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 05:04 PM (#1387460) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: PoppaGator Hey, I posted the message that caused all this grief, and I do apologize ~ I apparently failed to make myself understood in the way I had intended. As I recall, I was responding to another correspondent who had ventured the opinion that folkies in the US were a small embattled minority in contrast to those in the UK, who seem to be more well-established. I was trying to say that, as far as I can see, folk music enthusiasts are in about the same situation on *both* sides of the ocean ~ to wit, NOT part of the pop-cultural mainstream. In any event, I didn't mean to compare the folk-music communities of the US and the UK to each other so much as simply to assert that both groups are pretty damn invisible to the mainstream popular cultures of the respective countries. Actually, I have the impression that folk music is *more* alive and well in the UK than in the US, but that it's the province of a smallish and aging group in both places. The 200 was a number I pulled out of the air, guesstimating the number of British Mudcat regulars. In retrospect, it *was* a pretty low number. Sorry to have offended the other x-number-of-hundreds of y'all. |
|
24 Jan 05 - 05:10 PM (#1387474) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: Liz the Squeak It may be a good guesstimate for the number of British Mudcatters, but it bears no resemblance to the 10s of 1000s of people who attended last years' Sidmouth festival! LTS |
|
24 Jan 05 - 05:25 PM (#1387499) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: greg stephens Folk music has its own subculture, whether insignificant or not. As LtS points out, a lot of people go to Sidmouth, and an extraordinary number of other folk festivals. But folk music, aprt from having its own sub-culture, also pentrates many aspects of other parts of the cultural scene. I play in a band that virtually exclusiely plays traditional folk music. But we very very rarely play in folk clubs(not from choice, I must add), and though we do play quite a few folf festivals that is by no means our main source of work. We play all kinds of festivals, broad-baseed music festivals like Glastonbury, plus all kinds of other celebrarprions/festivals: boat festivals, sea festivals, country fairs, steam gatherings, carnivals, plus loads of weddings and private parties. Folk music does get around to parts you won't read about in the mainstream press (or in FRoots, for that matter). |
|
24 Jan 05 - 11:12 PM (#1387794) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: Malcolm Douglas I saw the original post, and didn't take it amiss. When I first came across the Mudcat (some 5 years ago) it was a lot smaller, and the default assumption was that everybody was American unless they said otherwise. That has changed (and there are some newcomers who don't like it, apparently believing that the UK has unfairly ousted the USA as the major force here). Now that we have proper broadband in the UK (I started out on a series of crappy, overpriced dial-up connections that failed every few minutes) the demographic has changed to reflect a bit more accurately the interest-level in the respective countries. The fact that many of the UK members seem to know each other mainly just reflects the fact that we live in a physically small country. You can't avoid running into each other eventually, however much you might try! Yorkshire has a particularly noticeable presence, but it's the largest county (the Texas of the UK, if you like: no oil, but plenty of wide open spaces and livestock) and fiercely independent, so that isn't too surprising either. We aren't staging a takeover bid. It's just that we were under-represented in the past because we didn't have decent internet access. Now we do. That does mean that the BS threads are full of British in-jokes; but they used to be full of American in-jokes that we didn't really understand. It works both ways. I like to think that we're net contributors to the proper music threads. The balance will settle in time. Don't worry overmuch. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 07:43 AM (#1387967) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: GUEST If I'm not mistaken, the argument being made is the UK folk scene is insignificant because England Lacks Talent, routinely eats it's own young, and are the world masters at grudge matches and beating a subject to death which no one cares about (especially if it involves beating up on anything or anyone with the words 'Celt' or 'Celtic' attached to it). Oh--and they are extremely displeased in England because they've no folk on the telly. Or the radio. Except that one show with the dirty little man who doesn't play enough English folk music. Of the proper sort. Which should never be sexy or tarted up for public consumption. Except when they want it that way. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 11:59 AM (#1388116) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: GUEST "Within a fifty mile drive of my house are 6 or 8 regular venues for folk musicians" (Southwest Virginia - posting on the "Folk Music in the US" thread) Can we compete with this?? I hope you don't have to drive more than 50 miles anywhere in the UK to find at least 6 or 8 regular folk venues!! (In my neck of the woods - knock the zero off the 50, and that sounds about right) |
|
25 Jan 05 - 12:28 PM (#1388147) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: sian, west wales Well, I got to know 'Catters from joining Mudcat, none of whom (I think) I knew previously. But I knew a HELL of a lot of traditional music practioners and supports before participating in the 'Cat, and still do. If we're clocking up numbers, the Association of Festival Organisers/Arts Council of England published some pretty substantial figures last year. I know that we, at www.trac-cymru.org have about 900 on our mailing list so those aren't bad numbers. There's also the fact that many of the 'folkies' who I respect the most would never consider themselves such (like my mother, for example); people who just 'know a lot of good singin' songs'. Once you start categorizing people, you leave out more than you include... sian |
|
25 Jan 05 - 12:28 PM (#1388148) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: Strollin' Johnny What do they know about the UK? According to a young American lady on TV a while back, we eat chipmunks for breakfast. CHIPMUNKS!!!!! Dumb or what! :0) S:0) (Mind you, they'd probably taste better than that MacDonalds shite) |
|
25 Jan 05 - 12:32 PM (#1388153) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: GUEST,Jim Less fattening too |
|
25 Jan 05 - 01:05 PM (#1388197) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: brid widder 'I was trying to say that, as far as I can see, folk music enthusiasts are in about the same situation on *both* sides of the ocean ~ to wit, NOT part of the pop-cultural mainstream' ... surely being 'NOT part of the pop-cultural mainstream' is the point!!! |
|
25 Jan 05 - 03:26 PM (#1388340) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: McGrath of Harlow 50 mile drive - that means a hundred miles radius, like Oxford to Colchester and Cambridge to Brighton. I'd reckon within there you'd find somewhere in the region of a couple of hundred folk venues (and so forth) of one sort or another. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 03:54 PM (#1388372) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: PoppaGator Being out of the mainstream is, indeed, "the point," or at least a desireable situation. In the words of a favoritre bumpersticker, "Why Be Normal?" Yesterday I said I was sorry to have posted what triggered this discussion, but maybe I'm not so sorry after all. You all seem to be enjoying this so much! |
|
25 Jan 05 - 04:09 PM (#1388387) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: Megan L Ahm no drivin 50 miles for onbuddy its a car a hiv no a ruddy submarine :) |
|
25 Jan 05 - 05:00 PM (#1388442) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: Stewart I agree with Art. It's nice to be out of the mainstream, and to be able to do my own thing even if it doesn't fit in to the pop culture (or maybe because it doesn't). What I think is important is to have a critical mass - that might be anywhere from just two to a few dozen people, depending on the locale. And also having a few young ones to take over when the old guard passes on. Cheers, S. in Seattle |
|
25 Jan 05 - 06:12 PM (#1388510) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: Shanghaiceltic Well at least the UK is not at the bottom of the list if this person is counting catters only. I originate from the UK but I think I am the only catter in a population of over 1.3 Billion! proud to be unique! If you add the other regular performing folkies here in Shanghai then we amount to about 15 in a city population of 20 Million. We are an endangered species here. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 06:54 PM (#1388545) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: McGrath of Harlow I'd be very surprised if there aren't a few more than that playing Chinese folk music (about which Paddy Moloney of the Chieftains remarked on the strkint affinity he felt there was between some Chinese music and some Irish, especially when it came to the slow airs) |
|
25 Jan 05 - 07:06 PM (#1388555) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: Malcolm Douglas Pentatonic scales are quite common in Chinese and Western European folk music. No real surprise there. |
|
25 Jan 05 - 08:19 PM (#1388625) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: GUEST,Art Thieme subculture = underground = (as Kerouac said it) Subterranians = Bohemians (all through history) = Hemingway's Lost Generation = WHATEVER'S NEXT. And in order to just make a living, a few of these people stuck their noses up above the water line of the pond. THEN they got noticed by the money machines who always took the maleable ones, promised them the moon, and then squeezed all the gold they could out of them before tossing the carcasses onto the compost pile and calling it ORGANIC---and therefore "it was good" (in the Biblical sense). And we're all a part of it. Look at the Folk Alliance, people. There it be. ---- We do the best we can, do we not?? ;-) Love to us all, Art Thieme |
|
26 Jan 05 - 10:40 AM (#1388981) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: Liz the Squeak And lo, some people came along and said 'F&*k it' (in the Biblical sense), let's see what happens when we put electric instruments into the mix.... LTS |
|
26 Jan 05 - 11:09 AM (#1389015) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "And we're all a part of it. Look at the Folk Alliance, people. There it be." I'm not sure I follow, could you expand upon that? |
|
26 Jan 05 - 11:11 AM (#1389021) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: GUEST,Jim "Yesterday I said I was sorry to have posted what triggered this discussion" Absolutely no reason for apologies PoppaGator - I knew it would stimulate some lively responses. Hope you're getting a clearer picture of the UK folk subculture though! |
|
26 Jan 05 - 11:15 AM (#1389031) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: GUEST,Art Thieme ...and then, some of us from bullheadedness or dedication, or health enforced reasons like me, or personal preference, or whatever, pulled our noses back into the water and learned to breathe there---because that was where we found the solitude and the comaraderie, the music and those who knew what we knew in order to do it the proper way until we are long gone ashes on the mantlepiece and out of the picture except for these few musings on Max's good site. There's a sentence for ya!! Art |
|
26 Jan 05 - 11:40 AM (#1389070) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: PoppaGator The solidarity of our UK members has been very apparent to me as long as I've been hanging out regularly here at the Mudcat, and I've long been more-or-less envious of what seems to be a proliferation of folk clubs, regular sessions and song circles, etc., available to our UK Folk. On the other hand, I've certainly been aware of a fairly constant stream of complaints about such issues as the absense of folk music on BBC radio and TV, and the trend of festivals to book high-profile pop acts, thereby drawing crowds with little or no interest in "real" (i.e.,, traditional) folk music. I remember the last couple of Newport Folk Festivals here in the US, where the headline attractions were rock bands, and true folk afficianados were few and far between among the large and unruly audiences. *Some* Mudcatters' accounts of the largest UK "folk" festivals had given me the impression that something similar was happening there today. Yes? No? I think it's safe to say that, on both sides of the ocean (although perhaps to different degrees), folk music culture is no longer the pervasive cultural phenomenon that it was in the early-to-mid 1960s. However, that's not necessarily a bad thing; the current semi-underground/grass-roots position is probably more fitting and more typical for folk culture and/or "bohemian" culture ~ it's the earlier situation, the "folk scare" or "craze" of '62-'68, that was the historical abberation. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 11:58 AM (#1389094) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: GUEST,Jim I have no complaints whatsover about the Whitby Folk Festival - it's fantastic. I'm glad I don't have to try and book lodgings in that week though (having a caravan nearby) - every place booked solid (more or less) from one year to the next. The fact that Whitby is packed solid with thousands of folkies and appreciative holidaymakers (every year) speaks volumes for the popularity of this subculture. Personally I don't have time to go to see any of the "headline attractions" as there's too much 'making music & dance' going on in many pubs across the town. Looking at the programme though, I don't get the impression there's any "rock bands" but plenty of genuine folk performers - a very rich seam of talent I might add. I'm sure that "true folk afficianados" are well pleased with the whole thing. Sounds to me as though there may well be massive differences between the US and UK folk scenes. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 12:12 PM (#1389118) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Art- I'm not sure if your last post was in response to my question about the Folk Alliance, but I am confused! |
|
26 Jan 05 - 12:12 PM (#1389119) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: GUEST Within the majority of folk-related gatherings I have attended (folk clubs, other acoustic music clubs, morris events, ceilidhs etc.) I have found a number of regular Mudcat posters. Sometimes two or three in the same room who had not realised it! It looks like we may be but a happy few. On the distance front, UK/US distances matter less than travel times. I have met people from the US who regard 100 miles as a reasonable commute, since it can be accomplished in under an hour and a half at rush hour. I also know that in some parts of the UK outside major cities, a 90-minute journey could be less than 30 miles. Are we a minority? The number attending the biggest folk gathering in the UK at Sidmouth is fewer than the audience at many of the Stones' recent gigs! |
|
26 Jan 05 - 12:17 PM (#1389127) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: GUEST I'd say that is also true of most US & Canadian festivals. Certainly the biggest ones, anyway. Looking, for example, at the roster for this year's Philly Folk Festival, I don't see any "rock" acts. I do, however, see some really fantastic folk acts. |
|
26 Jan 05 - 05:59 PM (#1389554) Subject: RE: UK Folk - Insignificant Subculture! From: GUEST,Art Thieme Ron, hello. Nope---I'd not seen your post about F.A. My friends at the Folk Alliance, a while ago, got together and bought me a lifetime membership. I was very moved and recognize the tribute. Still, the F.A. is so high powered and biz-like now that the machine of it makes it hard for me to see how it has much to do with anything I ever knew as the folk scene--until the music starts. THEN I know there are similar aspects, and there always will be. I loved and existed within a revival I held in my own two hands---where I got my gigs from people who heard me and called to have me play their place--or to record for their label. And that maybe led to other gigs. I simply liked it better then. Much less red tape and paperwork and contracts etcetera. But I'm sure you know that. You were there then. This is different now, and I mean no offense to those of you who are a part of and find ways to enjoy the biz as it is today. I do not envy you though. I prefer the old small is beautiful subculture. There was so much less "monkey business for me to be involved in" as Chuck Berry said in his song. And as I grew more infirm, it was a real chore to deal with the rig-a-ma-roll. (spelling?) But it was the music within the subculture that kept the road life acceptable for so long. Ron, that's just me--one guy's view. And I've been a part of the Folk Alliance for quite a long time now---and Hey Rube before that. I love watching all that they are doing.-----Now I'll go and find your post. Art |