CD reviews, interviews and more music on RootsWorld this week
none
The online magazine of music
http://www.rootsworld.com/rw/
Galician piper Carlos Nunez talks to Christina Roden about 'the new
traditions.'
An overview of Brazilian music styles continues our "101" series
New Reviews (*includes a complete song in Real Audio)
422 (UK) *
Capercaillie (Ireland)
Solas (Ireland/US)
Nyckelharpa Orchestra (Sweden)*
Sweet Honey in the Rock (US)
Buddy MacMaster (Canada)*
Leon Rosselson (UK)*
Sabah Habas Mustapha & The Jugala All Stars (Indonesia and beyond)
Cosmic Voices of Bulgaria
Tabla Beat Science (India and the world)
Louisiana Red (US)
Klezmer Conservatory Band (US)
Recent Reviews include:
Terem Quartet (Russia)*
Metropolitan Klezmer (US)*
John McCusker (Scotland)*
Balfa Toujours (US) *
Candido Fabre (Cuba)
Elio Reve Jr. y su Charangon (Cuba)
Pandit Shiv Kumar Sharma (India)
Virginia & the Piedmont: Minstrelsy, Work Songs & Blues
------------------------------------
RootsWorld is a "sharezine." We depend on our voluntary subscribers for
our support.
Subscribers get a regular e-mail newsletter with reviews and news,
plus free CDs and special offers throughout the year.
http://www.rootsworld.com/rw/subscribe.html
Thanks,
cliff furnald
cliff @ rootsworld . com
JMR
Uh, just who do you have writing and editing your reviews for RootsWorld
these days?
This kind of mistake doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the
magazine's music opinions or expertise...
> New on RootsWorld
> The online magazine of music
> New Reviews (*includes a complete song in Real Audio)
> 422 (UK) *
> Capercaillie (Ireland)
^^^^^^^
????????
Janet Ryan
none
> Say Cliff--
> Uh, just who do you have writing and editing your reviews for RootsWorld
> these days?
>
> This kind of mistake doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the
> magazine's music opinions or expertise...
>
Don't blame the writers (they werk hard, for free), blame ME, for being
tired and mildly addled stupid last night, I guess.....
As always, thanks for the kind words.
Unsinspiredly yours,
cliff
http:/www.rootsworld.com/rw/
JMR
JMR wrote:
>> Say Cliff--
>> Uh, just who do you have writing and editing your reviews for >>RootsWorld these days?
>
>> This kind of mistake doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the
>> magazine's music opinions or expertise...
>
>> Capercaillie (Ireland)
> Don't blame the writers (they werk hard, for free), blame ME, for being
> tired and mildly addled stupid last night, I guess.....
Not being paid to write the reviews isn't an excuse.
Of course I fault you to a larger extent than I do the writer. You
apparently don't have very high editorial standards, if this is the kind
of review you accept for publication.
There is simply no excuse for *any* music reviewer covering Celtic music
to refer to Capercaillie as "one of the top trad bands in Ireland."
Or for an editor of a widely distributed roots and world music zine to
miss that big of a gaffe. Its not, after all, as if it was a typo or a
misprint.
I find its precisely these kinds of attitudes which reflects both the
writer's and editor's commitment to the music, not to mention to the
crafts of writing, editing and publishing. But it does clearly
demonstrate to readers that both RootsWorld and its reviewer are not
only "uninspired" about the work they publish, but arrogant and
contemptuous of the subject matter as well.
You get a lot of credit for being a mover and shaker in the roots and
world music scene, Cliff. Too much apparently, if this is your response
to an error in your publication being pointed out in a newsgroup where
you regularly hawk your wares.
> As always, thanks for the kind words.
Come off it. You are putting yourself and your magazine out in the
world as an authority on this type of music. If you've only been
aspiring to this astoundingly high level of mediocrity, just what the
hell do you expect--accolades for the integrity and high standards of
your work?
Editors take the heat of criticism for their publications. Frankly, I
find you to be a disgrace to the profession offering this kind of a
lame, whining stance, and attacking the messenger who bears the bad
news, rather than doing the right thing.
A serious professional editor would *apologize profusely* to their
readership for the problem, and then *explain in detail* what they
intend to do to insure something like this never happens again.
But as many of us know, in certain folk/traditional/roots music circles
of your ilk, things like accuracy, knowledge of the music, and the
integrity in the writing of reviews artists depend upon to earn their
living, don't matter much.
I believe the old adage "you get what you give" applies here. I think
your response to legitmate criticism made it quite clear what you are
willing to give your readership...
Janet Ryan
Michael Leahy
<snip, snip>
>> > Capercaillie (Ireland)
>
>Don't blame the writers (they werk hard, for free), blame ME, for being
>tired and mildly addled stupid last night, I guess.....
>
God, how I know that feeling. Late nights and accuracy don't too well
together.
Michael
--
Visit NetBeat
http://world.netbeat.com
>As always, thanks for the kind words.
>
george...@my-deja.com
JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
Of Roots World . .
(my god she's off again . . )
> Not being paid to write the reviews isn't an excuse.
and then more of her usual cant.
Janet, dear, when YOU publish something as good and as accessible as
Roots World THEN you're in a position to criticise. Until then, if you
don't like the magazine then just don't visit it.
And of course it's relevent that these folks are doing it for love
rather than for money . . It doesn't EXCUSE any mistakes, but it should
mean that REASONABLE folks will appreciate the exercise as well as
seeking to correct the inaccuracies.
All IMO, of course.
G.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
none
> It doesn't EXCUSE any mistakes, but it should
> mean that REASONABLE folks will appreciate the exercise as well as
> seeking to correct the inaccuracies.
Thanks, George
And I make no "excuses" (other than tongue-in-cheek, which obviously
most folks understood) and in fact I have corrected what was a rather
major gaffe on MY part. One of the beauties of doing something that is
so wide open and free for all to read and comment upon is that our
mistakes rarely stand for long. "The whole world is watching!"
Have a good one, and thanks for the kind words.
cliff
cliff @ rootsworld. com
bogus address
> This kind of mistake doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the
> magazine's music opinions or expertise...
> Capercaillie (Ireland)
Capercaillie are so bloody boring the Irish are welcome to the lot of
them. Tradition turned into elevator music. Which is truly dismal
since individually they are damn fine musicians and might be capable
of doing something with a bit of life in it. (The very earliest Walt
Disney cartoons had genuine sparkle, too).
Listen to Catherine-Anne MacPhee instead.
========> Email to "jc" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce. <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
just visiting
Your credibility is your biggest asset. Publishing something that's
incorrect is bad, but not too serious if faced up to the right way.
Shrugging off the mistake as if unimportant is bad. That's a
credibility issue...that's when people can no longer trust what
they're reading...(so why read it?)
I was most surprised by the few who jumped on this person's case for
the horrible crime of expecting quality!
tm
Michael Leahy
crew - who were totaly unbelievable and put my vision of "celtic" music on
its head (such as silly notions that only us Irish can really do it).
Michael
--
Visit NetBeat
New interviews every day!
http://world.netbeat.com
bogus address wrote in message <67...@purr.demon.co.uk>...
george...@my-deja.com
"Michael Leahy" <wst...@skynet.be> wrote:
> (such as silly notions that only us Irish can really do it).
In my experience SOME of "you Irish" are about the WORST at doing
"Celtic Music"!
Also - did you trouble to talk to Carlos about whether he sees himself
as performing Celtic music? Sure, the Iberian musicians will exploit any
opportunities the "Celtic bandwagon" offers them, but IME most of them
actually see themselves as proudly promoting their own regional music.
And as an aside - FNAC Spain have just produced a stunningly good and
varied sampler of Iberian music - so good we wished we'd bought the ones
they'd done for other regions.
David Kilpatrick
From what few books I have read, the Iberians historically are celtic
peoples. The Portugese and northern Spanish certain consider themselves
celtic. It's very easy to think of 'celtic' as only Brittany and the British
Isles, but the finest celtic artefacts I have seen have been in southern
Germany (the celtic museum of the Marianberg Castle, Wurzburg). Most of
Europe seems to have been celtic at one time and the western fringe is where
'they' ended up, including migration south.
I was really struck, on buying a specifically Canarian CD by a timple
player, how closely his traditional and new compositions followed what we
would call celtic themes. Yet their origins are supposedly Berber!
David
JMR
>
> I have to agree with original complaint.
> Your credibility is your biggest asset. Publishing something that's
> incorrect is bad, but not too serious if faced up to the right way.
> Shrugging off the mistake as if unimportant is bad.
And as we've also seen by the responses, there is a general level of
contempt toward these artists in particular, and Celtic music in
general. Which also speaks to the credibility issue with many
folk/trad/roots journalists. Which was why I originally had asked who
was doing the Celtic music reviews for RootsWorld.
> That's a credibility issue...that's when people can no longer trust >what they're reading...(so why read it?)
There is very little folk/trad/roots music writing of quality in these
types of publications. Its quite rare in this music genre for the
music industry, the artists, or the readers to hold the publications to
even the most moderate journalistic standards, unlike other music genres
like jazz, where standards for writing and reviewing are much, much
higher.
> I was most surprised by the few who jumped on this person's case for
> the horrible crime of expecting quality.
Its easier for most people to make the artists (in this case) the bad
guys, or the messenger, rather than address the more difficult issues of
journalistic quality and integrity of the publication--as you saw by the
responses.
Although I'm guessing you are likely responding to their choosing to
attack me. This is Usenet! Most of those responding don't like me
because of my politics, my opinions, etc. which have come out in flame
wars over the years. So what inevitably happens when I post something
expressing a strong opinion is, rather than address the issue at hand
and what is actually being said, they'll talk about what a terrible
person I am. And it usually works quite well, as you can see. On
Usenet, it always has this irresistible bandwagon effect, just as it has
in this case! Lemmings see, lemmings do.
You are the only person who has posted who is actually addressing the
issues I raised in my post. But then again, I see your moniker is "just
visiting" as well, so....
For the record, I've complained about the lack of quality writing about
this genre of music for years in the newsgroups and on the Irish
traditional music mailing list, so my complaint should have come as no
surprise to some.
One of my major complaints is these types of so-called "mini-reviews"
which are an abomination, IMO. But they definitely have an impact when
it comes to creating a buzz about an artist, a CD, or a tour when
published in these high visibility (for this music genre) publications.
My response to those who always predictably offer up the same ole same
ole excuses, such as "I'm not getting rich doing this" or "the writing
is done as a labor love" is: if these self-proclaimed experts love the
music so much, why do they seem to care so little about the impact these
"hit and run" canned reviews, often full of inaccuracies and outrageous
mistakes, can have on the musicians who bring them the music? I don't
want to overstate the case here, but RootsWorld is a very visible music
journal at this point in time. People do, I'm sure, look to that
journal for the reviews, just as they do Dirty Linen and Folk Roots (and
Cliff is well connected to both those journals).
Labor of love? I don't think so. People involved in the music journal
part of the industry (as is true for most parts of the music business)
often don't have the pure motives people feel so compelled to ascribe to
them. Some of them have reached a celebrity status of sorts by making
themselves kings of the folk/trad/roots publishing industry. And are,
by extension, accorded special treatment by many in these newsgroups.
A labor of love is all the more reason to hold one's work to the highest
standards, not settle for the lowest. And thank you tm, whoever you
are, for caring enough about the issues of quality and integrity, to say
so.
Janet Ryan
JMR
>
> Janet, dear, when YOU publish something as good and as accessible as
> Roots World THEN you're in a position to criticise. Until then, if you
> don't like the magazine then just don't visit it.
George, you patronizing bastard, you'll never see me publish anything as
bad as what passes for music journalism in RootsWorld, Folk Roots, or
any other journals of that ilk. Yes, I have my standards of quality,
integrity and credibility--shocking as it may be to people here, the
above mentioned don't meet those standards. So fire away, George.
Putting anything as ridiculously off-the-wall as was in the original
review (which named both Solas and Capercaillie as Irish trad bands in a
spectacularly failed attempt to contrast the two bands & their newest
CDs in a "clever" and routinely cynical way), and then blowing off the
readership when the mistake is pointed out, is just plain bad
journalistic form.
But then as a devotee of Folk Roots, I wouldn't expect you'd know much
about journalistic standards anyway.
In a publication publishing and broadcasting on the Internet as
authoritative sources of information--in a publication advertising
itself regularly in newsgroups where folk/trad/roots music fans seek
good, reliable, credible information about the music--in a publication
sold by subscriptions--this kind of behavior is unconscionable,
inexcusable, and indefensible. And it doesn't matter how many high
horses y'all get up in my face with, that's the way I see it.
To get something this basic correct (ie the fact that Capercaillie is
NOT an Irish band) shouldn't be that god damn much to ask of a journal
touting itself as one of THE Internet authorities on folk/trad/roots
music.
Janet Ryan
bogus address
>> Capercaillie are so bloody boring the Irish are welcome to the lot of
>> them. Tradition turned into elevator music.
Nothing personal about the Irish, just, can *anybody* take those plonkers
off our hands, please?...
> Having said that, I saw them once followed by Carlos Nunez and his
> crew - who were totaly unbelievable and put my vision of "celtic"
> music on its head (such as silly notions that only us Irish can
> really do it).
Nunez manages to retain a lot more vitality in the various fusions he gets
up to. I'd rather hear him doing the straight stuff any day, though.
:: the Iberian musicians will exploit any opportunities the "Celtic
:: bandwagon" offers them, but IME most of them actually see themselves
:: as proudly promoting their own regional music.
: From what few books I have read, the Iberians historically are celtic
: peoples.
Irrelevant when that is totally inaudible in the music. Its influences
are from other cultures in the northwest Mediterranean.
: Most of Europe seems to have been celtic at one time
The city nearest to the geographic centre of Europe is Kiev. I think you
are quietly forgetting about the entire Slavic, Greek and Germanic world
Celtic settlement in what is presently Teutonic Continental Europe only
got about as far north as Frankfurt and about as far east as Trieste, save
for the isolated emigration of the Galatians to Anatolia.
Just how irrelevant genetic origin is to culture is shown by the example
of Iceland, whose people are overwhelmingly Irish in genetic makeup but
have not a flicker of Irish culture left. It took gene sequencing research
to discover their origins - no historical tradition, linguistic link or
cultural practice suggested it. Somehow I doubt Bjork is queuing up to be
counted as Celtic.
: I was really struck, on buying a specifically Canarian CD by a timple
: player, how closely his traditional and new compositions followed what
: we would call celtic themes. Yet their origins are supposedly Berber!
What "we", what were these themes, and why shouldn't they be universal
ones, or at least common to the cultures of Europe and North Africa?
Michael Leahy
>> Also - did you trouble to talk to Carlos about whether he sees himself
>> opportunities the "Celtic bandwagon" offers them, but IME most of them
>> actually see themselves as proudly promoting their own regional music.
>>
>> varied sampler of Iberian music - so good we wished we'd bought the ones
>> they'd done for other regions.
>>
>celtic. It's very easy to think of 'celtic' as only Brittany and the
British
>Isles, but the finest celtic artefacts I have seen have been in southern
>Germany (the celtic museum of the Marianberg Castle, Wurzburg). Most of
>Europe seems to have been celtic at one time and the western fringe is
where
>'they' ended up, including migration south.
>
>player, how closely his traditional and new compositions followed what we
>would call celtic themes. Yet their origins are supposedly Berber!
>
>
David, I saw the Kabyll singer Idir recently and was also struck by the
celtic-related tinge to a lot of what he does: similar instruments and vibe.
Can anyone explain, pls?
Michael
Visit NetBeat
http://world.netbeat.com
JMR
Michael Leahy wrote:
>
>
> David, I saw the Kabyll singer Idir recently and was also struck by the
> celtic-related tinge to a lot of what he does: similar instruments and vibe.
> Can anyone explain, pls?
>
Hi Michael,
I'm confused. Are you referring to the album "Idir: Identites" that has
that huge, long list of world & roots musicians on it?
Janet Ryan
Royce Lerwick
wrote:
>Ouch! Having said that
To five damned newsgroups at once prompting eight or so crossposted
responses to the same damned newsgroups so Janet Ryan can crosspost
about two hundred lines to all 5....
Royce
Instrumental Metal, Worldhop/Dance/Keltoid Weirdness
Michael Leahy
Again, I'm not up on Kabyll music but the overall tone was very much in the
folk-band mode of the western isles. I had expected something more
"oriental".
--
Visit NetBeat
New interviews every day!
http://world.netbeat.com
JMR wrote in message <3A0DC99D...@tc.umn.edu>...
george...@my-deja.com
JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> george...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
>
> > Janet, dear, when YOU publish something as good and as accessible as
> > Roots World THEN you're in a position to criticise.
> George, you patronizing bastard,
Fair comment!
> > you'll never see me publish anything as bad as what passes
> > for music journalism in RootsWorld, Folk Roots, or any other
> > journals of that ilk.
You've just mis-used the term "of that ilk", by the way.
I thought you didn't read Folk Roots . . but IN MY OPINION I've seen
far, far worse writing - in both style and content - from you than is
normal on Folk World or in Folk Roots, and a far greater relucance on
your part to admit anything less than divine infallability. Though, I
grant, I've never seen anything you've "published" an any form other
than Usenet articles. Which is not to deny that, at other times, I've
seen excellent articles from you.
In these posts you have adopted a tactic you have used in the past; you
have attributed to FolkWorld "attributes" it has never claimed for
itself in order to criticise it for having no claim to those attributes.
george...@my-deja.com
David Kilpatrick <da...@maxwellplace.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> in article 8ugimf$l71$1...@nnrp1.deja.com, george...@my-deja.com at
> george...@my-deja.com wrote on 10/11/2000 10:29 am:
> > Also - did you trouble to talk to Carlos about whether he sees
> > himself as performing Celtic music?
> From what few books I have read, the Iberians historically are celtic
> peoples.
Define "Celtic" . . (no, please don't; we've been there before).
<interesting discussion of legitimate use of "Celtic" snipped>
However the extent of what I was saying was that Iberian performers, in
my experience, see themselves as "of their region" first and above all,
and perhaps as Celtic secondarily. To go back into simplistic terms,
those I've spoken to (not a huge number) have a similar contempt for the
CURRENT wave of Celtic-mania as the Irish/Scots/Welsh musicians I've
encountered discussing the subject.
That said, many Iberian bands DO perform the odd Scots/Irish set - often
as an encore piece, or final CD track, and often in a rather
run-of-the-mill way. We saw a stunning concert by Camerata Mega (much
better live than on their CD, which is nevertheless VASTLY better than
the rating Folk Roots gave it), whose encore was a very "ordinary"
"UK-Celtic" set.
george...@my-deja.com
bo...@purr.demon.co.uk (bogus address) wrote:
<sorry, I've lost the attribution for the other remark quoted here>
> > Having said that, I saw them once followed by Carlos Nunez and his
> > crew - who were totaly unbelievable and put my vision of "celtic"
> > music on its head (such as silly notions that only us Irish can
> > really do it).
>
> Nunez manages to retain a lot more vitality in the various fusions he
> gets up to. I'd rather hear him doing the straight stuff any day,
> though.
Interestingly, we we sat in a "locals" bar in Madrid where the TV was
tuned to the/a Spanish Pop Video channel. When along comes a promotional
video of Nunez and band . . outstanding amongst the fare on offer on
that channel, though actually less interesting than most of what he
does.
However, reverting to the Celtic/Iberian theme . . we were disappointed
to find that Madrid's only (? so we were told previously) non-Irish
session had "folded", to be replaced by yet another agreeable but not
wildly exciting Irish one . . (The non-Irish session claimed to be
European but was mainly Iberian . . and also demonstrated, on our visit,
that male chauvanism lives on in Madrid musical circles . . )
Mick Tems
Hi George,
There was a theory which appeared a few years ago that the people of South
Wales were descended from Iberians and were not directly related to the
people of North Wales -- which might explain a lot.
Anyway, just though I'd tell you that I've received a stunning CD from Anton
Verela in Galicia... Circo Montecuruto by Os Cempes, a band featuring Verela on the
wonderful gaita bagpipes he makes, plus sax, percussion, accordion and more.
It's fighting for space on the CD player with the achingly beautiful
Banditaliana album I had from Riccardo Tesi at Melodeons At Witney last
weekend... two whole days not only with Riccardo but John Kirkpatrick, Chris
Parkinson, Tim van Eyken and Luke Daniels, plus others who turned up such as
Rees Wesson.
It's hard enough to hear these albums in Britain, let alone the musicians
who make them. If we're all part of Europe -- small nations and cultural
groups such as Wales, Ireland, the Basques, Galicians, Bretons and
Catalunyans, plus the larger nation-states -- when are we really going to
start sharing each other's musical treasures?
Mick
--
Mick Tems & Pat Smith: Calennig/Celfyddydau Mari Arts/
Clwb Gwerin Llantrisant FC Phone/fax: 01443 226892 Mobile 07773 075962
e-mail mick...@folkwales.org.uk website: www.folkwales.org.uk
1 Ty Clwyta Cottages, Cross Inn, Llantrisant, Rhondda Cynon Taf CF72 8AZ
G. M. Watson
trembling.
----------
In article <3A0C184B...@tc.umn.edu>, JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> george...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>
>> Janet, dear, when YOU publish something as good and as accessible as
>> Roots World THEN you're in a position to criticise. Until then, if you
>> don't like the magazine then just don't visit it.
>
> George, you patronizing bastard, you'll never see me publish anything as
> bad as what passes for music journalism in RootsWorld, Folk Roots, or
Peter Lane of TribalWorld
confrontational bullshit when it is almost impossible to get good music
reviewed.
Peter Lane - TribalWorld Music - Australia
G. M. Watson <gm...@pop2.intergate.ca> wrote in message
news:3a1c...@newsserver1.intergate.ca...
JMR
>
> No wonder our industry is in trouble when this much energy is expended on
> confrontational bullshit when it is almost impossible to get good music
> reviewed.
> Peter Lane - TribalWorld Music - Australia
For starters, I've no allegiance to your "industry." My allegiance is to
the artists who create music, not the industry hacks (like incompetent
music journalists) who feed off their creative endeavors.
But allegiances aside, perhaps you can explain just how getting good
music reviewed by incompetent reviewers, who don't even possess the most
rudimentary knowledge of the music and the artists they are reviewing,
would be of help your "troubled industry"?
Just because some people in the business are desperate enough to operate
according to the "any press is good press" standard of credibility and
integrity, doesn't mean we all need ascribe to it.
A strong argument could be made that one of the things holding this
"troubled industry" (as you choose to refer to the music) back is a much
too prevalent lack of credibility and integrity amongst industry hacks
who cynically put themselves above and before the artists who actually
do the creative work.
Janet Ryan
Dominic Cronin
>Peter Lane of TribalWorld wrote:
>>
>> No wonder our industry is in trouble when this much energy is expended on
>> confrontational bullshit when it is almost impossible to get good music
>> reviewed.
>> Peter Lane - TribalWorld Music - Australia
>
<Janet\>
Congatulations Peter! You've just been "Janetted".
No offence Janet, but you *do* direct a lot of energy into
confrontational stuff.
Meanwhile, all this reminds me of a folk club I used to go to where
'Doing a Janet" referred to the practice of singing long interminable
ballads.If you were downstairs in the bar getting the beers in, and
someone else had also slipped out of the the back of the room, you
might ask them what was going on upstairs, and if you were missing
anything good. If you were lucky, they would tell you "Oh it's OK -
it's just Fred doing a Janet" or whatever.
I think it all started when I used to sing "Willie of the Winsbury"
quite regularly. Maybe I overdid it and Janet became syonymous with
long boring ballad. Still, they woke up the night we did the reggae
version....
[fu-set to uk.music.folk]
--
Dominic Cronin
Amsterdam
JMR
>
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:30:53 -0600, JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> >Peter Lane of TribalWorld wrote:
> >>
> >> No wonder our industry is in trouble when this much energy is expended on
> >> confrontational bullshit when it is almost impossible to get good music
> >> reviewed.
> >> Peter Lane - TribalWorld Music - Australia
> >
> <Janet\>
>
> Congatulations Peter! You've just been "Janetted".
>
> No offence Janet, but you *do* direct a lot of energy into
> confrontational stuff.
SNIP!
No offence Dominic, but what a pathetic little coward you are, posting a
personal attack to the newsgroups you know I still participate in, and
then setting your follow-ups to the one newsgroup you know I don't
participate in (and whose staunch status quo defenders are most likely
to come to your rescue when I respond).
BTW, have I said thanks for your well informed, on-topic contribution to
this thread? The thread about the state of folk/trad/roots music
journalism? You know, the thread triggered by Cliff's response to my
pointing out a fairly substantial error of fact in his on-line music
journal? That fine roots music journal that doesn't even have the guts
to put by-lines on their reviews (and whose credibility many might find
suspect because of it)?
Have I somehow overlooked or missed your on-topic contributions?
No?
Ah, of course. As is so often the case with you and the lads, your only
contribution to the thread was a personal attack against me.
Another mature response by a man of integrity.
How can I ever return the favor of you "verbing" my name?
I know! I shall hereby bestow upon you and all the usual suspects, the
name "Lemming Club for Men Wronged and Offended By Janet Ryan."
The only membership requirements are that whenever any of you see a
message posted by me, you (all too predictably) drag your past
bitterness into current threads I participate in, and post a wholly
irrelevant personal attack. And then follow up one another's posts with
more insults and attacks, so that the whole world can see the rightness
of your opinions and the wrongness of mine, because there are lots of
you, and only one lil ole me.
Honestly, I'm flattered. All this attention from you Lemmingmen,
despite the fact I haven't participated in your Anglo-obsessed newsgroup
since God left for Chicago.
I'm sure you *do* want me to be distressed that I am thought of by some
as the confrontational shrew who wouldn't be tamed, Dominic.
Touche, bay-bay.
Since most of us know *that* won't happen, let me just say a big thanks
to you and the lads for the great honor and fame you have bestowed upon
me here in the newsgroups.
I couldn't have done it without sexist jerks like you.
XXXOOO
Janet "The Banshee" Ryan
JMR
Terry wrote:
>
> JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
> news:3A1FF18D...@tc.umn.edu...
> > Dominic Cronin wrote:
> <<SNIP>>
> > I couldn't have done it without sexist jerks like you.
> >
> > XXXOOO
> >
> > Janet "The Banshee" Ryan
> I bet you could have if you tried.......
>
> Ouch!
Awww Terry,
Hurt yourself trying to appear clever?
Janet Ryan
Terry
madfiddler
Great days... ;P
Mark.
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:47:43 -0600, JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>Awww Terry,
>
>Hurt yourself trying to appear clever?
>
>Janet Ryan
mark a. knight
composer / bullfrog productions
electric violin / k-passa / tricks upon travellers
demonstrator / bridge Instruments
madfi...@bigfoot.com
http://www.madfiddler.co.uk
icq# 13100677
Jonathan Quick
ROTFL!
> Honestly, I'm flattered. All this attention from you Lemmingmen,
> despite the fact I haven't participated in your Anglo-obsessed newsgroup
> since God left for Chicago.
You know Janet ol' gel one might almost suspect that the sole purpose of
your initial vitriol was to elicit *exactly* the attention you have received
from that inspiring cohort of free thinkers that makes up uk.m.f.
> I couldn't have done it without sexist jerks like you.
The sexism of jerkism being inwardly directed, one assumes...
> Janet "The Banshee" Ryan
So whose demise are you foretelling?
Jonathan.
--
Email: jonatha...@foxtrot.co.uk
Homepage: http://www.foxtrot.co.uk
Terry
> > <<SNIP>>
> > > I couldn't have done it without sexist jerks like you.
> > >
> > >
> > > Janet "The Banshee" Ryan
> > I bet you could have if you tried.......
> >
> > Ouch!
>
> Awww Terry,
>
> Hurt yourself trying to appear clever?
>
> Janet Ryan
to be clever with me, you're wasting your time."
none
> to put by-lines on their reviews (and whose credibility many might find
> suspect because of it)?
FYI: every single review in RW is by-lined every writer is in the
masthead, and many of them will even let you contact them directly.
Exception: there are some ancient archives that were written solely by
me back when I was the only writer (and was therefore the obvious
purveyor of the thought) but those date back over 4 years, I think.
Cliff Furnald
JMR
>
> > That fine roots music journal that doesn't even have the guts
> > to put by-lines on their reviews (and whose credibility many might find
> > suspect because of it)?
>
> FYI: every single review in RW is by-lined every writer is in the
> masthead, and many of them will even let you contact them directly.
Uh huh. By-lines are at the end of the review, as part of text--not set
off down a line or two, to make them visible. When its done on your
pages, the by-lines are nearly invisible, particularly in relation to
the RW copyright at the bottom of the page.
Also, the by-line bio info is on a separate page, and has no mention of
the area of expertise of the writer in many cases. And in the case of a
number of your reviewers, the expertise seems to be freelance
"afficionado." You as the editor give us no clue as to who you solicit
articles and reviews from, or whether they submit unsolicited to you, so
we don't know what criteria you, as editor, are using to judge the
expertise and credibility of your writers (and yes Cliff, I know you
have some good, known writers).
But to the casual or close reader, your choices of style regarding
by-lines, writer bios & lack of editorial criteria for writers (not for
music being submitted) makes it difficult to determine who reviews what
type music, who has expertise in music of a specific geographical area
(which is the way you have the site organized), or even where the gained
their expertise (if any) to write credible reviews.
I know this is the "industry standard" for folk/trad/roots journals you
are adhering to regarding these closely related issues. All the music
journals who do these canned mini-reviews do the same.
My point is, for the reader, it sucks. Especially in a case like this,
where your reviewer--"world music afficionado" though she might
be--didn't know where in the world the artists who's CDs she was
reviewing, came from. She isn't the same writer who has done your
features on Celtic music. So who the hell is she, and how did she come
to write Celtic music reviews on two new CD releases for two of the
biggest names in biz right now, when she didn't even know what country
they come from? I mean, the Celtic regions just aren't that big.
Like I said, the state of folk/trad/roots journalism is appallingly low,
and I think that low standards in writing about the music, holds the
music back.
Ideas for credible journals to pattern folk/trad/roots journals after?
Well, the jazz journal "Cadence" comes to mind:
http://www.cadencebuilding.com/Cadence/CadenceMagazine.html
"Performing Songwriters" review section is good. LA Weekly & Village
Voice have good review sections. Consider giving more space (and
setting some serious writer's guidelines policies that you enforce
uniformly--a real problem with your journal is inconsistent quality and
caliber of reviews and articles) to longer feature reviews. You don't
have to do 1000-2000 word reviews to do credible reviews. But it doesn't
hurt any to have a good 3-5 of them on the "current" reviews part of
your site at all times.
Giving yourself and your readers a well-thought out editorial
guideline/policy would give your journal additional credibility.
The cynical, edgy & borderline rude comments found on your submissions
page is just plain off-putting, and makes you look like jerks. You
might take a few pointers from:
Writers' Guidelines - from website Sound Bytes Music Reviews
http://www.communication.ca/soundbytes/
or Alternative Music Press, Music Box--there are a number of good
on-line examples of quality reviews being done in the 1000-2000 word
range, especially when combined with feature articles & interviews.
Especially worth noting are these guidelines for reviews from Bob
Mackintosh's Sound Bytes site:
the purpose of any review is neither to tear down nor to flatter the
artist but rather to provide criticism which is informative and
constructive to both the listener and the artist;
reviews should be positive in tone if not in the writer's
opinion of the CD, suggesting remedies for problem areas and also
mentioning areas in which the recording is a success;
I found that the Capercaillie and Solas CD review had none of the above
qualities, and what *was* in the review was erroneous. As is noted in
these excerpts from Sound Byte's writers guidelines, critical writing
should *always* come first from a place of respect, and an open mind to
each and every CD, each and every performance. Cynicism should *never*
be passed off as criticism, as it was in the review of new Solas and
Capercaillie CDs I read at RootsWorld. And the fact that the reviewer
had even the most basic facts about the artists wrong as well, for me as
a discerning reader, put the nail in the credibility coffin for
RootsWorld.
What really saddens me about these journals is, they are already making
a gallant effort to put out a journal. If the endeavor truly *was* a
labor of love, we would never see a review like the one I've complained
about here. It takes no more effort to do reviews and articles
critically in the very best sense, than it does to do them cynically.
Nor does it take any more effort to do by-lines and writer bios,
editorial guidelines/policies, etc. to make the philosphy of the
editor(s) about the music *and* the writing clear to the readers of the
journal.
I really don't think that these things are too much to ask of the
journals about music we all love, and want to see thrive.
At the end of the day, after all, its the music that matters, not the
overly-sensitive egos of the journalists who choose to write about it.
Janet Ryan
But it seems the
JMR
Jonathan Quick wrote:
>
> "JMR" <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
> news:3A1FF18D...@tc.umn.edu...
> >
> > No offence Dominic, but what a pathetic little coward you are
>
> ROTFL!
>
> > Honestly, I'm flattered. All this attention from you Lemmingmen,
> > despite the fact I haven't participated in your Anglo-obsessed newsgroup
> > since God left for Chicago.
>
> You know Janet ol' gel one might almost suspect that the sole purpose of
> your initial vitriol was to elicit *exactly* the attention you have received
> from that inspiring cohort of free thinkers that makes up uk.m.f.
>
I'm sure you would love to attach that level of importance to uk.m.f,
but frankly Jonathan, there are a lot of people besides myself who
wouldn't give the newsgroup a second look because of the Anglocentric
arrogance of too many of the posters there.
And before you decide my one and only purpose for writing in this thread
is to be a thorn in the side of the Lemmingmen, let me refer you to the
site I suggested one of RootsWorld's writers peruse regarding the
writing of legitimate CD reviews:
The All About Jazz website's "CD Review Guidelines" at:
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/cdguidelines.htm
THAT is the standard of writing about music I am talking about here.
The cynical and arrogant nature of too many reviews routinely found in
folk/trad/roots music journals like RootsWorld and Folk Roots do nothing
to further the interests of the music and musicians they purportedly
exist to serve.
Janet Ryan
Peter Thomas
writes
>
snip
>
>I'm sure you would love to attach that level of importance to uk.m.f,
>but frankly Jonathan, there are a lot of people besides myself who
>wouldn't give the newsgroup a second look because of the Anglocentric
>arrogance of too many of the posters there.
<speaks very gently>
For the benefit of the delightful Janet, the letters "uk" before
"music.folk" do imply a certain tendency towards our native traditions,
which includes, as a numerical majority [by far more than 500 or 900]
the English.
Since you wish not to encounter us, this can be arranged by the simple
expedient of not posting here [uk.music.folk] to our mutual
satisfaction.
Is this more-or-less clear, or would you like me to use shorter words?
<resumes> normal voice
Extract from charter follows:
This newsgroup is a part of the uk.* hierarchy (see [1]). The charter
that
follows was officially adopted either when the group was created or
during
a subsequent formal revision.
Charter of uk.music.folk
------------------------
(Not Moderated)
This new group is for those interested in folk/roots/acoustic
music here in the UK. Defining folk music has always been a
precarious task. However, this new group aims to cover all of
those types of music that you would expect to see in a folk -
folk/blues club. Most of us who are into this kind of music
have very catholic tastes and this is reflected by the booking
policies of most clubs. I would expect to see discussion of:
traditionalists such as Martin Carthy; classic folk rock as
exemplified by Fairport Convention and Steeleye Span;
contemporary groups and performers such as Edward II, the
Poozies, the superb new young performers such as White &
Cutting, Kerr & Carthy, etc., Christine Collister, Clive
Gregson; world music performers who regularly perform in the UK.
The new group encourages people to post details of: tours; folk
club listings; WWW sites dedicated to folk/roots music;
specialist music outlets; festivals; and musical instruments,
etc. In short, this group aims to be the natural home for all
of those interested in UK-based folk music.
>
>And before you decide my one and only purpose for writing in this thread
>is to be a thorn in the side of the Lemmingmen, let me refer you to the
>site I suggested one of RootsWorld's writers peruse regarding the
>writing of legitimate CD reviews:
>
>The All About Jazz website's "CD Review Guidelines" at:
>
>http://www.allaboutjazz.com/cdguidelines.htm
>
>THAT is the standard of writing about music I am talking about here.
>
>The cynical and arrogant nature of too many reviews routinely found in
>folk/trad/roots music journals like RootsWorld and Folk Roots do nothing
>to further the interests of the music and musicians they purportedly
>exist to serve.
And?
This may be relevant to a deconstructor of criticism, I am not persuaded
that it is either use or ornament in at least one of the ngs you have
posted to.
Try Surrey Folk News as a source of constructive and friendly reviews.
--
Peter Thomas
george...@my-deja.com
JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> none wrote:
> >
> > > That fine roots music journal that doesn't even have the guts
> > > to put by-lines on their reviews (and whose credibility many might
find
> > > suspect because of it)?
> >
> > FYI: every single review in RW is by-lined every writer is in the
> > masthead, and many of them will even let you contact them directly.
>
> Uh huh. By-lines are at the end of the review, as part of text
<Snipped>
Translation of Janet's contribution: "My claim was totally wrong, but
I'm sure as hell not going to admit THAT , , "
Which attitude, from Janet, is something of a tradition.
george...@my-deja.com
> Anyway, just though I'd tell you that I've received a stunning CD
> from Anton Verela in Galicia... Circo Montecuruto by Os Cempes,
> It's fighting for space on the CD player with the achingly beautiful
> Banditaliana album I had from Riccardo Tesi at Melodeons At Witney
Thanks for the recommendations . . "Christmas is coming . ."
I've said before (and I admit I'm more guilty than most) - we spend too
much time on recriminations, and not enough on enthusiasms . .
Actually, whatever depths it may sometimes hit it's because of its
enthusiasms I defend Roots World . .
G.
last
> weekend... two whole days not only with Riccardo but John Kirkpatrick,
Chris
> Parkinson, Tim van Eyken and Luke Daniels, plus others who turned up
such as
> Rees Wesson.
>
> It's hard enough to hear these albums in Britain, let alone the
musicians
> who make them. If we're all part of Europe -- small nations and
cultural
> groups such as Wales, Ireland, the Basques, Galicians, Bretons and
> Catalunyans, plus the larger nation-states -- when are we really going
to
> start sharing each other's musical treasures?
>
> Mick
>
> --
> Mick Tems & Pat Smith: Calennig/Celfyddydau Mari Arts/
> Clwb Gwerin Llantrisant FC Phone/fax: 01443 226892 Mobile 07773 075962
> e-mail mick...@folkwales.org.uk website: www.folkwales.org.uk
> 1 Ty Clwyta Cottages, Cross Inn, Llantrisant, Rhondda Cynon Taf CF72
8AZ
>
>
JMR
george...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <3A220419...@tc.umn.edu>,
> JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> > none wrote:
> > >
> > > > That fine roots music journal that doesn't even have the guts
> > > > to put by-lines on their reviews (and whose credibility many might
> find
> > > > suspect because of it)?
> > >
> > > FYI: every single review in RW is by-lined every writer is in the
> > > masthead, and many of them will even let you contact them directly.
> >
> > Uh huh. By-lines are at the end of the review, as part of text
>
> <Snipped>
>
> Translation of Janet's contribution: "My claim was totally wrong, but
> I'm sure as hell not going to admit THAT , , "
>
> Which attitude, from Janet, is something of a tradition.
>
Sorry to shatter your illusions George, but if you check my post in
alt.music.world, you'll find that isn't the case.
But its good to see *you* finally get the name of the journal you were
so staunchly defending right...
Janet Ryan
JMR
Peter Thomas wrote:
>
> In article <3A228959...@tc.umn.edu>, JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu>
> writes
> >
> snip
> >
> >I'm sure you would love to attach that level of importance to uk.m.f,
> >but frankly Jonathan, there are a lot of people besides myself who
> >wouldn't give the newsgroup a second look because of the Anglocentric
> >arrogance of too many of the posters there.
>
> <speaks very gently>
>
> For the benefit of the delightful Janet, the letters "uk" before
> "music.folk" do imply a certain tendency towards our native traditions,
> which includes, as a numerical majority [by far more than 500 or 900]
> the English.
And for certain posters in uk.music.folk, the letters "uk" represent
free license for bashing and trashing some non-English peoples' genuine
interests in their native traditions, who also happen to live within the
borders of the UK.
Its a damn slippery slope, using the guise of "native tradition" as
justification for one's own bigotries rooted in English nationalist
loyalties.
But don't worry Peter--I'm well aware, as are others, that it is the
English numerical majority who regularly tyrannizes and rules this
newsgroup.
> Since you wish not to encounter us, this can be arranged by the simple
> expedient of not posting here [uk.music.folk] to our mutual
> satisfaction.
>
> Is this more-or-less clear, or would you like me to use shorter words?
>
> <resumes> normal voice
Peter, do you only use your *gentle* voice when you wish to sound
patronizingly arrogant, or just when you are trying to be insulting and
intimidating?
> >THAT is the standard of writing about music I am talking about here.
> >
> >The cynical and arrogant nature of too many reviews routinely found in
> >folk/trad/roots music journals like RootsWorld and Folk Roots do nothing
> >to further the interests of the music and musicians they purportedly
> >exist to serve.
>
> And?
And if you have no interest in the subject matter of this thread, your
reason for posting is...?
Janet Ryan
Peter Thomas
writes
>
>
snip
>
>And for certain posters in uk.music.folk, the letters "uk" represent
>free license for bashing and trashing some non-English peoples' genuine
>interests in their native traditions, who also happen to live within the
>borders of the UK.
Have you lived here within recent memory? This sounds like very second-
hand propaganda. The country is a melting-pot in the way that the States
was meant to be. My Texan sister-in-law was thoroughly impressed by the
Notting Hill Carnival - couldn't have happened in Atlanta.
For the record, Janet, I'm an eighth or so Scots, have a Welsh surname
and the rest isn't necessarily all English. And have been known to sit
in as musician/singer for someone's leaving do [1] on her return to Co
Waterford. Our pub sessions range round assorted Celtic, US and Scandi
material, with the odd bit of jazz, blues and r&r as well.
>
>Its a damn slippery slope, using the guise of "native tradition" as
>justification for one's own bigotries rooted in English nationalist
>loyalties.
'Bigotry' is a term of abuse rather than an intelligent argument. I
wonder whether in your case there isn't an element of projection. The
point is, very simply, that if you dislike the matter you find in
uk.music.folk, you could simply remove your tendentious presence rather
than playing victim and trolling for controversy.
>
>But don't worry Peter
I'm not.
>--I'm well aware, as are others,
who?
> that it is the
>English numerical majority who regularly tyrannizes and rules this
>newsgroup.
>
Methinks the excellent Messrs Gaughan and Tems assert Scots and Welsh
perspectives - in the broadest sense - in the most pleasant manner.
Should be hearing Gaughan, all being well, in his Southern Tour in
February. Feb 21 or 22 at Electric Theatre?
>
>> Since you wish not to encounter us, this can be arranged by the simple
>> expedient of not posting here [uk.music.folk] to our mutual
>> satisfaction.
>>
>> Is this more-or-less clear, or would you like me to use shorter words?
>>
>> <resumes> normal voice
>
>Peter, do you only use your *gentle* voice when you wish to sound
>patronizingly arrogant, or just when you are trying to be insulting and
>intimidating?
Particularly with someone perpetrating a sizeable nonsense - I find it
more effective than shouting. And when speaking to those who really know
no better.
And routinely at other times unspecified. Even gently.
>
>
>> >THAT is the standard of writing about music I am talking about here.
>> >
>> >The cynical and arrogant nature of too many reviews routinely found in
>> >folk/trad/roots music journals like RootsWorld and Folk Roots do nothing
>> >to further the interests of the music and musicians they purportedly
>> >exist to serve.
>>
>> And?
>
>And if you have no interest in the subject matter of this thread,
You chose to snip the bit which was utterly on topic ; dishonest or
clumsy?
> your
>reason for posting is...?
Mild irritation with your need to make a bore of yourself by moaning
about imagined wrongs, an inclination to set some of the record
straight, and the regrettable but overwhelming temptation to wind you
up.
And realizing that I'd killfiled an earlier version of you, but a
mutation had occurred.
Reverting to the topic of reviews, I find word-of-mouth, pub sessions
and concerts more useful than the magazines/sites for finding material
that I actually like.
--
Peter Thomas
JMR
Peter Thomas wrote in response to my asking him:
> > your reason for posting is...?
>
> Mild irritation with your need to make a bore of yourself by moaning
> about imagined wrongs, an inclination to set some of the record
> straight, and the regrettable but overwhelming temptation to wind you
> up.
I have a long memory when it comes to the ways I was assaulted by some
of you in the An Phish Fhliuch thread, Peter. You too were among the
men who got a great deal of enjoyment kicking me around in that thread.
You deciding to weigh in on this thread had nothing to do with the
subject matter, and everything to do with your personal dislike for me.
Since I haven't posted to uk.music.folk in over a year and half, I find
it quite telling you decided to leap in here for no reason other than to
unleash a personal attack against another poster who had done nothing to
you.
But since you yourself have admitted your posting to this thread was
due to your "regrettable but overwhelming temptation to wind <Janet> up"
I think its clear the real reason for responding to me at all was to be
petty and vindictive.
There is nothing noble about what you are doing Peter, just as there is
nothing noble about any of the men who have been harrassing me in the
newsgroups for years. Which in my mind, puts you in with the worst
offenders--Dominic, George, G.M. Watson, Chris Rockcliffe, or Royce
Lerwick. You put yourself in their company when you choose to attack me
personally, rather than address the subject being discussed.
Now, if that's the company you choose to keep, so be it. It happens to
be the company I do my best to avoid in the newsgroups, because those
men are all very vicious and negative. It isn't easy for me to avoid
the lot of you, when you keep insisting upon draggin your personal
dislike of me into current threads I participate in, and post irrelevant
personal attacks. And then follow up one another's posts with more
insults and attacks to make me look bad.
Its impossible to interact with you men when all you do is focus
negative energy on me, and never interact with me in threads where there
is no rancor or ill will. I've contributed a lot of positive
information about music to these newsgroups over the years. I have some
limited expertise no other posters have. Yet a very small handful of
you men just can't seem to leave me be. You must be terribly
threatened by the fact that I'm a strong, opinionated woman who relishes
a good argument. There is nothing evil or bad about that, Peter.
Nothing, that is, unless you are profoundly uncomfortable around
feminists, which some of you clearly are.
I don't know what you hope to gain by doing this either. You want to be
a hero in your hometown? You hope to start a flame war, using me as
the bait? You get some perverse enjoyment out of engaging in the Usenet
equivalent of public stoning of posters you dislike or disagree with?
I mean really Peter, what the hell did I ever do to you to deserve this
kind of treatment from you?
Janet Ryan
Peter Thomas
writes
>
>
>Peter Thomas wrote in response to my asking him:
>
>> > your reason for posting is...?
>>
>> Mild irritation with your need to make a bore of yourself by moaning
>> about imagined wrongs, an inclination to set some of the record
>> straight, and the regrettable but overwhelming temptation to wind you
>> up.
>
>
>I have a long memory when it comes to the ways I was assaulted by some
>of you in the An Phish Fhliuch thread, Peter. You too were among the
>men who got a great deal of enjoyment kicking me around in that thread.
>
>You deciding to weigh in on this thread had nothing to do with the
>subject matter, and everything to do with your personal dislike for me.
It may not just be me... the initials JMR speak dismay at level equalled
only by Capt. Neal in alt.sailing ngs.
As for personal dislike - don't know what you are like, do know the "Oh,
hSti!" feeling at discovering your voluminous posts, which I mostly
haven't time or inclination to look at. But have paid to download.
>Since I haven't posted to uk.music.folk in over a year and half, I find
>it quite telling you decided to leap in here for no reason other than to
>unleash a personal attack against another poster who had done nothing to
>you.
>
Learning process here?
>But since you yourself have admitted your posting to this thread was
>due to your "regrettable but overwhelming temptation to wind <Janet> up"
>I think its clear the real reason for responding to me at all was to be
>petty and vindictive.
>
Not petty, done with a clear conscience and a sober and righteous
delight.
>There is nothing noble about what you are doing Peter, just as there is
>nothing noble about any of the men who have been harrassing me in the
>newsgroups for years. Which in my mind, puts you in with the worst
>offenders--Dominic, George, G.M. Watson, Chris Rockcliffe, or Royce
>Lerwick. You put yourself in their company when you choose to attack me
>personally, rather than address the subject being discussed.
>
>Now, if that's the company you choose to keep, so be it. It happens to
>be the company I do my best to avoid in the newsgroups, because those
>men are all very vicious and negative. It isn't easy for me to avoid
>the lot of you
I mostly manage to avoid you, but once in a while I forget and read
some.
>, when you keep insisting upon draggin your personal
>dislike of me into current threads I participate in, and post irrelevant
>personal attacks. And then follow up one another's posts with more
>insults and attacks to make me look bad.
>
>Its impossible to interact with you men when all you do is focus
>negative energy on me, and never interact with me in threads where there
>is no rancor or ill will.
But I only ever see you amidst dust and noise.
>I've contributed a lot of positive
>information about music to these newsgroups over the years. I have some
>limited expertise no other posters have. Yet a very small handful of
>you men just can't seem to leave me be. You must be terribly
>threatened by the fact that I'm a strong, opinionated woman who relishes
>a good argument.
You show such glorious combativeness that the temptation to play on it
can be irresistible.
> There is nothing evil or bad about that, Peter.
Didn't say there was.
>Nothing, that is, unless you are profoundly uncomfortable around
>
>feminists, which some of you clearly are.
Most feminists I know to speak to have a sense of humour.
>I don't know what you hope to gain by doing this either. You want to be
>a hero in your hometown? You hope to start a flame war, using me as
>the bait? You get some perverse enjoyment out of engaging in the Usenet
>equivalent of public stoning of posters you dislike or disagree with?
Merely a public show of disapproval for the more earnest, long-winded
and tedious sort of bore, which judgement you have just amply confirmed.
>
>I mean really Peter, what the hell did I ever do to you to deserve this
>kind of treatment from you?
>
What you did was to play the man rather than the ball by indulging in
personal abuse on George, who may or may not merit it. Fair enough, what
goes around...
Right, blow it - I'm going swimming.
--
Peter Thomas
JMR
Peter Thomas wrote:
>
> In article <3A240444...@tc.umn.edu>, JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu>
> writes
> >
> >
> >Peter Thomas wrote in response to my asking him:
> >
> >> > your reason for posting is...?
> >>
> >> Mild irritation with your need to make a bore of yourself by moaning
> >> about imagined wrongs, an inclination to set some of the record
> >> straight, and the regrettable but overwhelming temptation to wind you
> >> up.
> >
> >
> >I have a long memory when it comes to the ways I was assaulted by some
> >of you in the An Phish Fhliuch thread, Peter. You too were among the
> >men who got a great deal of enjoyment kicking me around in that thread.
> >
> >You deciding to weigh in on this thread had nothing to do with the
> >subject matter, and everything to do with your personal dislike for me.
>
> It may not just be me... the initials JMR speak dismay at level equalled
> only by Capt. Neal in alt.sailing ngs.
>
I think you give me much too much credit for being notorious and
infamous in the newsgroups Peter. I've only ever encountered this level
of demonization from some men in uk.music.folk. Sure I've got enemies in
the newsgroups. But nothing on the level you are suggesting--your
exaggerated sense of my notoriety is way off, despite my having been
involved in some contentious threads, and alienating a whole bunch of
people over the years--usually those who disagree with my politics or my
feminist orientation.
> As for personal dislike - don't know what you are like, do know the "Oh,
> hSti!" feeling at discovering your voluminous posts, which I mostly
> haven't time or inclination to look at. But have paid to download.
There are very simple procedures which you can do with your software to
get around the problem of downloading voluminous posts. Your choice not
to use them is no excuse for attacking another poster for writing
lengthy posts.
Nor is the suggestion that I'm only involved in flamewars accurate, so
your complaints in this regard have no merit whatsoever. You also pay
to download the posts of other flamewars as well. It is nothing unique
to me and my posting habits.
>
> >Since I haven't posted to uk.music.folk in over a year and half, I find
> >it quite telling you decided to leap in here for no reason other than to
> >unleash a personal attack against another poster who had done nothing to
> >you.
> >
> Learning process here?
Really, what?
I genuinely would like to learn why you feel entitled to belittle me for
voicing my opinions, when I've never seen you do the same for any other
poster.
That smacks of selective prosecution and harrassment to me. Of course,
I'm just the human being on the receiving end of the harrassment.
>
> >But since you yourself have admitted your posting to this thread was
> >due to your "regrettable but overwhelming temptation to wind <Janet> up"
> >I think its clear the real reason for responding to me at all was to be
> >petty and vindictive.
> >
>
> Not petty, done with a clear conscience and a sober and righteous
> delight.
No, it *is* petty when I have done nothing to personally attack or
provoke you. I trust you get pissed off at more posters than just
myself. After all, this is Usenet.
Which leads me to believe that I have hit some deep nerve in you. I must
frighten you somehow for you to react like this. If you can't admit to
this, it just makes *you* a crank, Peter.
>
> >There is nothing noble about what you are doing Peter, just as there is
> >nothing noble about any of the men who have been harrassing me in the
> >newsgroups for years. Which in my mind, puts you in with the worst
> >offenders--Dominic, George, G.M. Watson, Chris Rockcliffe, or Royce
> >Lerwick. You put yourself in their company when you choose to attack me
> >personally, rather than address the subject being discussed.
> >
> >Now, if that's the company you choose to keep, so be it. It happens to
> >be the company I do my best to avoid in the newsgroups, because those
> >men are all very vicious and negative. It isn't easy for me to avoid
> >the lot of you
>
> I mostly manage to avoid you, but once in a while I forget and read
> some.
I haven't noticed you posting in rec.music.folk or rec.music.celtic
Peter. And as I said, I haven't been in uk.music.folk in over a year and
a half. So the first time a thread gets cross-posted I'm involved in,
you leap on the lemming bandwagon. That's not what I call "once in a
while" that's what I'd call "at the first opportunity."
There are many people I find to be horrible people to encounter in the
newsgroups. I've never used killfiles for them. I do what everyone
should do--I usually just don't read their posts. If I do, I usually
don't respond. Why is it that type of reasonable behavior is beyond
your control when it comes to me?
>
> >, when you keep insisting upon draggin your personal
> >dislike of me into current threads I participate in, and post irrelevant
> >personal attacks. And then follow up one another's posts with more
> >insults and attacks to make me look bad.
> >
> >Its impossible to interact with you men when all you do is focus
> >negative energy on me, and never interact with me in threads where there
> >is no rancor or ill will.
>
> But I only ever see you amidst dust and noise.
Then you have never really given me a chance Peter. And that is unjust
and unfair. You admit to only pay attention to threads involving rancor
and ill will, ignore the positive ones where I'm participating, and then
attempt to defend personal attacks against me--because you feel like it?
> >I've contributed a lot of positive
> >information about music to these newsgroups over the years. I have some
> >limited expertise no other posters have. Yet a very small handful of
> >you men just can't seem to leave me be. You must be terribly
> >threatened by the fact that I'm a strong, opinionated woman who relishes
> >a good argument.
>
> You show such glorious combativeness that the temptation to play on it
> can be irresistible.
And I love to engage people who are willing to play fair. But you, and
the other men like you, have never played fair with me Peter. Are
people supposed to be impressed by this?
>
> > There is nothing evil or bad about that, Peter.
>
> Didn't say there was.
You just behave as if there was.
>
> >Nothing, that is, unless you are profoundly uncomfortable around
> >feminists, which some of you clearly are.
>
> Most feminists I know to speak to have a sense of humour.
I happen to have a great sense of humor, Peter. Its too bad you've
never taken the time to get to know me in all the years I've been here
to find that out. I am a flawed human being, like we all are. I also
have some positive qualities you've never bothered to notice, because
you clearly seem to need to demonize me instead.
There has to be a reason for that. Though admittedly, none of the
reasons you have given since I asked why you decided to post your
attacks against me, give any indication as to what those reasons might
be. Which does suggest you have some prejudice against me you aren't
consciously aware of or in control of--which could be any number of
things. I do know nothing has infuriated some male English posters in
uk.music.folk more than my criticism of their nationalist prejudices.
That, and the fact I refuse to lick Ian's boots. With some of the men,
the bitterness towards me goes all the way back to the formation of
uk.music.folk.
>
> >I don't know what you hope to gain by doing this either. You want to be
> >a hero in your hometown? You hope to start a flame war, using me as
> >the bait? You get some perverse enjoyment out of engaging in the Usenet
> >equivalent of public stoning of posters you dislike or disagree with?
>
> Merely a public show of disapproval for the more earnest, long-winded
> and tedious sort of bore, which judgement you have just amply confirmed.
You are entitled to your opinion. But you might want to learn to keep it
to yourself. I suspect I may not be the only one looking like the
bad-tempered bore here, Peter.
> >
> >I mean really Peter, what the hell did I ever do to you to deserve this
> >kind of treatment from you?
> >
> What you did was to play the man rather than the ball by indulging in
> personal abuse on George, who may or may not merit it. Fair enough, what
> goes around...
Ah, I abused George Hawes. There are a few of you men in uk.music.folk
who don't seem to be able to defend yourselves from lil ole me, and feel
so threatened by me that you need security in numbers? Is that it?
George is so emasculated by me, he needs other men from uk.music.folk to
come to his rescue?
Well, it *is* beginning to make sense, in a wholly irrational, psychotic
sort of way...
Janet Ryan
george...@my-deja.com
JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
Unfortunately at this point DejaNews said:
Message segment 1 of 3 - Get Next Segment - Get All 3 Segments
And I thought "not bloody likely".
A brief history of this thread (from my limited Dejanews view of it);
please compare and contrast, folks:
Exchange 1:
JMR to FolkWorld: You've made some damn stupid mistakes in your
Capercaille review (yes, I may have spelt that wrong)
FolkWorld: You're right. I'm sorry, please blame the editor not the
author - I'll correct it.
Exchange w:
JMR: FolkWorld ought to by-line its articles, those who write for it
should be prepared to standbye their words
FolkWorld: But for a long while all are articles have been signed
JMR; Well that wasn't really what I meant, sorry I didn't express myself
clearly, my real complaint was . .
Janet, with your level of infallibility you need to stand for Pope.
G.
george...@my-deja.com
JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> But its good to see *you* finally get the name of the journal you were
> so staunchly defending right...
I've not been particularly defending anything . . just continuing my
campaign to expose the sham, hypocracy and bullshit which makes up such
a high proportion of your outpourings, Janet. Which, as I've remarked
before, IS a shame, as you have also made some most excellent posts.
IMO, of course, which I realise you don't value!
Peter Thomas
>
>
>>
snip the less relevant 80% on the Pareto principle - arbitrary but such
is life. And you normally snip anything valid that you chose not to
answer.
>You are entitled to your opinion. But you might want to learn to keep it
>to yourself.
After your own example?
>I suspect I may not be the only one looking like the
>bad-tempered bore here, Peter.
>
I have to say that having the back of a newly and expensively filled
molar just drop off may have, I hope temporarily, coloured a rather
disillusioned world-view.
You, Janet, have the doubtful distinction of being the only poster
anywhere in usenet I have ever felt the inclination, still less
bothered, to have a serious go at - pretty much enough said.
You get given a difficult time not because of your gender but because of
some of your postings are offensive. I suspect a degree of calculation
in this on your part, but it hardly matters.
snip
>George is so emasculated by me, he needs other men from uk.music.folk to
>come to his rescue?
The point was your need to drag the thing down as a matter of dreary
routine to the sex war and to name calling. Rather unpleasant, which is
why I would normally avoid your output.
>
>Well, it *is* beginning to make sense, in a wholly irrational, psychotic
>sort of way...
>
We are all rational within our own mindset - as are you, Janet.
Time for tea.
--
Peter Thomas
JMR
George Hawes attempts to set the folk straight about Janet Ryan with:
> A brief history of this thread (from my limited Dejanews view of it);
> please compare and contrast, folks:
> Exchange 1:
>
> JMR to FolkWorld: You've made some damn stupid mistakes in your
^^^^^^^^^
<Chuckling to herself *again*>
Oops! I guess I spoke too soon about you getting it right George!
I've gone to great lengths in this thread to get my points across on the
state of folk/trad/roots journalism. It is an on-topic thread for these
newsgroups. I voiced an opinion you disagreed with, and disagreed with
by attacking me personally (yet again) rather than make any legitimate
attempt to defend your own position. Which is so bloody off the mark,
you can't even get the name of the journal right.
I've given links to other websites for people to have a look-see for
themselves what easily accessible guidelines are out there for writing
credible, informative, legitmate reviews. I've discussed style
issues, and what some common journalistic standards are for music
journals. I've quoted some on-line writers and editors guideline
sites. I've given a lot of feedback to both Cliff, the editor, and a
writer from RootsWorld, Warren Senders, in alt.music.world. Granted,
criticism is always difficult to hear, but IMO, they needed to hear it.
There is a difference between professional criticism and personal
villification, George, even though its clear a number of you lack either
the intelligence or the wisdom (both) to distinguish between the two.
You men are behaving like children who ought to be sent to their rooms.
But I've had my say, and there is no point for anyone to respond to any
more of these posts. Your posts are irrelevant to the subject of the
thread, and no one in their right mind would try and contribute, now
that you Lemmingmen have come through here like raging bulls in a china
shop.
Janet Ryan
Chris Ryall
>But don't worry Peter--I'm well aware, as are others, that it is the
>English numerical majority who regularly tyrannizes and rules this
>newsgroup.
Die then mere non-englander. Your bones shall feed our english pigs!
Your death will be slow and horrid .....
--
Chris Ryall Just joking (surely she's not serious)?
Dominic Cronin
>
>And for certain posters in uk.music.folk, the letters "uk" represent
>free license for bashing and trashing some non-English peoples' genuine
>interests in their native traditions, who also happen to live within the
>borders of the UK.
>
Janet - you're at it again. That just isn't true is it? Nor is it very
sensible, seeing as the entire archives of the ng are available to all
and sundry.
I challenge you to find an example of "bashing and trashing some
non-English peoples' genuine interests in their native traditions" in
uk.music.folk. (Just for the record, u.m.f is specifically dedicated
to the discussion of UK traditions.)
If you can't find one, I am sure you have enough belief in your own
integrity to post a retraction and an apology.
--
Dominic Cronin
Amsterdam
JMR
Dominic Cronin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:36:05 -0600, JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >And for certain posters in uk.music.folk, the letters "uk" represent
> >free license for bashing and trashing some non-English peoples' genuine
> >interests in their native traditions, who also happen to live within the
> >borders of the UK.
> >
> Janet - you're at it again. That just isn't true is it? Nor is it very
> sensible, seeing as the entire archives of the ng are available to all
> and sundry.
>
> I challenge you to find an example of "bashing and trashing some
> non-English peoples' genuine interests in their native traditions" in
> uk.music.folk. (Just for the record, u.m.f is specifically dedicated
> to the discussion of UK traditions.)
Celtic music and Celtic peoples, particularly Irish music and Irish
artists. It reflects the English/British biases and prejudices in the
newsgroup. Its easy for non-UK and non-Anglophiles to see, and is
something those who engage in it, can't see in themselves because if
they did, they would have to change their way of being, seeing, and
acting in the world.
The bashing and trashing of Irish music in particular is a reflection of
the political divisions within the UK. It plays out in uk.music.folk all
the time. How do I know? How many people with an interest in Irish
music, for instance, ever discuss it in uk.music.folk?
On the other hand, what percentage of the newsgroup discussions revolve
around the dire state of English folk music, bashing Mike Harding for
not being English enough, and complaints that there is too much emphasis
on Irish music traditions in the UK sessions, the Celtic artist bashing,
etc etc etc
Janet Ryan
Dave Fawthrop
> The bashing and trashing of Irish music in particular is a reflection of
> the political divisions within the UK. It plays out in uk.music.folk all
> the time. How do I know? How many people with an interest in Irish
> music, for instance, ever discuss it in uk.music.folk?
This is *uk.music.folk*. We are however fairly tolerant of OT postings.
The last time I checked Ireland was a separate country.
Or have I missed something?
Dave F
JMR
Yah, I'd say.
Let's see, there is that fairly sizable population of Irish immigrants
and their descendants living in the UK. Lest y'all forget, the Irish
make up the largest ethnic minority workforce in Britain, and have been
the most important source of migrant labor there for 200 years. A few of
them even play folk music. In the UK even. Which raises a few eyebrows
when the dissing of Irish sessions/Irish music/Irish artists by English
posters begins...
Last time I checked, Northern Ireland was still considered to be part of
the United Kingdom, along with Wales and Scotland, countries which have
a cupla people with folk music interests in their native Celtic
traditions.
You know, I'm not trying to demonize anyone here. I'm just saying, the
biases and prejudices are much more obvious to outsiders than insiders
(ie non-UK residents), who aren't entangled in nationalist politics on a
daily, lifelong basis like UK and Irish residents are. I'm not exactly
the first person on the planet to notice a pronounced tendency among the
English to conflate "British" and "UK" with English and England.
I also haven't participated on the Ir-Trad list for a number of years
because of the level of intolerance on that list too, although there the
intolerance I personally find most difficult comes from mostly Americans
and their American prejudices and bigotries.
Biases, prejudices, and bigotry are present in all cultures. But it is
the culture of the specific group (in this case, Internet newsgroups)
which dictates how prevalent they become in the everyday discourse. It
has been my experience that the most intolerant and least welcoming
newsgroups of all the folk music newsgroups concerned with British and
Celtic music interests, are the two I have just mentioned. They also
seem to be full of people who believe their personal tastes in music and
their personal beliefs regarding nationalist cultural identities, is
proof of their superior intellect, breeding, and culture.
I find rec.music.folk, rec.music.celtic, the Scottish music mailing
list, Mudcat & the Breton list to be the least intolerant, most
welcoming, and most open-minded. Mudcat in particular has a joyous sense
of playfulness to it that simply doesn't exist in uk.music.folk. Having
been away from uk.music.folk for awhile, and just popped in now and
again during the course of this cross-posted thread, I'm reminded of
just how bloody grim the ambience in that newsgroup is. Words like
insufferably provincial and insular come to mind...
Hope my explanation helps, despite the fact it is inflammatory to those
who feel offended by it.
Janet Ryan
Richard Robinson
>"JMR" <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
>> the political divisions within the UK. It plays out in uk.music.folk all
>> the time. How do I know? How many people with an interest in Irish
>> music, for instance, ever discuss it in uk.music.folk?
>
>This is *uk.music.folk*.
This is, in fact, yet another crosspost.
Newsgroups: uk.music.folk,rec.music.celtic,alt.music.world,rec.music.folk
--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem
JMR
Richard Robinson wrote:
>
> In article <90b235$6qi$1...@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
> >"JMR" <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
> >> The bashing and trashing of Irish music in particular is a reflection of
> >> the political divisions within the UK. It plays out in uk.music.folk all
> >> the time. How do I know? How many people with an interest in Irish
> >> music, for instance, ever discuss it in uk.music.folk?
> >
> >This is *uk.music.folk*.
>
> This is, in fact, yet another crosspost.
>
> Newsgroups: uk.music.folk,rec.music.celtic,alt.music.world,rec.music.folk
Hello Richard,
Is there a consensus among uk.music.folk posters that they don't want
this thread cross-posted to their newsgroup? I ask, because I haven't
followed this thread from uk.music.folk...if people there don't want to
have cross-posts going to uk.music.folk, I'm happy to accomodate that.
Enough folks interested in following in thread often lurk/post in
rec.music.folk or rec.music.celtic, so can follow the discussion in
those groups.
I have no problem with limiting the discussion to newsgroups where it is
welcome.
Janet Ryan
Sarah Cheffins
and their descendants living in the UK. Lest y'all forget, the Irish
make up the largest ethnic minority workforce in Britain, and have been
the most important source of migrant labor there for 200 years. A few of
them even play folk music. In the UK even. Which raises a few eyebrows
when the dissing of Irish sessions/Irish music/Irish artists by English
posters begins..."
I'm English, I play a lot of Irish music with largely English musicians who
like Irish music. Looking at the posting on this newsgroup I have yet to
see the dissing of Irish music by English posters here. What there does
seem to be a general consensus about is the fact that English music is in
decline - in practice and on the air. Irish on the other hand is in the
ascendency - hence any festival you go to bar very few in this country you
will find mostly Irish sessions.
Does the denigration of bodhran players by any chance count for dissing of
Irish music? If so, then I don't think musicians in general (other than
bodhran players) would disagree. However, it is the instrument and what it
is used for, rather than its origin which is the general problem.
I will now go back and lurk.
Cheers
Sarah Cheffins
Jonathan Quick
>
> On the other hand, what percentage of the newsgroup discussions revolve
> around the dire state of English folk music, bashing Mike Harding for
> not being English enough, and complaints that there is too much emphasis
> on Irish music traditions in the UK sessions, the Celtic artist bashing,
> etc etc etc
You should feel sympathy, Janet! English folk music *is* in a sorry state
(possibly 'cos it's so uninspiring and dirgey, possibly not) while Irish
folk music is really what the entire western world regards as "folk" and
what most people (English included) would rather listen to when they want
traditional music. So those strange individuals who actually like the
droning, turgid, frequently sexist songs that make up most English
traditional music really can't be blamed for wanting more exposure for what
is, after all, part of English heritage (along with social injustice,
colonial oppression, racism etc).
--
Jonathan.
Email: jonatha...@foxtrot.co.uk
Homepage: http://www.foxtrot.co.uk
David Harris
David
Peter Thomas
writes
>
snip
>On the other hand, what percentage of the newsgroup discussions revolve
>around the dire state of English folk music, bashing Mike Harding for
>not being English enough,
Ah - but MH is the wrong sort of English
Ducks
--
Peter Thomas
Peter Thomas
writted
>
snip
> Words like
>insufferably provincial and insular come to mind...
>
There's a lot of good to be said for provincial and insular.
Seek out and enjoy what is already here.
Just walked round the Lammas Lands, flooding yet again, seen water on
the Navigation pouring over the top of the lock gates and the evening
light reflected on the still surface of the lock. Heard the river itself
roar through the sluices. Hell Ditch roaring round a fallen tree.
Eaten buttered crumpets with our tea.
And, yes, the music of the land is easily swamped and lost if it isn't
given space and time to breathe and to be heard.
Local differentiation?
Anyway, all being well, the Copper Family are on in Farncombe, the
Friday before Christmas.
--
Peter Thomas
David Harris
Beautiful use of language :)
Send me some of ya Pomes
David :))
JMR
Jonathan Quick wrote:
>
> "JMR" <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
> news:3A28F783...@tc.umn.edu...
> >
> > On the other hand, what percentage of the newsgroup discussions revolve
> > around the dire state of English folk music, bashing Mike Harding for
> > not being English enough, and complaints that there is too much emphasis
> > on Irish music traditions in the UK sessions, the Celtic artist bashing,
> > etc etc etc
>
> You should feel sympathy, Janet! English folk music *is* in a sorry state
> (possibly 'cos it's so uninspiring and dirgey, possibly not)
I love English music Jonathan, and of course I'm sad it's in decline. So
is the Irish song tradition in Ireland and throughout the diaspora. I'm
sad about that too. I'm also sad that the music of the Dakota people,
who are neighbors and friends of mine here in Minnesota, has literally
disappeared off the face of the earth in the span of my lifetime, and it
was virtually unpreserved, unlike both English and Irish music.
I love England, and have been there twice. I have family there (by
marriage) and have been blessed with English friends over the years. I
just don't happen to believe English people, any more than anyone else I
encounter in my daily life, should be above criticism. Anti-Irish
bigotry in England is a serious problem for many Irish people. Many
English people believe there is no discrimination and bigotry against
the Irish at all. If people in English society in general don't accept
that anti-Irish bigotry and discrimination in England is a problem, it
should come as no surprise when English people posting in music
newsgroups don't recognize it when happens here, or deny that they
engage in it when confronted about it. Just as most people react when
criticized for their behavior.
while Irish
> folk music is really what the entire western world regards as "folk"
I disagree with this entirely, particularly for the US, where the
popularity of Irish music is very recent, and not that widespread. It is
most certainly not as popular in reality in the US, as is the belief
that it is in the imagination of English folk music enthusiasts.
Also, just because Irish music is currently enjoying wider popularity
than it ever has, doesn't mean that the popularity of Irish music is
responsible for the decline of English folk music. It often seems to
be portrayed that way in uk.music.folk when people wring their hands
over the decline of English music. The decline of folk and traditional
music is, in England as it is everywhere, profoundly complex.
and
> what most people (English included) would rather listen to when they want
> traditional music.
That too will change with time, as fashions always do.
So those strange individuals who actually like the
> droning, turgid, frequently sexist songs that make up most English
> traditional music really can't be blamed for wanting more exposure for what
> is, after all, part of English heritage (along with social injustice,
> colonial oppression, racism etc).
And some of the best scholarship in the world on pharmacognosy, some
incredibly brilliant developments in maritime science, and a whole lot
of other very positive things.
Janet Ryan
Jon
Jonathan Quick <n...@spam.here> wrote:
> You should feel sympathy, Janet! English folk music *is* in a sorry state
Err:
LJE
David Hughes
Kate Rusby
Roy Harper
Liza Carthy
Vikki Clayton
Stackridge
annA rydeR
Chris and Julie
Steeleye
FC
All producing excellent work
and many more....
Jon.
--
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/jghall/fairport/fc.html
Home of the Fairport Convention mailing list FAQs
Ken Bradburn
writes
>Janet Ryan
Ahhhh........now if it isn't Janet. I should mention that I'm still
waiting for you to fulfil your promise to me of at least 18 months maybe
even two years ago. I surely can't take anything you say seriously until
your as good as your word.
Best Wishes
Ken Bradburn
Dominic Cronin
>
>
>Dominic Cronin wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:36:05 -0600, JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >And for certain posters in uk.music.folk, the letters "uk" represent
>> >free license for bashing and trashing some non-English peoples' genuine
>> >interests in their native traditions, who also happen to live within the
>> >borders of the UK.
>> >
>> Janet - you're at it again. That just isn't true is it? Nor is it very
>> sensible, seeing as the entire archives of the ng are available to all
>> and sundry.
>>
>> I challenge you to find an example of "bashing and trashing some
>> non-English peoples' genuine interests in their native traditions" in
>> uk.music.folk. (Just for the record, u.m.f is specifically dedicated
>> to the discussion of UK traditions.)
>
>Celtic music and Celtic peoples, particularly Irish music and Irish
>artists. It reflects the English/British biases and prejudices in the
>newsgroup. Its easy for non-UK and non-Anglophiles to see, and is
>something those who engage in it, can't see in themselves because if
>they did, they would have to change their way of being, seeing, and
>acting in the world.
>
>The bashing and trashing of Irish music in particular is a reflection of
>the political divisions within the UK. It plays out in uk.music.folk all
>the time. How do I know? How many people with an interest in Irish
>music, for instance, ever discuss it in uk.music.folk?
>
>On the other hand, what percentage of the newsgroup discussions revolve
>around the dire state of English folk music, bashing Mike Harding for
>not being English enough, and complaints that there is too much emphasis
>on Irish music traditions in the UK sessions, the Celtic artist bashing,
>etc etc etc
>
>Janet Ryan
And your example? The challenge is still unanswered!
--
Dominic Cronin
Amsterdam
Richard Robinson
>Richard Robinson wrote:
>> In article <90b235$6qi$1...@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
>> >
>> >This is *uk.music.folk*.
>>
>> This is, in fact, yet another crosspost.
>>
>> Newsgroups: uk.music.folk,rec.music.celtic,alt.music.world,rec.music.folk
>
>this thread cross-posted to their newsgroup? I ask, because I haven't
>followed this thread from uk.music.folk...if people there don't want to
>have cross-posts going to uk.music.folk, I'm happy to accomodate that.
>Enough folks interested in following in thread often lurk/post in
>rec.music.folk or rec.music.celtic, so can follow the discussion in
>those groups.
>
>I have no problem with limiting the discussion to newsgroups where it is
>welcome.
Speaking only for myself - about 40% of the volume in u.m.f at the moment is
crossposts, and this thread makes up about 40% of that. I wish both of these
were not the case. Different groups, different agendas.
bogus address
>> I challenge you to find an example of "bashing and trashing some
>> non-English peoples' genuine interests in their native traditions" in
>> uk.music.folk.
> artists.
For fucksake. You know damn well that the kind of "Irish music" that
attracts such distaste here is *not* the music of the Irish in Britain.
It's a middle-class hobby of people who would rather participate in
a fake culture created by the global recording industry than find out
anything about what the British working class (of whatever ethnicity)
has created. It's a rootless product, eminently suitable to a mobile
bourgeoisie: if your company sends you to help set up a branch in
Frankfurt there'll be an "Irish" pub there full of German musicians
who'll know the same tunes you do. This culture has very little to
do with the sort of settled Irish community you find in Glasgow.
The problem with it is that it's associated with the denigration of
indigenous tradition, a process that has been going on for about 150
years ever since the English bourgeoisie chose to believe that folk
song was all written by Thomas Moore. Scotland is now recovering from
its attack of this disease (dating to the 1970s), but it's *still*
easier to find an Irish session in a Scottish city than a Scottish
one, the players of this "Irish" music being overwhelmingly Scottish
and English.
Australians have a nice phrase for such pathologically xenophilic
attitudes: "cultural cringe".
There is of course plenty of genuine, unstereotyped, not-making-a-
single-dollar-for-record-executives Irish music in the UK too, as
performed by people who know the traditions of Ireland or the Irish
diaspora first-hand. And most of the posters here recognize the real
thing just fine.
In fact I get the impression that both Welsh and English folk music
(as participant activities, what I mot care about) are starting to
shrug off the "Irish"/"Celtic"/American marketroids as well, but I'm
not often in England and haven't been to Wales since 1980ish so I'm
guessing.
Followups to u.m.f.
========> Email to "jc" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce. <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
george...@my-deja.com
"Jonathan Quick" <n...@spam.here> wrote:
> You should feel sympathy, Janet! English folk music *is* in
> a sorry state
Your evidence?
Posting from relative ignorance is an attribute you and Janet share.
However whereas she does often know what she's talking about I've never
seen any sign that you're even within sight of any clue about any Folk
music, including the Irish music which you profess to prefer.
Jonathan Quick
news:90fsl2$ld1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <90bbvj$6hf$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
>
> > You should feel sympathy, Janet! English folk music *is* in
> > a sorry state
> Your evidence?
*You* are my evidence :-)
> Posting from relative ignorance is an attribute you and Janet share.
> However whereas she does often know what she's talking about I've never
> seen any sign that you're even within sight of any clue about any Folk
> music, including the Irish music which you profess to prefer.
No I don't know anything about folk music, I just play it...
JMR
Well now, here is a man who puts a smile on my face...how I've missed
you!
You are, as always, very wise for taking the tack of public shaming to
get me to honor that promise. Always the clever strategist! Please
know kind sir, that it sometimes takes me years to return books & CDs
I've borrowed as well. But I *do* get around to it. Eventually. Usually.
However, I don't recall ever having taken a full decade. So, since I'm
still well below that threshold regarding my promise (and I don't
believe there is a statue of limitation upon it?), you shall have it.
This year even. ;-) As a Christmas gift!
Its been much too long since I've sent off mysterious gifts through the
post to those I've a fondness for--and I've you to thank for shaming me
into remembering that!
Post me off-line with your address again for expediency sake, and the
mystery package will be on its way! I've a fist full of postage
stamps, and this year, I'm threatening to use them. Though I don't think
I've sent Christmas cards for the better part of a decade. (Mind's eye
catches a glimpse of piles of cards from previous years when they were
bought with loving intent, but a pronounced lack of discipline).
As to my word--its not near as good your patience, is it?
I best hear from you soon. But please don't lash yourself to the
mailbox just yet. If you were to be swept away in the storms waiting
for delivery each day until 3:00, I could never live with myself...
Janet Ryan
JMR
Richard Robinson wrote about the cross-posts in the thread:
> Speaking only for myself - about 40% of the volume in u.m.f at the moment is
> crossposts, and this thread makes up about 40% of that. I wish both of these
> were not the case. Different groups, different agendas.
It appears some uk.music.folk posters have already eliminated a number
of cross-posts by both posting their responses only to umf, or setting
follow-ups there.
Since its not too surprising to see this closing of ranks, and
withdrawal back into the newsgroup where some British posters feel
safely ensconced among their own, I'll honor that.
I find it most telling though, that no umf posters have claimed their
newsgroup actually *welcomes* the discussion of Irish and Celtic music.
Rather, the responses have been defenses of why Irish music,
contemporary Celtic music, Celtic music fusions with jazz, new age, pop,
or classical music deserves to be villified, trashed, and bashed. Or why
it should be discussed elsewhere. Or of umf being a newsgroup for a
discussion of *English* traditions (its "UK".music.folk, after all...).
It appears umf posters themselves have proved the point I made, with
their responses. Its clearer than ever to me that posters with a
passion for Irish and Celtic music are not *really* welcome here,
despite the protests to the contrary by the guilty. And despite the fact
all the music I've just named falls easily within the remit of
discussion in this newsgroup, according to its charter.
No one enjoys being in a place where they don't feel welcome, including
myself. I know I am most unwelcome here (among the most vocal umf
posters, at least), so this will be my last cross-post to umf.
And I will do my very best in future not to lose sight of which
newsgroups messages I respond to are cross-posted to, to avoid my posts
appearing in umf. That should make us all happy, since God knows, I'm in
no danger of running into the lot of you in rec.music.celtic, eh? ;-)
The silver lining to the dark cloud hanging over this thead, for me,
has been hearing from some of you I haven't chatted with in a long
while! And to meet a few of you who have come to the newsgroup since I
left.
I wish *all* of you (yes, all) a joyous and safe holiday season.
All the best,
Janet Ryan
Richard Robinson
>Richard Robinson wrote about the cross-posts in the thread:
>
>> Speaking only for myself - about 40% of the volume in u.m.f at the moment is
>> crossposts, and this thread makes up about 40% of that. I wish both of these
>> were not the case. Different groups, different agendas.
>
>It appears some uk.music.folk posters have already eliminated a number
>of cross-posts by both posting their responses only to umf, or setting
>follow-ups there.
I am one of those who tends to do this. I regard it as normal to only post
into groups I read. If there is an argument for initiating a crosspost,
I'd want to set followups (and draw attention to that fact) as a way of
steering the discussion away from crosspostedness. I regard it as
discourteous to treat groups as "write-only" :- posting into them and
not reading what else is posted.
which is what I'll do in this thread from now on.
>Since its not too surprising to see this closing of ranks, and
>withdrawal back into the newsgroup where some British posters feel
>safely ensconced among their own, I'll honor that.
That seems pointlessly rude. If you really are going to stop dropping
these sneers onto us, thank you in advance.
[snipped, more comments which can't be answered without prolonging the
crossposts].
>I wish *all* of you (yes, all) a joyous and safe holiday season.
>
>All the best,
And the same to you, whenever you take your holidays ;)
David Kilpatrick
2/12/2000 9:25 pm:
>
>
> Jonathan Quick wrote:
>>
>> "JMR" <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
>> news:3A28F783...@tc.umn.edu...
>>>
>>> On the other hand, what percentage of the newsgroup discussions revolve
>>> around the dire state of English folk music, bashing Mike Harding for
>>> not being English enough, and complaints that there is too much emphasis
>>> on Irish music traditions in the UK sessions, the Celtic artist bashing,
>>> etc etc etc
>>
>> You should feel sympathy, Janet! English folk music *is* in a sorry state
>> (possibly 'cos it's so uninspiring and dirgey, possibly not)
>
>
> I love English music Jonathan, and of course I'm sad it's in decline. So
> is the Irish song tradition in Ireland and throughout the diaspora. I'm
> sad about that too.
I am sure it has been said before, not been in this group long enough to
know, but a substantial amount of what we call Irish folk music is no more
Irish than it could be called English. As in Scotland, it is often just a
question of the survival of older songs or tunes which were originally
English and often 'European' - or came from other countries. Thus a dance or
a song air which was common in England 400 years ago would make its way to
Ireland, undergo some changes, and return in this century. And the
vernacular commerce in song between Scotland and Ireland was constant and
continual until very recently.
Conversation in the pub on Friday with Jock - he was born in 1944, and
brought up in farming, no electricity etc, very remote location. Jock went
through some of his memories of how big Tommy Nevin (still around!) 'ran'
the Irish seasonal farmworkers here, how he preferred Donegal men, would
only pay them half their wages and send the rest back by post to their
families - and of the men, and the songs they sang, and how these are not
like the 'Irish songs' or tunes everyone thinks of. They were a genuinely
oral tradition too as some of the singers could neither read nor write,
which seems unexpected in the 1960s and 70s but apparently was the case.
Jock says he thinks the Donegal songs were more melodic and varied in
approach than popular 'Irish' today. This only ended about 20 years ago.
One of the reasons for the 'failure' of English folk song is that much of it
is poetic, sweet, fairly sentimental and formal, highly melodic and
old-fashioned. Vaughan Williams may have loved that side of it, but for the
average modern male English folk singer it's too lacking in macho attitude!
So you get an irresistably urge to sing nasally, drone, select stuff with an
industrial, crudely rustic or highly regional tone, and basically uglify the
tradition. Just exactly why Scots and Irish men seem quite prepared to sing
melodically, to use archaic or poetic language naturally, and deal with
relationships other than murder but not feel wimpish in the process I don't
know.
But one result of all this is relegate (and I am not being sexist) some of
the best of English folk song to the female repertoire. That's fine
professionally - female singers seem to be as well represented, if not
better than men, 'above the line'. But on the floor of the average session
there seem to be a lot of folky blokes. And blokes aren't very keen on doing
anything other than blokey songs... and those happen to be the least
appealing songs in the English canon!
David (Scotland, ex England, half Scottish, really should be Irish with a
name like mine, one quarter Welsh, and the English bit was Northern anyway,
grew up singing 'John Peel' and 'Oh, No John, No John' and still not that
ashamed of it).
David Kilpatrick
on 2/12/2000 11:05 pm:
> In article <90bbvj$6hf$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
> Jonathan Quick <n...@spam.here> wrote:
>
>
>> You should feel sympathy, Janet! English folk music *is* in a sorry state
>
list clipped
> Steeleye
> FC
>
> All producing excellent work
>
It was only after moving to Scotland that I found the sources for all the
Steeleye stuff I really liked back in the 1970s - Scottish (esp Border)
ballads... I always thought the songs were English because they sang 'em
that way! DK
JMR
You wrote:
> I am sure it has been said before, not been in this group long enough to
> know, but a substantial amount of what we call Irish folk music is no more
> Irish than it could be called English.
Weeellll...I have heard that theory put forward, and seen it stated as
if it were universal fact at times here in the newsgroups. I understand
it is a widely held belief in certain British folk music circles.
There certainly are many songs shared in the English language ballad
tradition among the peoples of those islands, but that is something one
would expect, considering the history of colonization there,
particularly as it relates to migrant laborers. English language songs
have been part and parcel of the anglicization process.
However, that theory holds no water when you are talking about the
Celtic language song traditions. Irish language songs, for instance,
are rooted in a lyric tradition, not a narrative ballad tradition. And
very few English language songs have been appropriated into the Irish
language song tradition, largely because Irish language singers have
never thought the English language songs "fit" or "worked" in Irish. So
there goes the "universal" aspect of the theory right
there--transmission of the songs has been very one way--and almost
entirely through the English language. Ethnographers and
ethnomusicologists look more for that than they do shared folk motifs,
shared tunes, etc nowadays. In Ireland, the work of younger
musicologists like Lillis O'Laoire looking at the behavior of the
singers themselves, now regularly acknowledge there are bi-lingual
influences in the Gaeltacht regions, but still recognize and clearly
distinguish Anglo and Gaelic. There *are* differences. Profoundly
meaningful differences to the culture of the Gaeltacht particularly,
which can't be dismissed so easily by these "universalist" theorists
(whose theories have been nearly universally abandoned by contemporary
social scientists!)
As in Scotland, it is often just a
> question of the survival of older songs or tunes which were originally
> English and often 'European' - or came from other countries. Thus a dance or
> a song air which was common in England 400 years ago would make its way to
> Ireland, undergo some changes, and return in this century. And the
> vernacular commerce in song between Scotland and Ireland was constant and
> continual until very recently.
All true. But also, not applicable to anything but the English language
song tradition and the tunes. But there most certainly are differences
between the English language and Celtic languages' song traditions,
despite the fact that many *tunes* set to the songs are shared.
>
> Conversation in the pub on Friday with Jock - he was born in 1944, and
> brought up in farming, no electricity etc, very remote location. Jock went
> through some of his memories of how big Tommy Nevin (still around!) 'ran'
> the Irish seasonal farmworkers here, how he preferred Donegal men, would
> only pay them half their wages and send the rest back by post to their
> families - and of the men, and the songs they sang, and how these are not
> like the 'Irish songs' or tunes everyone thinks of. They were a genuinely
> oral tradition too as some of the singers could neither read nor write,
> which seems unexpected in the 1960s and 70s but apparently was the case.
> Jock says he thinks the Donegal songs were more melodic and varied in
> approach than popular 'Irish' today. This only ended about 20 years ago.
>
Yes, and actually is still the case, to a certain extent in the Donegal
Gaeltacht. Very little fieldwork has been done in Gweedore, for
instance (there are currently no collectors working there). Tory Island
is the main case cited nowadays for being almost completely dominated by
the oral tradition. But Tory isn't different just because of the song
tradition. Much of the living Gaelic traditions in Tory are dying out
quickly, now that normalized transportation to the mainland is
present. For instance, all of the kids on Tory now get sent to the
mainland for school. I lived in the harbor where their boat came & went
every week for a year.
> One of the reasons for the 'failure' of English folk song is that much of it
> is poetic, sweet, fairly sentimental and formal, highly melodic and
> old-fashioned. Vaughan Williams may have loved that side of it, but for the
> average modern male English folk singer it's too lacking in macho attitude!
That's their identity problem. It doesn't mean the rest of us have to
accept it. I, for one, certainly don't. I couldn't care less about
their sexist traditions--if they all die tomorrow, it won't happen soon
enough for all humanity, IMO.
> So you get an irresistably urge to sing nasally, drone, select stuff with an
> industrial, crudely rustic or highly regional tone, and basically uglify the
> tradition.
Which says a lot more about the men doing the singing than it does about
the tradition, eh?
Just exactly why Scots and Irish men seem quite prepared to sing
> melodically, to use archaic or poetic language naturally, and deal with
> relationships other than murder but not feel wimpish in the process I don't
> know.
Because their cultures support their way of being men, much to the
disgust and dismay of the macho types. That is just as true in Ireland
as it is in England though. Gender roles among those who have
assimilated more will reflect the gender expectations of the English.
Those who have resisted assimilation will also reflect some aspects of
the gender expectations of the English, but will also retain gender
expectations of their native cultures. Personally, living in Donegal,
I found there were pronounced differences in certain social behaviors
from Dublin, which is much more anglicized than the Donegal
Gaeltacht. And in other things, which many people referred to as the
"American" influences on their Gaeltacht culture, were actually English.
I attributed that to the fact that more people from that area emigrate
to the States than to England, so hence their expectations that the
non--Gaelic, Anglo influences were American. The majority of migrations
out of the Gaeltacht however, are either to Dublin or Scotland, so the
majority of the Anglo influences were still very much a result of
anglicization patterns in those locations. Don't get me wrong, there
*is* a fair amount of Anglo American influence in Donegal as there is
everywhere in Ireland, but its not near as much as the English
influences. Which only makes sense, because of proximity and history.
>
> But one result of all this is relegate (and I am not being sexist) some of
> the best of English folk song to the female repertoire. That's fine
> professionally - female singers seem to be as well represented, if not
> better than men, 'above the line'. But on the floor of the average session
> there seem to be a lot of folky blokes. And blokes aren't very keen on doing
> anything other than blokey songs... and those happen to be the least
> appealing songs in the English canon!
I could care less about the folky blokes *or* their song traditions. And
don't kid yourself David--these sexist attitudes are not found only
among the folky blokes. They are prevalent in *all* parts of every
society, everywhere on the planet.
For instance, the sexist harrassment of successful Irish women poets
internationally by the male dominated Irish poetry establishment in the
last 20 years was so bad, a group of enlightened men finally put out
their own book about it in Ireland. I experienced it first hand myself
while living there, and working in the Irish poetry community. Sexism
isn't something only practiced by lager louts--the more educated the
sexist male, the more vicious and damaging their behavior becomes
towards women and men who aren't willing to play the sexist macho game.
Nice chatting with you.
Janet Ryan
Peter Thomas
<da...@g8ina.enta.net> writes
Thanks for that, David Harris
Got a mini-saga somewhere - rummages - upstairs 'puter now jammed solid
with frozen screen-saver after finding so far only mini-saga Word file
in wife's sub-directory which will be one of her teaching thingies - may
only exist on a piece of paper - must have another dig.
--
Peter Thomas
Peter Lane of TribalWorld
Whether you like it or not music, as well as a way of life for the artists,
is also at best an industry that should give the both satisfaction,
recognition and, if they want it, a decent return for what they do.
I am not a journalist ( hack or otherwise ) but a mature ( maybe even old at
63 ) working guy who runs a small distribution thing at night so a few
artists can get a fair share of what their efforts are worth. Don't presume
to lecture those like me who put in.
I find there are a number of good music journalists ( mainly fairly young )
who are mostly musicians themselves and are prepared to help artists with
worthwhile stuff outside of the mainstream to get known. They charge nothing
and tell the truth, as they see it, about what is submitted to them. Where
do you get off putting them down ?? Is it perhaps that your music is
actually no good and someone has told you that ?? See, now you have got me
playing your confrontational games but I do it in the hope that you can see
that whatever hurt and injustice there is in my comments is just like what
you are raving about.
I hold no respect for the many in the music industry who feed greedily off
the creative artists but I find many in the music world who are more than
willing to share and contribute. Why not put your fire into a practical
contribution to the welfare of the artist community rather than trying to
pick fights. If you don't like the views of a particular person then don't
read them and don't give them anything to review. You will find plenty of
good ones out there and maybe could even be one if you got a life.
Peter Lane
JMR <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:3A1E7B9D...@tc.umn.edu...
> Peter Lane of TribalWorld wrote:
> >
> > No wonder our industry is in trouble when this much energy is expended
on
> > confrontational bullshit when it is almost impossible to get good music
> > reviewed.
> > Peter Lane - TribalWorld Music - Australia
>
> For starters, I've no allegiance to your "industry." My allegiance is to
> the artists who create music, not the industry hacks (like incompetent
> music journalists) who feed off their creative endeavors.
>
> But allegiances aside, perhaps you can explain just how getting good
> music reviewed by incompetent reviewers, who don't even possess the most
> rudimentary knowledge of the music and the artists they are reviewing,
> would be of help your "troubled industry"?
>
> Just because some people in the business are desperate enough to operate
> according to the "any press is good press" standard of credibility and
> integrity, doesn't mean we all need ascribe to it.
>
> A strong argument could be made that one of the things holding this
> "troubled industry" (as you choose to refer to the music) back is a much
> too prevalent lack of credibility and integrity amongst industry hacks
> who cynically put themselves above and before the artists who actually
> do the creative work.
>
> Janet Ryan
JMR
bogus address wrote:
>
> [ Irish songs ]
> > English language songs have been part and parcel of the anglicization
> > process.
>
> They have also been part and parcel of the de-Anglicization process -
What "de-Anglicization" process might that be, Jack?
>
> > And very few English language songs have been appropriated into the Irish
> > language song tradition, largely because Irish language singers have
> > never thought the English language songs "fit" or "worked" in Irish.
>
> What is the relationship between "Oro se do bheatha 'bhaile" and "What
> shall we do with the drunken sailor"? Same tune, similar verbal
> patterning. What function did the Irish one originally serve?
What's the purpose of your asking? What I said is a well-known fact.
Very few English language songs have made their way into the Gaelic song
canon. Some have. Which is what I said the first time.
What function that song served in Irish is irrelevant to me, and to my
remarks. If its relevant to you, make your case.
>
> >> One of the reasons for the 'failure' of English folk song is that much of
> >> it is poetic, sweet, fairly sentimental and formal, highly melodic and
> >> old-fashioned. Vaughan Williams may have loved that side of it, but for
> >> the average modern male English folk singer it's too lacking in macho
> >> attitude!
> > That's their identity problem. It doesn't mean the rest of us have to
> > accept it. I, for one, certainly don't.
>
> You show no sign of accepting the feminine side of it either.
Now you claim to not only know my personal taste in music (something I
have rarely revealed in the newsgroups), but to dictate it to me as
well?
>
> [in Ireland]
> > Gender roles among those who have assimilated more will reflect the
> > gender expectations of the English. Those who have resisted
> > assimilation will also reflect some aspects of the gender expectations
> > of the English, but will also retain gender expectations of their
> > native cultures. Personally, living in Donegal, I found there were
> > pronounced differences in certain social behaviors from Dublin, which
> > is much more anglicized than the Donegal Gaeltacht.
> > And in other things, which many people referred to as the "American"
> > influences on their Gaeltacht culture, were actually English.
>
> Concrete examples, please?
Such as? And again, for what reason are you asking? So what if I make
generalizations. There is nothing wrong with making generalizations when
they are carefully considered remarks.
I'm speaking from personal experience and observation, having lived for
four months in Dublin and a year in the heart of the Donegal Gaeltacht.
I didn't claim to be an expert in my remarks. I stated my opinions
based upon personal experience and observation.
Besides, the subject of cultural difference in perceived gender roles
between Gaelic and Anglo Irish cultures has never been addressed by any
scholars or writers, to my knowledge. So just how would you suggest I
provide "the facts" as you call them, to "prove" what I said is right,
wrong, or neither?
This is a large set of generalizations to
> make without some facts to back them up. (The main difference in
> gender expectations I've noticed between the Irish side of my family
> and the Scots/English one is that the Irish were more acquiescent in
> the exclusive right of males to property, the other side had more
> independent women).
Now Jack, we both know that no matter what examples from my own personal
experience and observation I might give, you'll not accept it as
legitmate. Your responses to my posts of late have been nothing more
than rude and obnoxious attempts to discredit me, rather than share what
you know graciously.
There is nothing about my remarks which can be "proven" with academic
certainties (an oxymoron, IMO) or literary examples. But that doesn't in
any way, shape, or form invalidate my sharing personal, anecdotal
examples in Usenet newsgroups. People are free to take it or leave it,
as they like. I need not prove myself to you or anyone else to do it
either. And you are free to disagree with it.
So hows about you go take a flyin' leap--I'm fed up with you.
Janet Ryan
bogus address
[ Irish songs ]
> English language songs have been part and parcel of the anglicization
> process.
They have also been part and parcel of the de-Anglicization process -
political songs in Ireland (at least, the effective ones) are all in
English, and have been since the 1850s.
> And very few English language songs have been appropriated into the Irish
> language song tradition, largely because Irish language singers have
> never thought the English language songs "fit" or "worked" in Irish.
What is the relationship between "Oro se do bheatha 'bhaile" and "What
shall we do with the drunken sailor"? Same tune, similar verbal
patterning. What function did the Irish one originally serve?
>> One of the reasons for the 'failure' of English folk song is that much of
>> it is poetic, sweet, fairly sentimental and formal, highly melodic and
>> old-fashioned. Vaughan Williams may have loved that side of it, but for
>> the average modern male English folk singer it's too lacking in macho
>> attitude!
> That's their identity problem. It doesn't mean the rest of us have to
> accept it. I, for one, certainly don't.
You show no sign of accepting the feminine side of it either.
I don't think it goes for non-average singers either. Nic Jones wasn't
exactly White Van Man with a guitar and Jez Lowe isn't either, from the
limited amount I've heard of each.
[in Ireland]
> Gender roles among those who have assimilated more will reflect the
> gender expectations of the English. Those who have resisted
> assimilation will also reflect some aspects of the gender expectations
> of the English, but will also retain gender expectations of their
> native cultures. Personally, living in Donegal, I found there were
> pronounced differences in certain social behaviors from Dublin, which
> is much more anglicized than the Donegal Gaeltacht.
> And in other things, which many people referred to as the "American"
> influences on their Gaeltacht culture, were actually English.
Concrete examples, please? This is a large set of generalizations to
make without some facts to back them up. (The main difference in
gender expectations I've noticed between the Irish side of my family
and the Scots/English one is that the Irish were more acquiescent in
the exclusive right of males to property, the other side had more
independent women).
Followups to rec.music.folk (I don't read the other groups).