Who's Susan Werner?
JMR
Was wondering whether anyone's familiar with Susan Werner's music. She's
opening for Janis Ian at the Bottom Line on Sat. 10/18.
I'm not familiar with her work.
Thanks,
Joanie
--
reply to jmr...@pipeline.com
Bill Boroson
In article <jmrnyc-1410...@user-38lcfoo.dialup.mindspring.com>,
jmr...@pipeline.com says...
Joanie,
Susan Werner is a singer-songwriter from Philadelphia and is *extremely*
musically talented. She plays guitar and piano and has a beautiful
voice. Her songs range from being folk- and pop-oriented to jazz- and
cabaret-oriented. Her "Live at Tin Angel" CD just won't get out of my
CD-player. You will not be disappointed! For more info see:
http://www.songs.com/susan
Enjoy the show,
Bill
ghost
->In article <jmrnyc-1410...@user-38lcfoo.dialup.mindspring.com>,
->jmr...@pipeline.com says...
->> Was wondering whether anyone's familiar with Susan Werner's music. She's
->> opening for Janis Ian at the Bottom Line on Sat. 10/18.
->> I'm not familiar with her work.
->> Thanks,
->> Joanie
Would "she's a horrible self-aggrandizing crowd-manipulator with a repertoire
that goes from insipid to the far-right-wing side of political commentary,
with only a very few stops along the way at anything most audiences not made up
of her peers (self-appointed ice-princesses) could relate to" be a good short
reply?
I can do a longer one.
PegBertsch
>Would "she's a horrible self-aggrandizing crowd-manipulator with a repertoire
>that goes from insipid to the far-right-wing side of political commentary,
>with only a very few stops along the way at anything most audiences not made
>up
>of her peers (self-appointed ice-princesses) could relate to" be a good short
>reply?
>
>I can do a longer one.
>
it's ghost....and he's baaaaaaaaaaaaack!!!!!
--peg (who had a sudden rush of deja vu, took me back a couple of years at
least ;-)
ghost
In article <19971015035...@ladder02.news.aol.com> pegbe...@aol.com (PegBertsch) writes:
No she didn't, oh mailer, *I* wrote:
+>>Would "she's a horrible self-aggrandizing crowd-manipulator with a repertoire
+>>that goes from insipid to the far-right-wing side of political commentary,
+>>with only a very few stops along the way at anything most audiences not made
+>>up
+>>of her peers (self-appointed ice-princesses) could relate to" be a good short
+>>reply?
+>>I can do a longer one.
>it's ghost....and he's baaaaaaaaaaaaack!!!!!
>--peg (who had a sudden rush of deja vu, took me back a couple of years at
> least ;-)
Don't Cry For Me, Peg Bertsch-ia (<- that's artistic license, not mispelling)
The Truth Is, I Never Left You
(It was gonna be "Peg Bertisch-a" but I figured that was too *much* license)
TEShaw
Well I'm not as violently Anti-Susan Werner as Ghost, but I do think this is an
opportunity to start a dialogue..Not about what Folk Music is, (The longest
running waste of time in the world) but about what the "Folk Scene" is.
Susan Werner, to me, personifies everything that is wrong with the current folk
scene. It has become a way to get famous. It's not entirely her fault. She has
a right to want to be famous. It's just that she used the folk scene. And now
that it has served it's purpose, she's finished with it
When I first started listening to folk music in the late 70s, part of what made
it attractive was that it existed outside of the mainstream. The Big stars on
the folk circuit at that time, Gamble Rogers, John Roberts & Tony Barrand,
Stan Rogers and others were well aware that they were not going to be
household names. They played the music they loved and fortunately there was a
community of people who were willing to provide an outlet for people who
wanted to play and people who wanted to listen, and it wasn't always the most
important thing that an act could "draw".
With the advent of a few people from the "folk scene" making it to pop star
status, (Suzanne Vega, Shawn Colvin, Mary Chapin Carpenter, etc..) several
perfectly talented, but ambitious musicians have looked to smaller acoustic
oriented "Folk" clubs as a stepping stone to their larger success. They are
not interested, to a large extent, in the scene itself, or the music that had
been associated with it, or anything but their careers. Also, it seems to me,
that it has become more and more important that the little clubs find the
"Next Big Thing".
This is in sharp contrast to the days when clubs seemed proud about their
obscurity and how they presented music you could not find elsewhere.
The club that I go to most often is a club in Philadelphia called the Cherry
Tree. When I started going there in the late 70s, on any given evening, you
could find many of the local Folk luminaries in the audience...Priscilla
Herdman, Saul Broudy, Winnie Winston, Mick Moloney. The folk community was a
real community. Often they would sit in with whoever was playing.
Now things like that almost never happen. I have never seen Susan Werner at the
Cherry Tree except when she was playing there. In fact I've never seen her at
any folky events. Most of the local folksingers I know have never even met
her. Certainly her music doesn't owe much to the people I used to see there.I
don't get the sense she is a big Gamble Rogers fan. Or that she has even heard
of Roberts & Barrand.
So I think it's worth examining the role of clubs like the Cherry Tree. Should
they present performers who are really great, but not destined for stardom, or
should they present people with a growing national reputation (all
contemporary singer/songwriters) who are going to play larger concert halls
next time through town. So they can say "We had So and So before anybody knew
them"?
I hope this turns into a real discussion and doesn't end up a silly argument
about whether Susan Werner is any good or not.
I look forward to reading responses
TEShaw
Joe Kesselman, yclept Keshlam
tes...@aol.com (TEShaw) writes:
>Well I'm not as violently Anti-Susan Werner as Ghost, but I do think this is an
> opportunity to start a dialogue..Not about what Folk Music is, (The longest
> running waste of time in the world) but about what the "Folk Scene" is.
Good set of questions, but I _have_ to change the subject line. I'd
like to see what answers you get, but I really don't want to deal with
the beating up of individual performers (and other newsgroup participants)
that is going to be part of the original thread. Without a subject change,
my newsreader can't separate the two discussions.
I don't have any answers, but as a voluteer at a local nonprofit concert
series (Walkabout Clearwater Coffeehouse) maybe I can provide a bit of
background, since our bookings discussions have often
dealt with some of these issues.
There's a tension between good-but-unknown performers who deserve
a wider audience, "well known folkies" such as Chapin and Paxton and
McCutcheon (audience favorites, good draw -- even a nonprofit needs
to sell enough tickets to keep itself going -- and often not that much
more expensive to bring in than unknowns), performers at the fringes
of folk, and folks who frankly are chosen because the audience tells
us to bring them in even though they're outside our normal range
(can be a huge draw, but generally draw their own crowd
rather than ours -- which applies to the occasional end-of-season
dance, too.)
Balancing these is NOT easy. We can't afford to lose money; if anything,
we're supposed to be acting as a fundraiser for Clearwater. But we don't
want to bring folks in only to raise cash; we try to also do outreach to
remind folks of the issues that Clearwater stands for, and that affects our
choices of performers to some degree. And we need to establish an _ongoing_
clientelle -- folks who will come for a performer they never heard of because
they've liked what they heard on other nights -- which means not going
too far outside the box too often. But staying entirely within the box gets
boring...
We used to try to address this by using the opening act to feature local,
less-known and/or "stranger" performers. (Last season's openers included
bagpipe and tap-dancing -- both surprisingly successful!). But our finances
make that hard to justify; we can't charge more for a performance with an
opening act than without one. So this season we're trying the experiment
of doing without unless the performer explicitly requested otherwise, to
see what effect this has on our bottom line. There's still a "warm-up act"
-- the sing-along our chorus has always run before the show -- but
we now go direct from that to the main attraction. If this results in significantly
higher income, and hence both better fundraising and better certainty that
the coffeehouse will continue, it's going to be hard to go back.
(We've also discontinued our sign interpreter for the same basic reason.
We've had some _wonderful_ interpreters -- our primary interpreter was
Jody Gill, who is one heck of a performer herself -- but in fact we were
justifying that cost more on the basis of educating the public about sign
than because we were getting deaf/hh audience members. Again, we may
change our minds and resume that service, but for now the cost/benefit
tradeoff says we do without.)
Point is, choosing performers for a concert series is NOT easy, and is not
always entirely about the music. The big sellers -- even if they draw an
entirely different crowd -- do help make it possible to bring in folks who
just barely break even or even lose a few bucks. In the end, it becomes a
trade-off between serving the performers, serving the audience, and keeping
enough cashflow to allow you to continue to serve both.
We're in our tenth season, and generally our audience seems pretty
happy with most of the performers we've picked, so we must be doing
something right. And a number of performers have commented that
they like our venue, especially the fact that we have an enthusiastic
"singing audience". But as far as I can tell, we still haven't codified any
rules that make it all work -- we just make the best decisions we can,
based on experience and instinct and our own musical tastes and
occasional audience input, and hope we wind up with a line-up that
the audience is going to enjoy.
Of course we do have one difference from most coffeehouses:
we're only doing eight shows a year. That means we're in the
position of trimming down rather than struggling to fill slots. Someone
who's running a weekly series is going to be in a position to take
more risks over the course of the year, is going to _need_ to
use more performers to fill out the season, and is going to be
able to arrange their schedule predictably to build several
overlapping audiences (eg, alternate between trad. and newer
folk).
So, as I said, I don't claim we have _any_ of the answers...
and not having been directly involved in the bookings process,
I can't even claim that I really understand how the tradeoffs
are made. But maybe this will open up a few more of the questions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph J. Kesselman http://pages.prodigy.com/keshlam/
Nov. 8 at Walkabout Clearwater Coffeehouse:THE WOMEN OF THE CALIBASH.
"This note is a production of Novalabs Consulting, which is solely
responsible for its content. Opinions not necessarily those of IBM."
ghost
>Well I'm not as violently Anti-Susan Werner as Ghost, but I do think this is an
> opportunity to start a dialogue..Not about what Folk Music is, (The longest
> running waste of time in the world) but about what the "Folk Scene" is.
>Susan Werner, to me, personifies everything that is wrong with the current folk
> scene. It has become a way to get famous. It's not entirely her fault. She has
> a right to want to be famous. It's just that she used the folk scene. And now
> that it has served it's purpose, she's finished with it
I don't think she's quite finished with it yet, unfortunately, because
she's not yet quite as famous as she aims to be. I still see her
advertised at what are otherwise folk venues.
The story Werner's fans circulate is that she, in the midst of training
for her operatic career, was taken by a friend to see Nanci Griffith &
was completely blown away, saying "I'll be a singer-songwriter like Nanci
instead!" I find this bit of reportage very hard to believe. What I think
is more likely is that Werner *was* taken to see Griffith, saw that
Griffith had a very large audience full of very dedicated fans, & couldn't
understand it. Griffith sings with a slight twang (used to be twangier,
too), is a mild-mannered, unassuming sort of person who doesn't put on
a big blitz, just delivers good (often great) songs with sincerity & integrity
& as good a back-up band as she can assemble (& she's had some *great* back-up
musicians). Werner is immune to good songs, sincere delivery, & great
folk-rock backup, however; all she probably saw is someone who wasn't
putting on a knuckles-on-the-floor performance & still had lots of
attentive fans. Werner probably figured "if she can get an audience of 1,000s
doing *that*, I can get 10s of 1,000s with a cobbled-together repertoire &
lots of theatrical stage-mannerisms". Thus a folk-scene-user was born.
The Boston area has a few folk-scene-users of its own, though few of them are
anywhere near as unknowledgeable, egregious, or just plain bad as Werner.
Since the folk scene, here in Greater Boston at least, has been hyped so much
as a training ground for new pop stars, can you blame people for
taking that route?
TEShaw
Well thank you ghost for addressing the spirit of my letter and not indulging
in more Susan Werner bashing.....Oh jeez wait...that's right...you IGNORED the
spirit of my original letter and DID indulge in more Susan Werner bashing.
Oddly enough, as much of a problem as I have with Werner, (as documented in my
previous post) I almost feel sorry for her reading what you say about her. I'm
afraid it has reached the point where what you say says more about you than
about Susan..and as such makes it easy to dismiss, which is a shame because
you actually have some valid things to say.
Also odd is that you refer to Nanci Griffith as a "mild-mannered, unassuming
sort of person" when every person in the music world that I have met that has
had any dealings with her says she is incredibly ruthlessly ambitious and is a
world class user of people. Not that I feel a need to bash Nanci, I've never
had any negative or positive experience of her (although I don't think she is
all that great) but I thought it was worth pointing out that just because
Susan Werner is, in your eyes, the personification of Evil, it doesn't follow
that Nanci Griffith is an angel.
Why don't you use that articulate mind of yours to talk about the larger issues
I've brought up. I'm sure there is plenty of Non Susan Werner stuff for you to
spout off about!
TEShaw
ghost
>Well thank you ghost for addressing the spirit of my letter and not indulging
> in more Susan Werner bashing.....Oh jeez wait...that's right...you IGNORED the
> spirit of my original letter and DID indulge in more Susan Werner bashing.
>Oddly enough, as much of a problem as I have with Werner, (as documented in my
> previous post) I almost feel sorry for her reading what you say about her. I'm
> afraid it has reached the point where what you say says more about you than
> about Susan..and as such makes it easy to dismiss, which is a shame because
> you actually have some valid things to say.
>Also odd is that you refer to Nanci Griffith as a "mild-mannered, unassuming
> sort of person"
I'm talking about her stage persona. I don't know her personally, & I've
never discussed her with people who do. I know die-hard fans of hers
who wouldn't agree with your assessment:
> when every person in the music world that I have met that has
> had any dealings with her says she is incredibly ruthlessly ambitious and is a
> world class user of people. Not that I feel a need to bash Nanci, I've never
> had any negative or positive experience of her (although I don't think she is
> all that great) but I thought it was worth pointing out that just because
> Susan Werner is, in your eyes, the personification of Evil, it doesn't follow
> that Nanci Griffith is an angel.
I'd have to hear a *lot* of documentable stories of Griffith using people
to put her anywhere near Werner's class. I've witnessed Werner using people
myself, & read stories.
Ruthlessly ambitious Griffith should be; Lucinda Williams too.
Cheryl Wheeler too.
We're in a society that imagines that if other people are having hits off
of your songs & you've never had even one, there must be something really
unpleasant about your singing voice, or your stage act, or both.
As this is hardly the case with the people I've just mentioned, it must
really pain them that they can't hit with their own material.
And I read an interview with Griffith years ago where she said she had
begged & begged her label to release & hype "From A Distance" as a single
for her, even though she didn't write it, because she *knew* it was going to be
a hit for someone. Now, I really don't like that song much, but Griffith does,
& shows it, & her gut feeling about it being a hit was right; She didn't
get to have it though. Bette Middler did, because Griffith's company just
laughed off "little Nanci"'s suggestions. And she changed companies.
She's got a right to be ambitious after all these years of constant touring,
& a right to be ticked off too.
>Why don't you use that articulate mind of yours to talk about the larger issues
> I've brought up. I'm sure there is plenty of Non Susan Werner stuff for you to
> spout off about!
Oh sure. Flattery will get you everywhere. Well, somewhere.
People should take the Shawn Colvin route from the start. Colvin *always*
has given interviews saying that she was *not* dedicated *only* to
traditional music, or *only* to un-electrified music, or married to any
particular genre. She's *always* emphasized that she'd played country,
folk, pop, whatever she *wanted* to play, in whatever bands would hire her
to play.
And she finally got the big recording contract she'd been very unsecretly
going for for years, & the company stuck by her through as many records as
it took to get her a hit, which I didn't think they'd do. That's what she
wanted, & she was plain about it from the start. The hit is far from her
best song, but it'll lead people to look up her better songs. And they
might even look up those songs as covered by other people who also have
never said that they were solely dedicated to traditional &/or
un-electrified music, like Maura O'Connell. As far as I can see, this is
all a good thing, hurts no-one, & might even lead some people to decide
they like the traditional-style &/or unelectrified material better, making
unregenerate folkie-traditionalists out of them. I like it *all*, myself,
as long as it has a decent tune & words worth listening to & a delivery
with some integrity.
And before anyone quotes some Werner interviews wherein she *also* says
she never claimed to be a folkie: Yeah, I read those. She can't say
*anything* without being incredibly snide. Whereas Colvin for all those
years of ruthless ambition always managed to tour where her heart was;
you'll never get rich on a bus with the Red Clay Ramblers, & she knew it,
but she was on the bus for a lot more than the publicity.
Carolyn Adams
>t I _have_ to change the subject line. I'd
>like to see what answers you get, but I really don't want to deal with
>the beating up of individual performers (and other newsgroup participants)
>that is going to be part of the original thread.
Thanks Keshlam, for having the sensitivity to avoid the negativity
that was introduced into this discussion, while preserving what may
be the springboard for a good discussion.
I would suggest that the folk scene has changed over the last
few decades, and will continue to evolve. There are a lot of
performers I categorize as folk now, who perhaps would have
been "pop" performers at another time. Susan Werner falls
in that category to me. So do Susan Herrick, Chris Rosser, Bob
Malone, --- a lot of the new crop of singer songwriters. Their
influences include the Beatles, Dr. John, Leon Russell, and a lot
of other popular modern music, along with traditional forms.
Without getting into the popular vs. traditional argument (in which
"popular" generally is villified), I would suggest that this is a normal
consequence of absorbing the music all around us. The traditionalists
will always feel their territory is being trampled. If we could go back
200 years, there'd be traditionalists then upset about new forms creeping
in. And 1000 years ago, too, no doubt. Music is always evolving.
My introduction to folk music was in the 70s. I remember
going to the Philadelphia Folk Festival in the early 70s, and
seeing people like Janis Ian, Jim Croce, Bob Dylan, and Peter
Yarrow. I saw Loudon Wainwright III, Joan Baez, and the late
John Denver in the 70s too. I enjoyed all of them, but all of them in
that group got airplay on popular stations, too. There was a whole
generation of little girls who adored Mr. Denver, and never knew
anyone considered him a "folksinger". I assume that traditionalists
of 25 years ago would have said some of the people I mentioned
weren't folk. They were popular. Or they were some hybrid of "real folk"
and popular. I remember the "Dylan goes electric" period. And I was
young enough, and open enough to other influences, to think that was good.
It follows that a few decades later, that trend would continue.
The lines blur, and then blur some more. While I love my contemporary
folk musicians, and all the variety they bring to the music, I also appreciate
that there are traditionalists who like the world in black and white. I like
the shades of grey, myself.
We're lucky to have them all.
---Carolyn Adams
WDIY and WMUH, Allentown PA
TEShaw
Ok Ok I apologize for adding to the "negativity". I guess I wanted to let Ghost
know that I wasn't prudish with my opinions.
Well Yes..the folk scene has changed...for better or worse. I guess it just
irks me that, a few years ago in Philadelphia, you could see Susan Werner
twice a month at the Tin Angel (A club that is about 5 years old that presents
mostly hip accoustic pop stars like John Wesley Harding, and Jill Sobule.) As
well as a few other places in town. There are several venues available for the
crop of new singer songwriters that would not be appropriate for either
traditional musicians, or contemporary folkier singers and songwriters like
Bill Staines or Anne Hills, etc..
The Cherry Tree only has shows once a week, with the Summer off and a long
break in Winter, so they only do like 20 or 25 shows a year. And if they use
up one of the shows on a performer that can play at one of these other places,
(like the North Star, or Grape St Pub) they deny a slot to someone For whom
the Cherry Tree is the only place in the city that would be appropriate for
them. Therefore denying the Cherry Tree's audience a chance to see not only
some great music, but music that may well be a draw.
The question is: What is the central aim of a club like the Cherry Tree? I used
to think it was to provide a venue for people who were interested in the "folk
music" that existed outside of the mainstream. It was always exciting to see
somebody that was a Cherry Tree alumni go on to some larger success, but it
never seemed like that was what the Cherry Tree was aiming towards.
I think it's worth reminding ourselves that the music that falls under the
heading "Folk Music" covers a lot of ground (It's a long way from Ray Fisher
to Ani DiFranco!) and that we need to acknowledge it all...not just the future
stars.
Let's keep this discussion going!
TEShaw
PegBertsch
>Well thank you ghost for addressing the spirit of my letter and not indulging
> in more Susan Werner bashing.....Oh jeez wait...that's right...you IGNORED
>the
> spirit of my original letter and DID indulge in more Susan Werner bashing.
Those of us who have been around this group a while know that whenever Susan
Werner's name comes up in this group, there's a good chance that ghost will
reply the way he did to your thread. He has a major bug up his...well, I
don't even know if ghosts really *have* that part of the anatomy, but he's got
a bug about Susan stuck *somewhere* :-) So I wouldn't waste too much breath
calling him on it. I got winded the last time I tried (and I'm not even in
the Susan Werner fan club).
I am thinking about what's been brought up in this thread, though...it's a good
topic for discussion...I plan to get back to it when I have more time. So
far, I agree with much of what Carolyn(?) said, that I don't mind really that
"folk" has become a catch-all for all kinds of acoustic
pop-inflected/alternative/you-name-it styles that simply can't be easily
categorized by the mainstream commercial music sector. I can understand why
the traditionalists might be upset, but I'm selfishly glad the music I like
(which is not traditional folk at all) has found a home somewhere...though
I'm sorry it has to be at the expense (in part) of someone else's favorite
kind of music. The "new folkies" have taken over the scene, in some ways.
As for the venue stuff...well, I'll save that for another post. Hope to see
more posts on it from other people, as well...
--peg
TEShaw
PegBurtsch wrote:
>I don't mind really that
>"folk" has become a catch-all for all kinds of acoustic
> pop-inflected/alternative/you-name-it styles that simply can't be >easily
categorized by the mainstream commercial music sector.
Well either do I!!! It's just that the musicians we have been mentioning are
VERY easliy categorizable, and that category has been a fixture in popular
music since Bob Dylan made his mark in the 60s. The current crop of singer
songwriters is a direct line starting at some hard to determine point, (maybe
Woody Guthrie) but really with Dylan I think and going through Paul Simon,
Arlo, Joni Mitchell, John Sebastion, John Denver, Jackson Browne, Bruce
Springsteen, etc...
In recent years, the influences have become even more rock and roll influenced
(making them even MORE commercially saleable! So much so that MTV has made a
nice couple of bucks by taking bona fide Rock acts like Nirvana and Eric
Clapton and "unplugging" them making them seem like they could be playing at
the Tin Angel opening for Dan Bern.
I could give you a list of really great "hard to categorize" musicians, but
chances are you would never have heard of them, because they don't get airplay
on Triple A Americana radio and can't get gigs at "folk" clubs because they
are not going to be the next Ani DiFranco.
Nothing against any of the artists I've mentioned, but don't call them
uncategorizable by the mainstream.
There should be room for everybody.
Woolley73
"There should be room for everybody."
about what TE said.... I agree. When we get bogged down with the
semantics of the word "folk" which seems to happen A LOT in here, people
start missing the point.
Perhaps Susan Werner isn't ethical to the standards created by the "folk
scene" but does that mean people who abide by those unwritten rules are not
allowed to like her music. Consequently, Ani Difranco, who is incredibly
true to the independent music community, and also one of my favorites, is
I'm sure, not on EVERYONE's list of must-haves. Yes, folk music seems to
be traditionally centered around the political, but not everything HAS to
be political.
I happen to like much of Susan Werner's music, and I don't care what she
classifies herself as. I am also a major fan of Dar Williams, and Cheryl
Wheeler, and Joan Baez and David Buskin and....the list goes on. Some of
these people seem to fit into the "folk scene" and some don't. But what
I've always liked about rec.music.folk is that there are always people who
are like those people too. In the real world, I say those names and the
typical response is "who?" I hope there does not become a time when it
becomes "taboo" to say certain artist's names, because that would take away
the spirit of freedom that I associate with the type of music I like,
whatever you want to call it.
ghost
In article <steve-21109...@enh3-mdm29.ravenet.com> st...@marlin.ssnet.com (Steve Senderoff) writes:
>really nice person, in contrast to Dr. Ghost's masturbatory rantings about
Please don't mistake either your degrees or your chosen
favorite sexual practices for mine. You've made two such mistakes
in the above sentence.
ghost
In article <19971022152...@ladder02.news.aol.com> tes...@aol.com (TEShaw) writes:
>Steve Senderoff wrote:
>>These folks included Susan Werner (who played for me long before she >was
> "SUSAN WERNER", and is a really nice person.
>Well Ghost missed the opportunity to point out that of course she was nice to
> you...You ran a club! You were useful to her!
What bugs me more is the way Werner uses her audiences.
As you pointed out in e-mail, there are at least rumors, & some evidence,
of other current folk/folkish-pop scene performers using contacts in the
music business as a leg up to their careers.
But most of of those sorts of users have more integrity in their dealings
with the audience. What the "folk scene" has always been about for me,
even more than a place for the real traditional music to be heard, & certainly
more than a place for a bunch of yuppies to feel warm-&-fuzzy in the
company of each other, is integrity in their relations with the audience.
[If I had more time to compose here I'd certainly come up with better words
than "dealings" & "relations"; ugh.] I want to feel I'm getting an
honest performance on at least some level, though I realize the words "honest"
& "performance" automatically contradict each other.
Susan Werner strikes me as sort of an evil Shirley Temple; I can't stand
to watch the movies of the child-showoff Shirley Temple, but at least she
grew up to be a normal human being from what I've read. Werner must be in her
30s by now, with no sign of growing up.
Woolley73
To continue on with this....
The people at Righteous Babe Records (Ani's company) and Ani herself have
had to continue to negate the idea that she has "sold out" simply because
she is popular now. She has made it further as an independent than I think
any big record company ever pictured her going. Her fans knew she was capable.
I think it's sad that they have to defend her success.
Also, Ani defines herself as "the folksinger" That is what she is as an
artist. People may listen to her music and classify it as many different
types, but I think the fundamental thing is where she sees herself.
Labels are used to define. We're told and we teach that labels, when they
become stereotypes, are bad. I personally believe in labels. I use them
to define certain aspects of my life and to permit my inclusion into
groups. I call myself a folk music junkie, because that's how I see
myself. I understand the problem with people who call themself something
for personal gain. But I am choosing not to focus on that. The people who
participate in this newsgroup consider themselves folk music fans, however
loosely defined, and that's why I am here.
Greg Bullough
In article <19971023070...@ladder01.news.aol.com> tes...@aol.com (TEShaw) writes:
>
>Years ago I had a conversation with the woman who was then booking the Cherry
> Tree and she told me that they avoided working with agents because it seemed
> incongrouos with the idea of folk music. These days, if you don't have an
> agent, clubs think you are an amateur.
>
>what do peole think about this? Is the current situation better?
It strikes me that there is this reverse-snobbishness amongst some
of the buyers of folk-singers' product that says 'you're only worth
bothering with if you are struggling.' So all of the trappings of
somebody who is 'successful,' such as use of a booking agent, are
somehow 'incongruous.'
I'd suggest that the lady above doth protest too much. Then again,
considering the source, it may be a total mis-representation. But
suppose it is a factual account. She probably avoided agents because,
once a musician could afford or needed to afford someone to handle
their paperwork, they were probably commanding a higher wage than
the venue could see its way clear to pay.
And because the agent was harder to deal with; that is they drove
a harder bargain and (if they were good) looked out for the performer's
interest better than the performer his or her self would.
Folk musicians do (believe it or not) play a number of gigs at a net
loss. It just ends up costing more to get and stay there than it pays
to play there. They particularly tend to do so for places where they
have positive memories of the 'good old days' when they were struggling
to get by, or to juggle a day job.
Once an agent is in the loop, there is a business person who recognizes
that, given two choices about where the musician spends his or her time,
business says it's at the gig that pays $1000 for a concert, not the
one that offers $100 or $250. And that there are some things where
the musician is better of taking a rest day than a detour to a
cheapo gig. So the agent is apt to say 'sorry' when the little venue
that had the musician five years back says 'we can only afford $x00.00'.
Folkies tend to be a sentimental lot, and are given to saying 'oh, okay,
I really want to be there anyway,' when they get quoted a rate that won't
pay for gas to the gig. Agents aren't so sentimental. One of the reasons
folks hire agents is to protect themselves from their sentimental side.
Another reason is the practicality. You can either tour 200 days a year
or you can manage your career and be around to take phone calls,
negotiate terms, arrange a schedule, and cash checks.
But it does sort of bother me that many folk music afficiandos, who are
all liberal and worship the ground the Weavers trod upon, become a bit
indignant when a folk musician begins to behave like someone who is
in the business of selling his or her labor. It is a pain to pay a living
wage to someone who can get it elsewhere, but golly, isn't what this
whole 'social justice' theme is about?
And, at the end of the day, what business is it of a venue whether they
deal with the agent or the performer? If the music is right and the
money is right, and the terms are right, that is the issue. Not how
to manage their business. The performer doesn't tell the venue whether
to use AT&T or Sprint for long distance, do they?
Greg
Daniel R. Reitman
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:59:02 GMT, st...@marlin.ssnet.com (Steve
Senderoff) wrote:
>. . . .
>To end this lengthy rant (sorry), I think that the present day folk scene
>may be summed up in the immortal lyrics of Steve Weber, 50% of the seminal
>(pun intended) punk-folk duo the Holy Modal Rounders:
>Oh Mr Spaceman...
>You really started something.
>Oh Mr Spaceman...
>You know, you really got my heart a-thumpin'.
>Oh Mr Spaceman...
>I want to be a Spaceman too...
> DIP DIP DIP DIP DIP DIP
>NO SON, IT'S PA PA PA MOW PA ONE TWO...
>How does it end???...like this....(thunk)
No, that's the present day filk scene! :-)
Dan, ad nauseam
ghost
In article <62p133$le4$1...@news2.voicenet.com> char...@voicenet.com (charlie sweeney) writes:
>We know you don't like Susan, Joan. Your reasons seem personal,
>almost obsessive.
No, my reasons are all about her on-stage persona, performance style,
& repertoire, which of course includes my reviews of her lyrics, both
those she writes herself & those she choses to cover.
Want me to dig all those reasons up & run them by you again, & anyone else
who might have missed them the 1st time?
You imply that Susan is supported by the Werner
>trucking company. Obsurd.
Well, there is that fleet of "Werner" trucks carting produce around
the midwest & south, & she does claim in her promotional material that she
comes from some kind of agricultural-industry family so I was just trying to
put 2 & 2 together. And she does tend to carry bags that the
firm gives out with "Werner" printed on them, but then if someone were
printing bags with my name on them I might want to carry around a few of
them too even if I wasn't on the stock-distributions list.
(I apologized for reportedly getting this wrong last Werner-time)
>You say that Susan uses her fans. Name them.
I'm sorry, I didn't take down all their names when I was in the audience.
(I was too busy being absolutely disgusted by her on-stage display, &
I wasn't aware I'd have to produce a list for you of "used fans".)
> You take issue with all performers, and Susan in particular
>for being ambitious, or even competitive. You ask where the money
>comes from. In some cases it comes from record company support.
Susan Werner was going on lavish tours with what looked like maximum
"tour-support" before any record company ever got *near* her.
Her 1st 2 recordings were self-produced, as far as I can tell, but with
a lot more money spent on the production than most self-produced musicians
have available for their 1st *10* recordings.
How many "folk" musicians do you know of who have someone traveling around with
them, as Werner does, who's main job seems to be to tune guitars
& hand them to them on-stage?
(I think the Indigo Girls started employing a tuner-roadie after about
10 years as million-selling performers. It took Joni Mitchell even longer.)
Very few folk-world (whatever category their music actually falls into)
performers have much tour-support even when they do land distribution from
a record company.
On that last issue: No reason for the musicians not to be ambitious.
But wherever did they get the idea, like Werner obviously has, that music is a
competition where you have to knock the other performer off the stage,
even, & *especially*, during their own set?
>As
>mentioned earlier,Many folk artists take a loss on tours. The current
>Dar Williams tour wil probably break even. Why? T-shirts. Jonatha
>Brook commented to a friend that if they didn't sell at leat 50
>t shirts at a gig in philly, they would have to sleep on the bus.
Been there, done that. Not as a folk performer, & not on a nifty tour-bus.
Jonatha Brook would survive it, I'd say.
> So you've made your point ,ghost. You've reminded us over and
>over and over again that you despise "Werner'.You've repeated your
>opinions on the subject for a couple of years. I'm sorry
>you feel as you do,but perhaps two years of harping on the same
>subject should suggest something to a grown person such as yourself.
But I haven't spent 2 years harping on it. Months, sometimes even years
go by without Werner fans trying to launch another promotion of Werner
as a folk musician, or as a musician worthy of attention by folk fans.
Don't promote her here, & I will feel no need to respond here. I'm
primarily a responder to, not an originator of discussion threads.
>You might want to look into Harvard's health plan to see if some kind
>of help is available, to help you deal with your obsessive rage, which
>might appear to some to be way over the edge.
How come disliking, for very valid reasons about her performance style
& repertoire, which I've stated about a million times, your favorite performer
is always construed by Werner fans as signs of mental unbalance?
I just think that most of you are guilty of no more than being
very shallow people with very bad taste. You have a lot of company.
If you all checked into the mental health system to get cured of these
attributes, you'd overload it.
PegBertsch
Haven't been able to get back to r.m.folk in a while, and there certainly has
been a lot to catch up on in this thread. My last post seemed to generate a
rather sarcastic response, so I think I may take one more stab at qualifying
my thoughts on the various points raised....
Re: The "new breed" of folk performer/folk music...I didn't mean my statement
about there being "room for everybody" to sound all warm and fuzzy. Frankly,
what I find most frustrating about the music industry as a whole today is that
it has become so hard for up-and-coming artists of *any* genre to get a shot.
Major labels seem much less interested these days in developing new artists;
they'd rather wait until an artist has put in their own time, money, etc. and
developed a following...then the record label will step in and capitalize on
that following (kind of like Microsoft and the way they build their software
empire...who needs R&D when you can buy the technology/product from someone
else and repackage it as your own? ;-) It's always been that way to some
extent in the music industry, but (IMO) much more so in the last decade.
The folk scene, in the loose definition we probably all use for it by now, is
a wonderful outlet for new artists to build a following. Touring by yourself
with an acoustic guitar is relatively cheap, allows you to play everything
from house concerts to main halls, and allows you to develop (hopefully) a
real connection with your audience, who will most likely remain loyal because
of that. And folk audiences are generally some of the most receptive, loyal,
and friendly audiences around. At least in my experience. It's a cool
community, and I enjoy being a part of it, both as an audience member, and
hopefully (someday) as a performer. I'm just glad that there is an outlet
that accepts the artists who don't necessarily fit into the major label and
radio-defined straightjackets of mainstream rock, country, etc. I love the
*idea* of Triple-A and Americana, since they reflect my own taste in music,
but the fact is, those formats are considered "minor". They just haven't
caught on in a big way yet, even though I bet everyone who reads this group
listens to one or both formats. We're still the minority. I know artists
who have charted *very* well on Americana stations, and believe me, it hasn't
made much of a difference in their pocketbooks.
As an audience member, I don't feel used by artists who go on to other things.
If Ellis Paul or Barbara Kessler or Jim Infantino or any number of the more
"alternative" artists who came up through the folk scene were to start ending
up on MTV and VH1 and opening for Sheryl Crow or Jewel or any other
"mainstream" artists, I'd say more power to them! I don't see why I should
expect them to continue on the backbreaking road of constant touring in small
clubs and community venues when they might have a chance to play in front of
larger crowds, with a band, and get more exposure. I'd be *happy* to see them
be able to take their talent to a wider audience, and profit from that. I'll
just be glad I had a chance to see them, as I did with Dar (who is starting to
make her way up to that next level) playing to a living room of 20-30 people.
There is a sense of having helped them get their start, at least the way I
look at it.
And I understand that those who have a love for "real" folk music may feel that
this new breed of singer/songwriter has taken over and pushed out artists who
are "true" folk artists. I live in Nashville, and I hear the same argument
about country music all the time. I admit, my folk roots don't run that deep.
I would rather listen to James Taylor than Woody Guthrie. The "contemporary
folk" scene is right up my alley, but just like I was sorry to see AOR radio
being taken over by glam-rock bands and then grunge bands in the '80s and
'90s, leaving no real room for the next Jackson Browne, etc., I can
understand why some people would have a disdain for many of today's
singer/songwriters, who stylistically are *anything* but folk. Music goes
through these shifts all of the time. It can be painful when you're on the
short side of one of those shifts.
I will never fault an artist for wanting to find someone else (agents,
managers, etc.) to help them manage their careers. I have seen what it takes
for a lot of the contemporary folk artists to keep a career going, and it is
*relentless* when you are wearing all the hats yourself. I'm surprised the
artists who do it all ever have the energy or time to be creative (many of
them don't, and burn out from touring very quickly because they no longer have
time to write or focus on the performances themselves). I know there are
some less-than-perfect managers out there who can be a pain to deal with...but
I don't necessarily blame the artist for that. (You could argue that the
artist has a responsibility to know, but it isn't always that easy/evident).
One thing I'm having to learn to accept as a singer/songwriter is that no
matter what I do, or how hard I try, my music will never be liked by
everybody out there (I have a hard enough time pleasing my internal critic ;-)
If I choose to put myself out there as an artist, I have to expect the
ghosts of the world might be ready to pounce, and rip my songs/performance
skills/etc. to shreds. And I think venue bookers face the same problem: you
can't please everybody all the time. Hopefully, we'll please enough people
to keep going...in the end, that's what it comes down to, and that's the most you can hope for.
--peg
Mark Spittal
I see a basic thought being lost through all of this, which makes me see
the point of view of both ghost (hi, ghost!) and ohters...
Without pointing fingers, I have seen several performers who for the
life of me I cannot undrstand why they are so popular. Music is
derivative, personality plastic, performance yukkk!!...yet they sell out
concerts, have the folk media gushing all over them...while people I
think blow them off the stage cannot get any recognition.
Some of the reasons is geographical (I live in Seattle, WA), as the part
of the folk community that is overwhelmingkly yuppie and white gushes
over virtually every New England songwriter traveling through...yet
couldn't describe a local/regional person of equal talent. Come on
guys, there is, as in any group of people, a sub-group whose main role
is to be cooler than thou...surfing along on the wave of trends...
Some of it is that some people like music that talks about those rough
streets and bars, the lower parts of society...the thing that mystifies
me is these songs are usually written and performed by MA or Phd
candidate in English from Harvard or Yale...those bastions of the low
down dirty street life...
Others like music that speaks to the heart and soul, that delves into
deep meanings and intensity. Songs that have actual meanings.
Some listen to show solidarity with a social or political position. In
folk, almost always left leaning...
We will listen to those who are different, have been members of this or
that, have the certificate of approval from the properly approved
forerunners in this brand of music...
But most of all, we rarely listen because our hearts are lifted, we see
something more clearly after listening, we understand our lives
better...
I don't know much about Susan Werner, maybe she is nice and creative and
maybe she is not... but after 25 years associated with folk music I know
a few things...we can be as blindly trendy as any other group, we will
bring into this community some of the most pathetic prejudices that we
had before we started listening, and far too often being kool is the
most important thing, not the music.
But remember, always remember, never ever be fat, because some folkies
will forgive almost anything except that....especially you are damn good
at songwriting and performing...because the idea of some fat and not
good looking is too much for their rigid minds...
Mark
--
________________________________________________
there can be hope in the trying to make the leap
past the anger we carry so deep
there can be hope in the singing of songs that rejoice
in the coming together of our voices
hope/mark spittal/seattle/copyright 1996
Acoustic Northwest -
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/mspittal/acoustic.html
Mark Spittal's homepage -
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/mspittal/wisdomtree.html
TEShaw
Carolyn Adams wrote:
>I would suggest that the club is far MORE responsible for the kind
>of acts it books than are the artists who are booked.
I think I mentioned that the clubs are very much responsible for what's
happening by getting caught up in the "Next big thing" syndrome.
>I'm associated with another club, not the Cherry Tree. They happily
>book Susan Werner, and would twice a year if they could. Because
>they make enough from the proceeds of that show to keep the club
>going so it can afford the people you may never have heard of.
Well that would be great if the club maintained it's aim to book Unknowns. (By
the way, I am not necessarily endorsing the idea of booking unknowns, I think
there are several solid performers who are squeezed out of gigs by the "next
big things") Also, I know that at the Cherry Tree the performer gets a huge
percentage of the take at the door. The club basically makes it's expenses, so
even if the show is sold out, it doesn't pay that many bills.
Also, When Susan Werner played the Cherry Tree in September, there was no
opening act. I don't know if this was a Cherry Tree policy (I think this year
there aren't many openers, if any) or a demand from her management, but it
certainly would have been a great opportunity for an unknown that the club
believes in to play in front of a larger audience than they would if they were
given their own night. With the diminishing radio support in Philly and the
lack of venues for "folk" performers, opening for a big draw could be the most
useful thing to do.
>Castigating a successful performer for not
>fitting your definition of folk is another conundrum, like "what is folk".
>And a very destructive one.
That's not what I mean to do. I mean, I love REM, but I would be against the
Cherry Tree bringing them in to the club for a Sunday night show. Even though
it would probably sell out. Fortunately, Micheal Stipe hasn't, as far as I
know, called the club asking for a gig. Now if REM (Or maybe Susan Werner!)
offered to do a special concert (say with a few folkies) as a benefit, or to
give the club some publicity. That would be great!
If the Cherry Tree wants to make money, they can find a place where they can
serve alcohol and book big time Rock acts and charge $25 a ticket..It's worked
for others. Obviously the Cherry Tree thinks of itself as something else.
--Carolyn
Greg Bullough
In article <19971023181...@ladder01.news.aol.com> bod...@aol.com (Bodlean) writes:
>Greg Bullough Wrote:
>
>
>But back to my tale....There is a reason why I volunteered my time at a folk
> club rather than at a 7-11. Because I loved being around musicians. And most
> folk musicians are very easy and fun to be around. I remember going out after
> a show to a diner with Robin and Linda Williams. I sat down and had an
> informal guitar lesson with Martin Carthy. I drove Gamble Rogers to the
> airport once and he talked passionately about William Faulkner. I still have
> the list of novels Gamble wrote out for me in the order I should read them!
Some of these folks have (*gasp*) agents to handle their booking
and scheduling negotiations!
>At some point, there started to be more distance between the folk singers and
> the "folks". I don't want to mention any names in a negative way, but I
> remember one time being asked to leave a room by a "manager" to give the
> artist some privacy. (The manager even referred to the performer as "Miss
> -----" To even put more distance there. (Like saying Mrs. Clinton instead of
> Hillary!)
Okay. So, your point would be? Perhaps the performer wanted to do
vocal warm-ups and prefers to do that in private. Perhaps the performer
mediates before going on, to get in 'onstage' mode. Perhaps the
performer wanted to adjust her bra and didn't want you to watch.
Perhaps it was really none of your business.
In any case, that's part of a road manager's job. The use of the
formal was probably to make it clear that it was a professional
request and requirement, no more, no less. As a person there in
a professional capacity (i.e., supporting the venue) it was your
professional duty to shift your ass out of the room. And to not
take it personally.
>I mean...I can certainly respect the need of anyone to have a little privacy,
> especially before a performance, but the feeling I got was that I was "in the
> way" and that the performer couldn't even lower herself to speak to us
> herself. She was never exactly nasty to anyone, but she treated everyone as if
> they were less important than herself.
Ahem. At a performance, the world revolves around *the performer*.
The person has a job to do, a job which she probably took very
seriously. Many, many, musicians go into 'music mode' before a
performance and are not quite their usual jocular selves. Deal
with it.
> Another time a performer was so
> unfriendly that he grumbled his way through a soundcheck, and went into the
> back room and closed the door. He didn't even ask for privacy, he was so
> unpleasant nobody even dared to go back there! If I had to deal with stuff
> like that at work, I'd quit! (And I get paid to work!)
Sometimes people have a bad day. Sometimes they have a beef with the
venue. Don't take it personally.
>I decided to stop volunteering before I was asked to provide a performer with a
> bowl of M&Ms with the red ones taken out!
Probably a good decision. A better one might have been to understand
a *bit* more about how performers are 'wired.' Or to learn not to
take things personally. If you're doing the latter, you really can't
be of much help.
The 'bowl of M&Ms with the red ones taken out' is an interesting
analogy, actually. Sometimes, you have to do some little bit of
hospitality which you don't understand, but which makes a difference
in the vagaries of a musician's world.
>
> the people on this thread..I wish it was a bit less mean spirited. (I don't
> know what Greg meant by: "considering the source, it may be a total
> mis-representation". I think Shaw has been both honest and thought provoking.
Just about a week ago he mis-represented an encounter between a booking
person and a performer, passing on a story which just didn't happen
that way. Innuendo and hear-say creates an issue of credibility. Therefore
I treat TEShaw's stories as hypothetical, even when they contain real
names.
Greg
Greg Bullough
In article <345076...@isomedia.com> mspi...@isomedia.com writes:
>
>Some of the reasons is geographical (I live in Seattle, WA), as the part
Yeah, but Seattle musicians are considered wild and exotic everywhere
else! And them Vancouver folks... ...<*shudder*> :-)
>But remember, always remember, never ever be fat, because some folkies
>will forgive almost anything except that....
A lot of the most admired chanteymen take a bit of time to
circumnavigate. So perhaps that's the right 'circle.' However,
I haven't noticed that a particular body-type dominates here
in the Northeast folk-scene in general.
Then again, perhaps touring as a folk musician selects for
skinniness. Short funds, small cars or cramped tour-van bunks,
skipped meals, etc. Taken together, they'd probably turn
Alfred Hitchcock into Bob Denver.
Greg
amy elizabeth lavertu
hey there again,
Well, this is just a quick addendum to my previous post. I menat
to say "attend one of the Indigo Girls shows" not "shoes" :-)! But hey,
maybe attending there shoes is even more exciting than attending one of
there shows :-)!
Also, I just wanted to follow up on what we as folk fans can do to
improve the quality of the folk scene. Although I'm only 22 years old, I
think I've lived just about long enough to realize that if you find
yourself unhappy with the current state of something, you should change it
if you can or better yet,do it yourself. What do I mean by a 'do it
yourself' folk scene? Well, come on folks, it's folk music! For the folks
and by the folks! And as Utah Phillips would say, YOU are the folks! Sick
of seeing the same kinds of dervitive performers who are more inetrested
in projecting an image or want to be celebrities more than being
musicians at clubs and coffeehouses? Then I say, you and your fellow
folkie friends should hold a coffeehouse of sorts in your living room, or
basement or spare room. Find local folkies to play (just ask around,put up
flyers at folk hangouts, post to newsgroups) or better yet, you and your
friends play. Don't know any instruments, learn one. I can't think of
anything more wonderful than having someone perform in your home; I also
can't think of a better way to build a real folk community. Pass the hat
around your living room and give the performer a donation. True you won't
get Dar Williams to play at your pad, but you never know who has real
talent 'in your own backyard' so to speak:-). And while the performer is
there, ask them questions about why they make music and what it means to
them. No one's going to play at your house as a stepping stone to Madison
Sq. Garden, but then again, that's not they make music is it? And isn't
that what you as a folkie are looking for in a performer? Why do we have
to depend solely on clubs to provide us with folk music? And if
coffeehouses are more concerned about staying financially viable that they
can only feature 'certain'kinds of performers, what then is their purpose?
What separartes coffeehouses from the clubs, save for their non-profit
status, then? And if you make a coffeehouse in
your living room don't do it so that you build a club out of it either,
because then you too will eventually have to make compromises that you may
not like. I truly believe that this is one way that we can revive the
'folk' in folk music. The scene is for BOTH the musicians AND the
audience. The folk scene can't exist if one of those elements is missing.
When the day comes when the scene exists solely for the performer to make
it big, then the scene will die in spirit, which I think it is.
Lastly, to my fellow young folkies, do yourself a favor and learn about
your elders and their music! Folk music didnot begin with Bob Dylan or the
Indigo Girls or Ani DiFranco! They are the 'spiritual' descendants of
folks like Odetta, Woody Guthrie, Malvina Reynolds and Jack Elliot. The
best move I ever made was to follow the 'geneology' of folk music and
learn why the Indigo Girls are the Indigo Girls. Knowing a bit more about
'my elders' made me realize why I really love folk music,
Thanks for reading,
Amy
(ps Please keep discussing this!)
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, amy elizabeth lavertu wrote:
> Hey there,
> Wow, I'm so happy about this string! If no one minds, I'd like to
> add my $0.02 to the discussion. When all is said and done, perhaps the
> main reason why I enjoy 'folk music' more than other musical genres is
> that there is much more of an egalitarian relationship between the
> audience and the performer. I may be wrong but this is the feeling I've
> always gotten from the folk music genre.
> I first got interested in folk music back in 1989 when I first
> heard of the Indigo Girls. Going to highschool and junior highschool in
> the eighties, I remember hating the kind of rock music which was popular
> at the time. To me it was all about elevating some singer with trendy
> clothes and hair and a huge ego to some kind of musical 'god status'. I
> really hated that so much; I hated the fact that there was this bizarre
> 'performer worship thing'. I must say, being a fan of some of these
> performers was almost tantamount to feeling like some sort of peon
> EEECH!! However, I remember liking the Indigo Girls so much because they
> were so antithetical to that attitude. The IG's were women, they were
> average looking, they didn't act like 'big stars' and they seemed a lot
> like me. Listening to the IG's and attending their concerts never felt
> like 'performer worship' to me. I always felt like the performer and I
> were at the same level. It always felt very egalitarian to me. And I think
> lots of people really liked that too, and so the IG's got really popular
> and then famous, and the egalitarianism I so liked so much went away.
> Anyone who's been listening to the IG's for a long time who has recently
> attended one of their shoes can attest to the kind of creepy 'performer
> worship' among much of the audience and I don't think that that's entirely the IG's doing (although
> their new image certainly seems to be veering towards 'female singer
> godess' much to my displeasure).In short, the IG's became celebrities.
> You're probably asking yourself what all of this stuff about the
> IG's has to do with 'the folk scene'. I think one of the reasons why I
> really dislike much of the folk scene right now stems from the fact that
> many of the performers really want to be celebrities more than musicians.
> And you know what, I think it really effects their music and the kind of
> repoire the audience has with the performer. There have been so many times
> that I've gone to a folk show and have gotten the feeling that what the
> performer really wants is to be a celebrity like Ani DiFranco or the IG's
> and thus almost resents having to perform at a little local coffeehouse or
> cafe. Am I the only one who's attended shows that were more about the
> performer's 'celebrity' posturing than about their music? It's one thing
> to be so incredibly talented and have such a warm and entertaining stage
> presence that you become famous, but it's another thing if what you really
> want is to be celebrity and the music is secondary. I really do think that
> it's that motivator which has led to so many derivative, overhyped and
> mediocre folk acts as of late since the IG's, Suzanne Vega and Ani
> DiFranco have proved that folk music or acoustic music if you will, can
> make you a celebrity.
> By the same token, fans of folk music have gotten into the act as
> well by almost worshipping certain performers because they are celebrity.
> Folk venues thus, book performers who have a high potentiality for
> 'celebritiness' to get audiences. It winds up becoming a vicious cycle.
> Are some of us upset by Ms. Werner because she represents the desire for
> celebrity by means of music? I would say so. I'm of the mind that
> people who make music because they love music and that is their true
> motivator, will make better music. And unfortunately, to be a celebrity
> inthis society often means that you will have to look a certain way, be a
> certain age and have certain image. I don't think it's mere coincidence
> that most of the 'up and coming stars' who seem to get an overwhelming
> and in many cases, undeserved, amount of attention, are young, pretty and
> not fat women.
> Enough bitching! How do we change this if it bothers us? Well,
> first, I think as folk fans we should ask our selves why we like some of
> the performers we do. Ever buy a CD by an artists you don't like but felt
> like you should because they 'fit the mould' of what you think you're
> 'supposed' to like? Ever not go hear a folk singer because of how they
> look even though you've never actual heard? Or vice versa? Ever asked
> yourself if you've felt like' just another fan' or ' a peon', after seeing
> a particular performer? Ever ask the owner or coordinator of your local
> folk venue and ask why all the performers look and sound like the IG's or
> Ani DiFranco or Dar Williams? Ever ask yourself if you really feel any
> connection with the artists you listen to?
> I'd love to hear the responses you might have to these questions!
> I hope I haven't bored anyone's socks off by this. I must say this, my
> being feed up with 'celebrity' performers has lead me to discover some
> other great, though perhaps not destined for fame, performers,
> Thanks,
> Amy
> On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Mark Spittal
> wrote:
>
> > I see a basic thought being lost through all of this, which makes me see
> > the point of view of both ghost (hi, ghost!) and ohters...
> >
> > Without pointing fingers, I have seen several performers who for the
> > life of me I cannot undrstand why they are so popular. Music is
> > derivative, personality plastic, performance yukkk!!...yet they sell out
> > concerts, have the folk media gushing all over them...while people I
> > think blow them off the stage cannot get any recognition.
> >
> > Some of the reasons is geographical (I live in Seattle, WA), as the part
> > But remember, always remember, never ever be fat, because some folkies
charlie sweeney
pegbe...@aol.com (PegBertsch) wrote:
>The folk scene, in the loose definition we probably all use for it by now, is
> a wonderful outlet for new artists to build a following. Touring by yourself
> with an acoustic guitar is relatively cheap, allows you to play everything
> from house concerts to main halls, and allows you to develop (hopefully) a
> real connection with your audience, who will most likely remain loyal because
> of that. And folk audiences are generally some of the most receptive, loyal,
> and friendly audiences around. At least in my experience.
<much relavant and intelligent discourse snipped>
When i was a callow youth living in the Germantown section
of Philly, Iinquired of the clerk at a local alternative bookstore
if I might find a venue to display my meager musical talents.
She replied that the macrobiotic restaurant up the street
allowed musicians to play there, but they didn't play.
"Cool", I replied, me the hippy to the core.
"Uncool" she replied. "Musicians have to eat too!"
charlie-virtual guitarist, something black
char...@voicenet.com
http://www.voicenet.com/~charlies
smtngblac on EFnet #philly, #pennsylvania
"Passion's always half impossibility
The lovers that we lose we never dare to forget
We visit them in mourning in December and in May
In the graveyard of St. Mary's of Regret"
Susan Werner
Abby Sale
On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 05:09:06 -0700, Mark Spittal <mspi...@isomedia.com>
wrote:
>
>The degree that the folk community is limited by prejudixes basd on
>appearence can be debated, but believe me, these prejudices are there,
>jkust mostly less than in the rest of society...and quite a bit less
Discrimination - taking notice - is not identical to prejudice & taking
action or attitude _against_. I do not criticize or refute, I merely
comment here.
I had the opportunity to meet a large bald lady while visiting the
hospital the other day. A pleasant lady with clear strength of character.
She and her husband mentioned that when her long hair began to shred out
to just a few patches she had to decide. The usual wig? A babushka? No,
she just shaved the remaining bits off. Felt better. But she was not
totally unaffected by all the stares in the malls. I said, You know that
young girls in tight sweaters also get many stares. This seemed to be the
right thing to say (that happens sometimes) and a small timber seemed
added to their strength.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
I am Abby Sale - abby...@orlinter.com (That's in Orlando)
Irene Jackson/Michael Woloshen
Mark Spittal wrote:
>
> Greg Bullough wrote:
> >
> > In article <345076...@isomedia.com> mspi...@isomedia.com writes:
> > >
> >
> > else! And them Vancouver folks... ...<*shudder*> :-)
>
> crazy.... 8-)
...hey!! What's wrong with Vancouver folks??? :-)
Irene (originally from Van.)Jackson
http://www.islandnet.com/~woloshen/ijackson.html
ghost
In article <19971027054...@ladder02.news.aol.com> fritz...@aol.com (Fritzie143) writes:
>Susan Werner is not backed by Werner Trucking .She has no relationship to them
> whatsoever.
Thanks for clearing that up.
> She self-produced her first two independents through her own hard
> work and they did not have excessive production on them. One is "live".. The
Her own hard work? Singing in the fern-bars of Philadelphia,
before she discovered the folk scene? I didn't realize those fern-bars
paid so well. The "production" I refer to is not the London Philharmonic
or a couple marching bands, its the amount of studio knob-turning needed
to get out a recording that has an overall sound-quality equivalent to what
the big studios regularly turn out. From what I've heard & read there is
perhaps *more* post-production done on "live" albums than on some
in-studio recordings. One local producer (of Patty Larkin's live one)
went into extreme detail in a local radio interview to describe exactly
how much post-production was done on it; this was not overdubbing, which would
negate the "live" aspects, but involved taking out distracting audience noises,
& splicing in pieces of one take to cover audience noises that appeared in a
particular section of the take they wanted to use. A lot of work, & not done
cheaply. The people who are going to do this have to be on the scene both
during the live recording & for the post-production, for best results.
> bags she carries have werner stickers on them taken off ladders - "Werner"
> ladders-also no relation to Susan Werner-I know-I put them there-I'm the one
> that "tunes the guitars", Joan. FYI I worked at a job I didn't like for a long
> time to be able to afford to do what I love-be around the music. Working for
> Susan is a part ime job-I have two. (some of us do this because we love it
> Joan,and not merely for financial gain) Your observation was that I seem to
> just tune guitars-actually,I do much more than that-I do some sound,I handle
> all touring details, I handle settlements,radio performances,press
> interviews,and merchandising.
If you handle Werner's interviews, perhaps you could tell her to get a
handle on her ego before she does some more of them.
And when did we get on 1st-name terms, Fritzie143? You've mentioned my
name almost as often as Werner's so far, but as far as I know we're not
friends. If you're the press-release person, perhaps you could use some
instruction yourself in not being so patronizing. Its easy to see that
Werner surrounds herself with persons most like herself.
> I'm not going to dignify any more of your comments with a response, Joan. I
> wonder why you continue to follow the career path of someone you seem to
> detest so much? That you're aware of her schedule, what she has on her bags
> that she travels with,etc.?
Her fans brag on her bad points, mistaking them for good points.
> Obviously you've seen me Joan-why don't you ever
> introduce yourself?
I haven't seen you, I've heard about you from people who's word I trust.
If you want to see me, go sit in the audience at some folk shows.
> Anybody else who didn't like a performer would simply walk
> away and maybe post once or twice, but this?.
You now speak for the entire internet? Or the entire folk audience?
Or both?
There aren't many people out there performing (& *everything* Werner does
is a performance; someone finally played the title cut of her 1st album
on the radio & pee-yew, *everything* that character does is a performance,
she says so herself. Sooner or later she's going to charge admission to a
nose-blowing) who are as naturally irritating to me as Werner.
> It is not your job to control
> this list or who posts on it about Susan-it's not your sole responsibility to
> keep people from being interested in Susan's music .
Sure it is.
Just like you think its your job to do "damage control". Difference
is you're getting paid for it, & I'm not.
charlie sweeney
j...@deas.harvard.edu ( ghost ) wrote:
>I just think that most of you are guilty of no more than being
>very shallow people with very bad taste. You have a lot of company.
>If you all checked into the mental health system to get cured of these
>attributes, you'd overload it.
OK, we're all shallow people. (all you folks agree with that,
right) But finally ghost has come to admit that we are a huge group,
and I guess we ought to hang out together.
So join us on "believers" the Susan Werner e-mail discussion group
run by that unpaid, unsolicited,volunteer, shallow, SOB, Charlie
Sweeney.
http://www.voicenet.com/~charlies/swmail.htm
Fritzie143
Hi Ghost-it's me again. Some more truth for you. I don't get paid for making my
posts. Please let me know where I can see you if I'm sitting in the audience
at a folk club. Which club-and would I see you on the stage or in the
audience? Just curious.
Have you put out a CD? Do you know how much independent CD's cost? Do you know
what studio time runs? What it costs to pay musicians? Printing, mastering,
etc? Have you ever worked full time as a musician? People keep calling you a
"file clerk"-is that true? If so, how could you know how much money Susan
Werner has or does not have, and how could you possibly speculate on how that
would apply to how much it costs to produce a CD? Have you researched
this?Most importantly why do you care so much about how Susan makes her
recordings???
Not trying to be condescending here, just trying to find some substantial back
up for what you're saying. Who are these people you trust-got any names? If
you've heard things from them tell them thanks for coming to the show. Jane
J Peekstok
Elisabeth Lavertu wrote:
>There have been so many times
>that I've gone to a folk show and have gotten the feeling that what the
>performer really wants is to be a celebrity like Ani DiFranco or the IG's
>and thus almost resents having to perform at a little local coffeehouse
>or cafe.
I generally agree with this, but I also think that you may be mis-reading
some of the performers. Remember that it takes a certain level of ego to
dirve a person to get up on stage. And that what happens on stage doesn't
really have a lot to do with how people relate to each other in a
conversation. I am very egotistical about my music -- I want every
traditional folk audience in the world to hear me -- but I am also rather
shy when meeting new people. Which I do at every performance. I often
suspect I come across as stand-offish or stuck up when I am preparing to go
on stage. Mostly it's just that I don't know what to say. Often I also have
about a zillion things on my mind -- remember that the performer is at work
and idle conversation is almost certainly a distraction. Did I write a set
list? Is that boom stand going to sink down during the show like it did
during the sound check? How many people are going to show up? Did I bring
enough extra strings? Should I have some coffee? Do I remember the chords
for the new song we just worked up? Are the lights pointed correctly? Am I
going to get a chance to warm up? Why did they put the CD table there? Is
there water on the stage? What's the name of the guy who booked us? Do I
need to change the battery in my pick up? Who are you and why are you
talking to me, can't you see I'm busy?
Another thing to keep in mind is that lots of small clubs don't attract a
very large audience but don't want to admit this to the performer. Nothing
sours the mood like realizing you are not even going to cover gas money to
get to the gig and home again.
All of that being said, there is no excuse for being condescending to the
audience, which I have seen a fair bit of. There is no excuse for playing
prima donna to the person who booked you or to the volunteers that make the
place happen, which happens a lot. And there is no excuse for allowing any
unpleasantness whatever to creep into the performance. Any performance is
an opportunity for both the performer and the audience to have a great
experience and to make new friends.
John Peekstok
J Peekstok
tes...@aol.com wrote:
>I'd be interested...what are some of the things readers of this
>newsgroup like about folk music and the folk scene??
Pertinent to this thread, I like the general non-competitive nature of the
folk scene. There is one other band in town that might possibly be
considered competition for my band. They are close friends of ours and we
pass gigs back and forth freely. When I played rock music, the bands were
sometimes friends but always competitors. I got sick of it. My
understanding is that the classical music world is even worse.
I can play damn near anything I want and find someone who thinks it's folk
music.
There is not a lot of money in the folk scene, so a lot of what happens is
made to happen by people who really want it to happen. This makes for some
very poignant and loving moments.
The folk music world is generally non-commercial. You don't much see folk
tours sponsered by Budweiser. I am a person who keeps a book next to me
while I watch TV so that I won't have to look a commercials. All the
pre-sets on my car radio are set to public radio stations. I don't like
being sold things unless I am shopping . . .
Most folk performers and audiences don't have much "attitude". Rock
musicians are supposed to be naughty, classical musicians are supposed to
be stuffy, jazz musicians are supposed to be hip, etc. Folk musicians are
usually allowed to be themselves.
It is a "scene" in a very real sense. It gives us all a place to be.
Please remember that any answers to a question like this are generalities.
John Peekstok
ghost
In article <19971028012...@ladder02.news.aol.com> fritz...@aol.com (Fritzie143) writes:
>Hi Ghost-it's me again. Some more truth for you.
Somehow I'm not inclined to look to the Werner organization as the
dispensers of truth.
> I don't get paid for making my
> posts.
Oh, but in your last post you said you were Werner's media representative.
Is she not paying you, in that capacity, to represent her in various forms of
media where she advertises herself? What is the internet to opportunists
like Werner if not a new avenue of advertisement?
>Please let me know where I can see you if I'm sitting in the audience
> at a folk club.
Why? Do you plan to come over & make a nuisance of yourself?
>Which club
The good ones in my area.
>-and would I see you on the stage or in the
> audience? Just curious.
What's it to you?
>Have you put out a CD?
Nope.
Do you know how much independent CD's cost?
Sure do. Several musicians have discussed it in great detail on the
internet, & one local one has discussed it with me personally.
It can run from $5-6,000 for the complete package (CDs in hand) to
"the sky's the limit". I suspect Werner approaches the upper limit on
her "independent" CDs.
You sure are patronizing, aren't you.
> Do you know
> what studio time runs?
More patronization. If you want to discuss costs, why don't you give
figures yourself?
The figures I've seen & heard discussed were for overall costs,
but if I want to check out studio-time charges that's no further than a few
phone calls away. A lot of independent musicians have used the odds & ends
of studio sessions for which the engineers were assembled but the session
ran short, or was cancelled at the last minute; they get a lower rate for
that. Of course, they have to be ready at any hour of the day or night
to show up at a studio in order to take advantage of the low prices.
Somehow, I suspect Werner didn't have to work with this kind of situation.
> What it costs to pay musicians?
Gee, lots of local musicians make their independent CDs with donated labor,
or "pay me if you ever make a profit" handshake contracts, or by paying
with the musicians' agreement the lowest figures on the local scale.
> Printing, mastering,
> etc?
Again, if I want the costs broken down its no further than a few
phone-calls away.
> Have you ever worked full time as a musician?
Nope, Not even part-time. But I've known people who *have* worked
full-time as folk/traditional, blues & rock musicians. Not what you'd call
the most lucrative job in the world. Most of them can't afford guitar-tuning
press-agents, even if they'd *want* one or two.
> People keep calling you a
> "file clerk"-is that true?
No, it s not. I'm a "Purchasing Assistant", also known for
semi-impermeable reasons to Harvard as a "Financial Assistant".
> If so, how could you know how much money Susan
> Werner has or does not have,
I didn't say I *know* how much money Werner has. I'm not her bookeeper.
Suffice to say she travels in a style few musicians whose names are not
house-hold words can afford.
> and how could you possibly speculate on how that
> would apply to how much it costs to produce a CD?
See answers to above equally patronizing questions of yours.
> Have you researched
> this?
See answers to above equally patronizing questions of yours.
> Most importantly why do you care so much about how Susan makes her
> recordings???
It pertains to the absence of a "level playing field" in the
singer-songwriter world.
Musicians want to have a CD with a fair amount of production on it, but usually
not the kind that gets it taken out of consideration for "acoustic"-format
radio. Ellis Paul was giving interviews before he was picked up by Rounder
in which he said, essentially, that the kind of production on his then-next
CD would be determined by who was going to distribute it; most of the
groups he'd been discussing distribution with had definite requirements.
I get the impression without his having discussed it on-air further that
Rounder, whom he wound up with, is a lot less dictatorial than some of the
smaller niche-market singer-songwriter labels about that sort of thing.
Whatever the amount or kind or of production on the airplay-intended
"product", club managers like to hear what the prospective employee will
sound like in a club, without accompaniests, as that's how they're likely
to be touring. Most musicians comply by working up a live tape of some
kind, strictly for club-owners. Not Werner; she records a live *CD*, same
production values as her studio CD, with lots of duplication of an already
very weak repertoire, intended for sale to audiences. That kind of
duplication of effort *costs*.
>Not trying to be condescending here,
You don't need to *try*. You do it effortlessly.
> just trying to find some substantial back
> up for what you're saying.
You just got it. You might try reading newsgroups in which musicians
discuss practical matters.
> Who are these people you trust-got any names?
Sure they got names.
> If
> you've heard things from them tell them thanks for coming to the show. Jane
No, that's *your* job, for which you're getting paid.
Matt Griffin
In article <6308r6$lf9$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
bhat...@skynet.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya) wrote:
> In article <62qn6n$b...@necco.harvard.edu>, ghost <j...@deas.harvard.edu>
wrote:
> >
> >On that last issue: No reason for the musicians not to be ambitious.
> >But wherever did they get the idea, like Werner obviously has, that
music is a
> >competition where you have to knock the other performer off the stage,
> >even, & *especially*, during their own set?
>
> But that (competetiveness) seems to me like a very American virtue. America
> is the land of free enterprise and getting ahead, is it not? And that means
> being competetive. In order to seize a piece of the American dream, you have
> to be competetive and outsmart the competition.
>
That's, like, a joke, right?
> To be competetive is as americcan as apple pie or as american folk music.
> Recall the old saying: "the business of America is business".
Recall the old saying, "You are such a card."
TEShaw
Pegbertsch wrote:
>There is a lot of positive, good stuff happening out there;
> personally, I think the more we focus on that, the more we foster it.
Yes! And that is why it is so upsetting when you come across someone (Without
mentioning names!!) for whom the folk scene is not a "scene", but a user
friendly ready made audience that can be of use as a way to hone their craft
in preperation for the leap into the "Real" music business.
This attitude seems to be more and more common. I think it is easy enough to
tell the difference between someone being crabby due to a rough day and being
snotty because you think that the gig, the staff and the audience are beneath
your dignity.
PegBertsch
>I do wonder how she feels about all this. It's one thing to criticize a
>performer, but is it necessary to tear her to shreds? Is that what folk
>music has come to these days?
>-Joe Offer-
Joe,
Please don't read too much into the actions of one person. Much of the
"tearing to shreds" has come from one source. I don't understand it, never
have, never will...but even good intentioned posts like yours just fan the
flames. I tend to try and ignore it, myself.
--peg (who may not like certain performers, but takes the live-and-let-live
approach)
PegBertsch
>
>Yes! And that is why it is so upsetting when you come across someone (Without
> mentioning names!!) for whom the folk scene is not a "scene", but a user
> friendly ready made audience that can be of use as a way to hone their craft
> in preperation for the leap into the "Real" music business.
>
>
Since you aren't mentioning names :-), it's hard to comment on specifics.
Sure, there are "users" in any genre of the music business, the folk scene
included. But the tone of your posts indicates that you think the folk scene
has more than its share of these types, and that's something I just haven't
encountered. I'm guessing that there are artists that *you* would
characterize as "users" that *I* think are examples of what's good about
contemporary folk music.
In some cases, you just have to let the performers grow beyond the limits of
the folk scene -- because it does have limits. It's a great community (IMO),
but part of what makes it great is that it is...well, *small*. I am not
going to fault someone for having simply outgrown it. I think they should
be allowed to grow, and change, and move beyond playing to a few dozen people
a night, making barely enough to cover transportation and daily expenses that
come from being on the road (ever see a touring folk musician's -- especially
one who does their own booking -- phone bill? ;-)
Besides, the way I look at it, when some of the more established performers
move on to bigger and better things, that just opens up the ground floor for
some new (and hopefully deserving) up-and-comers. It's a natural cycle, at
least to me. I'm sorry I don't quite understand what all the fuss is
about...maybe we should take this offline, where we can get all catty about
specific performers and *really* get into it ;-)
--peg
ghost
>Pegbertsch wrote:
>>There is a lot of positive, good stuff happening out there;
>> personally, I think the more we focus on that, the more we foster it.
>Yes! And that is why it is so upsetting when you come across someone (Without
> mentioning names!!) for whom the folk scene is not a "scene", but a user
> friendly ready made audience that can be of use as a way to hone their craft
> in preperation for the leap into the "Real" music business.
More than honing their craft, which in many cases could *use* some honing,
make that "pruning", they use it to garner fodder for press releases.
If Suzie Superstar (is that anonymous enough for everybody?) can get a
crowd to rush to the album table & buy her CDs, however she does it,
she gets to put into her press-kit "20,000 delirious fans at Festival-X
rushed the goodies table to buy **my** CDs". Doesn't matter if there really
were 20,000 fans at the whole festival. Doesn't matter if the ones who
actually *did* rush the table were doing it because they had been
driven into a CD-buying frenzy by SS's act, or were plants in the audience
(I heard a recent radio report that one of the Beatles' early hits in
Britain made it up the charts so fast because someone in their organization
bought all the copies; this is an old, old trick). Doesn't matter if
selling CDs directly from the performer is even *allowed* at that festival
(someone we all know from the header of this article has broken that rule
at least once). What makes the press-kit is the CD-buying frenzy, &
there are many ways to set this up other than by doing a killer show.
There's also the "come out, do a very short set despite being given as
much time as everybody else on the bill, & then milk the crowd for
4 1-song encores" approach to being noticed. Someone we all know from
the header of this article has done that one too, more than once.
Then there's the "enter an arena (sort of gladitorial, that) in which
you will stand out" approach. For instance, there's been a huge new crop
of women blues singer-songwriters, even though many of them have no
real feeling for blues.
There's nothing wrong with physically outgrowing the auditoriums your audience
frequents, as long as you genuinely have done so. Some of them will follow
you to larger, less cozy halls (halls with lousy sight-lines, impersonal
& often inaudible, though loud sound, & from which you look like a little
pin-point on the stage). What I find really offensive is abandoning the
type of material that "got you where you are" once you've got there,
unless you're genuinely more interested by that point in other things.
What I think is funny about the very un-genuine
"use a pre-existing crowd as a step-ladder for your ambitions"
approach to the music scene is that when it backfires, you have people
stuck singing the blues who really don't like the blues, even though by
that time they have a lot to be blue about. Or singing about their raisins.
That will go over really good when they're 80.
Michael Bowen
In article <3453C2...@isomedia.com>, mspi...@isomedia.com wrote:
>I have stopped entering (best I ever did was 2 years as an honorable
>mention at Napa) as I can no longer justify spending the money (ya, they
>cost money to enter) or support the system that somehow supports the
>idea that a song or songwriter can be reduced to equations and be
>ranked.
Yet on a different thread he wrote (re: Dan Bern):
>I am a better writer, a better
>guitarist and better performer. No ego, just fact.
How did you come to this conclusion without ranking yourself against Bern?
--
__________________________________________________________________
We all live by robbing Asiatic coolies, and those of us who are
"enlightened" all maintain that those coolies ought to be set free; but our
standard of living, and hence our "enlightenment", demands that the robbery
shall continue. - George Orwell
___________________________________________________________________
Mark Spittal
Michael Bowen wrote:
>
> In article <3453C2...@isomedia.com>, mspi...@isomedia.com wrote:
>
> >I have stopped entering (best I ever did was 2 years as an honorable
> >mention at Napa) as I can no longer justify spending the money (ya, they
> >cost money to enter) or support the system that somehow supports the
> >idea that a song or songwriter can be reduced to equations and be
> >ranked.
>
> Yet on a different thread he wrote (re: Dan Bern):
>
> >I am a better writer, a better
> >guitarist and better performer. No ego, just fact.
>
> How did you come to this conclusion without ranking yourself against Bern?
My judgement based on performing for over 25 years. You disagree??
Fine. Also the fact that when I have had Kerrville, Napa and Rocky
Mountain winners open for me (I have never opened for them), I got
better reviews. Go to my home page, read my reviews. And I don't need
to to say "fuck" on stage to make my point.
Secondly, as the rest of the posting said, the mere idea of a contest to
find out who is a better songwriter is idiotic in the extreme.
Lastly, I have heard myself, and have heard Bern You have heard Bern, I
presume. Yoiu ahven't heard me. So your judgment means nothing, as you
do not have the info to base it on. You like him, go to his concerts,
buy his CDs. I really don't give a damn. But I have a question for
you? Do you support any of youre local songwriters, or do you need to
read Dirty Linen or Performing Songwriter to find out who the latest hot
person is?
TEShaw
Mark Spittal wrote:
>Lastly, I have heard myself, and have heard Bern You have heard Bern, I
>presume. Yoiu ahven't heard me. So your judgment means nothing, as you
>do not have the info to base it on.
Marm Mark Mark,
First off, this guy didn't judge you. All he did was point out that you
contradicted yourself. You wrote one letter about how it was impossible to
make a judgement about who is better. (Which is what happens a contests) And
in another letter you say you are "better" than Dan Bern. Mark....He doesn't
question that you are better or worse...he points out a real contradidction in
your own writing.
Mark...Time after time I see you simply reacting to everything as if it's a
personal attack on you. you assume that everybody is judging you. and in
almost every case you are wrong.
This is not a discussion about how good or bad Mark Spittal is. It was supposed
to be about the way the folk scene is evolving and the issues that the changes
have brought up. It isn't about Susan Werner's connection to Werner Trucking
or whatever.
Can we keep to the thread please?
And Mark...relax
Stephen Noel Spencer
Mark Spittal (mspi...@isomedia.com) wrote:
:
: One of the problemas in the present folk commu8nity is the fascination
: with celebrity, the latest CD, the coolest act...actually, I think the
: traditional scene doesn't have that big of a problem, but the
: songwriting community and their audience is pitiful in that aspect. It
: seems we believe in the falsehood of the best rise to the top. They
: don't.
I tend to see it *much* more often in more mainstream music than
in the folk/acoustic music community. Not to say it doesn't exist, but
the folk/acoustic community, like (I would imagine) the traditional music
community, doesn't have the big-record-label backing that the mainstream
community has. If Jewel were on some small label, would she have received
the press she's got, the exposure she's got? (I'm not picking on Jewel,
just citing her as an example.) No way... a small label (or her own label
were she to do the indie thing) wouldn't have the bucks to back her in that
manner.
Is it a falsehood? I don't know... if a potential audience goes to see
a show, pays out of their own pocket to do so, and aren't entertained,
they're not going back. If they are, if the performer or the
performance moves them, they'll come back. And tell their
friends. Oy... let's use Ani DiFranco as an example. I've seen her in
very small clubs, and just two weekends ago at 3,500-seat Hill
Auditorium at the University of Michigan. No falsehood there, she's
built a following.
--
Stephen N. Spencer 614.292.3416 (v) Graphics Research Specialist
spe...@siggraph.org 614.292.7776 (f) ACCAD - The Ohio State University
spe...@cgrg.ohio-state.edu SIGGRAPH Director for Publications
spe...@acm.org "After ecstasy, laundry." -- Zen writing
Mark Spittal
PegBertsch wrote:
>
> >
> >My judgement based on performing for over 25 years. You disagree??
> >Fine. Also the fact that when I have had Kerrville, Napa and Rocky
> >Mountain winners open for me (I have never opened for them), I got
> >better reviews. Go to my home page, read my reviews.
>
> really exemplifies what's good about the folk scene:
>
> Someone who does not feel a need to put another writer down, even when they
> may not like that other writer's style. Someone who feels there's room for
> everyone, and just quietly goes about their own business without worrying
> about what everyone else is doing.
What is the difference between critiquing and putting a writer down? I
put down (I admit) another writer for needing to use swear words in his
music. I don't question his right, I DO question whether it works. I
used to do stand up comedy, and the technique of some comedians was, if
their material wasn't working, they would say fuck and shit and mention
sexual acts and genatilia...and the audience would have this nervous
laugh. Mind you, not the laugh of a genuinely funny line... but one of
embarrasment and nervousness. In the vast majority of cases that I have
seen, when a songwriter uses the same technique, they are just showing
an inability to turn a phrase that works. I have exceptions, including
one very powerful song about a wounded Vietnam vet, where the imagery is
powerful and the use of swear words makes the song soar. But this very
rare...
You want a turn of phrase? Listen to Bob Franke...I have sat in wonder
as he says in one line what I will use two or three songs to say...Bruce
Cockburn....Patrice O'Neill (a Northwest songwriter with the most
beautiful voice I have heard)...Steve Goodman...Tracy Spring (get her CD
Life and Art)...any number of songwriters put unforgettable images in
your mind and touch your heart and soul.
And Peg...I have performed all over this country and in a few others,as
I said, for 25 years...and I have dang well earned some right and have
the experience and knowledge to make a judgment about whether I think
some songwriter is good or not!! I am judgmental, don't deny, and quite
bluntly, revel in it! What I try not to be is prejudiced, ignorant, and
play the game of saying someone is judgmental...which is a technique we
use far to often to shut someone uip when we cannot actually prove what
they say is wrong.
> Someone who isn't always checking the scorecard to see who's opening for whom.
>
> Someone who doesn't take reviews or results of songwriting competitions too
> much to heart (nice as it is to "win" or be reviewed favorably), because they
> realize it's just the subjective opinions of a handful of people. It's NOT
> fact, and it doesn't *really* mean anything in the big picture (and I say
> this even having benefitted from such subjective opinions myself -- I don't
> think it means I'm the "better" songwriter. Hardly.).
Very noble...and incredibly unrealistic. Because audiences and bookers
DO care!!! The bookers want you to show them that you can be a draw,
and one of many ways they do this by asking who you have shared the
stage with. Audiences don't want to spend money on someone who they do
not know. Press releases for concerts and CDs always mention if someone
who produced so and so or played with Dylan or....
I think songwriting competitions are (forgive my language) absolute,
unadulterated bullshit!!! Dang right it is the subjective opinion of a
few people with their own prejudices and limitations! But then,
Performing Songwriter will crow about who won Kerrville....folk
societies will mention in bold letters that so-and-so was the 1898
winner of some folk festival songwriting competition....and some
audience members will actually be impressesd, even if they haven't heard
a note from the writer! So.. where does that leave someone who doesn't
have a marketiong department behind them, or the money to spend on
publicity?? Crow about who you have shared the stage with.
And I am so tired of the folk community thinking they are totally above
shallowness and trendiness. Of course, we are totally immune to othose
things...sure, right...uh-huh..
> Someone who is continually humbled by other singer/songwriters...because there
> are a LOT of talented singer/songwriters out there from coast to coast (and
> beyond), and if one thinks they're that much better than everyone else,
> they're probably just not listening objectively (or they're too busy comparing
> themselves against everyone else, instead of just appreciating what another
> writer brings to the the table).
I am constantly humbled by many other songwriters, whose talents and
insights illuminate my life. Whose friendship I treasure as much as
life itself. Whose love, acceptance and respect has supported my heart
through some very hard times.
I talk with and share with younger songwriters who approach me. I run a
web page that has reviews of other songwriters and perfomers, and links
to their pages, so that more people can hear these mostly unknown, but
quite incredible singer/songwriters. I freely praise those whose music
I enjoy. Because we all need to hear when someone appreciates that who
we are and what we do.
> You know, we're all human, we're all prone to moments of frustration and envy
> and negativity when we feel like things aren't happening fast enough or
> fairly enough in our careers. But how you handle those moments, and what
> frustrations you choose to work out privately versus continually ramming
> them down other people's throats, says a lot about your own self-esteem. IMO.
You know, Peg, you and I have actually met in person at the Folk
Alliance. So in this case, I will say something that is rather cold.
You looked at me with such obvious fear and discomfort, such judgmental
shallowness...that what you think of me is immaterial. You are not just
another faceless corres[pondent on the rec.music.folk, you are someone
who has had the opportunity to treat me with some sense of dignity and
failed. You were a person who will judge a person based on their
appearence (I am very tall and fat). You are example of the type of
audience that I talk about, you talk the talk, but at least in my case,
you sure didn't walk the walk.
Secondly, I don't ram a damn thing down people's throats. I just state
openly that I am good. I am told by my contemporaries and audiences
this every week. I am repeating what they say. I do not play the
idiotic game of false modesty.
I don't agree with all the things the author of the following said, but
there is quite a bit of wisdom in it. Read it and think:
"Our worst fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that
we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that
most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous,
talented and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child
of God; your playing small doesn't serve the world. There is nothing
enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure
around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God within us. It
is not just in some of us; it is in everyone and as we let our own light
shine we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As
we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates
others."
-Mariianne Williamson
Well, here is my ego; I am good..heck, from what I have heard from some
people, so are you. So are many others. And sometimes us little,
unknown performers are as good and even better than the popular names.
If it is a fact, if many other well informed people say it, why not
repeat it??
Mark
--
________________________________________________
PegBertsch
>
>My judgement based on performing for over 25 years. You disagree??
>Fine. Also the fact that when I have had Kerrville, Napa and Rocky
>Mountain winners open for me (I have never opened for them), I got
>better reviews. Go to my home page, read my reviews.
My idea of a songwriter who is truly confident in their own abilities, and who
really exemplifies what's good about the folk scene:
Someone who does not feel a need to put another writer down, even when they
may not like that other writer's style. Someone who feels there's room for
everyone, and just quietly goes about their own business without worrying
about what everyone else is doing.
Someone who isn't always checking the scorecard to see who's opening for whom.
Someone who doesn't take reviews or results of songwriting competitions too
much to heart (nice as it is to "win" or be reviewed favorably), because they
realize it's just the subjective opinions of a handful of people. It's NOT
fact, and it doesn't *really* mean anything in the big picture (and I say
this even having benefitted from such subjective opinions myself -- I don't
think it means I'm the "better" songwriter. Hardly.).
Someone who is continually humbled by other singer/songwriters...because there
are a LOT of talented singer/songwriters out there from coast to coast (and
beyond), and if one thinks they're that much better than everyone else,
they're probably just not listening objectively (or they're too busy comparing
themselves against everyone else, instead of just appreciating what another
writer brings to the the table).
Someone who realizes that the music business -- like life -- isn't always fair,
but still manages to be happy for the success of others, without feeling
threatened or becoming defensive...
You know, we're all human, we're all prone to moments of frustration and envy
and negativity when we feel like things aren't happening fast enough or
fairly enough in our careers. But how you handle those moments, and what
frustrations you choose to work out privately versus continually ramming
them down other people's throats, says a lot about your own self-esteem. IMO.
--peg
ghost
In article <3456EC...@isomedia.com> mspi...@isomedia.com writes:
>Putting out a CD doesn't have damn thing to do with quality of music of
>talent. It is an exercise in money. Don't kid yourself about it.
>There are literally thousands of great musicians out there who don't
>have a CD out because they simply do not have the cash. And there are
>quite a few CD's out there in the world that arn't worth the plastic
>they are made on.
And even of those that have good CDs, & a good label funding the CD,
& distributing it:
Carol Noonan was interviewed a few minutes ago on WUMB here in the Boston area,
& answered one of the questions about why the latest album is,
as she put it with an audio smile
"more of a band project for which Carol Noonan came in to sing",
than being produced in the style of her last two,
meaning by that, as she'd been describing, that the band called the shots
on the production for this one, by saying (I'm getting to *why* they gave
the band production green-light, I'll get there) that in addition to her
really *wanting* to hear what ideas they came up with & to back off from
having such a big hand in the production herself on this one
"and I'm working a day job and.." (she went on to say something about not
having enough *time* to give to her own ideas on production for this one).
And I said to myself "What??? Noonan is working a day job??"
Well, yeah, Noonan likes to eat, just like the rest of us.
Rounder distributes Philo, & you can bet they paid for the studio time
& the musicians & will do their best to distribute this one (& the previous 2),
but beyond a few things that they *have* done locally & nationally, they're not
going to paper the universe with publicity on Carol Noonan, much as they'd
probably like to. They do more to paper the universe with publicity on
Alison Krauss, their bona fide biggest all-time seller, but in record-company
terms they aren't doing nearly as much as a "major" label would be doing
even on Krauss.
Jewel's company bought her a week each at clubs around the country in order
to push her recording, sent free tickets to all the industry people,
& it paid off. Of course Jewel had to do her best in absolutely empty clubs
(empty except for industry people) for a good part of that
"artist in residence" bit. I don't believe Rounder is in the position to
do that buying of a week's time in clubs around the country (club gets
guaranteed lots of $$ even if they have no customers) for the musicians
on their roster. Maybe they could take some of their Krauss money & do
that, since, abhorrent practise that I find it it seems to work, but I
doubt they're going to start it.
If Noonan shows signs of catching on, they'll probably kick in with even
more publicity to push the CD sales. But they're not buying her a year's worth
of showcase dates just yet.
Why is David Crossland not a household world in singer-songwriterdom yet?
And why is Bernice Lewis still undoubtably working a day job?
And why was Richard Shindell, who, like Noonan, has the great distribution
& the large-indie-funding, only doing weekend dates out of New York City
until this thing touring with Baez finally hit? Well, in an interview *he*
did a while ago on WUMB he said that since his wife had the lucrative job & he
didn't, & since they really didn't want/couldn't afford to go for full-time
daycare, he was doing the "househusband" thing, taking care of the kid.
Who he took with him to those weekend dates (& radio interviews; she
sounded like she was having a great time rearranging the station's CDs).
Even with all the talent in the world, & for 2 out of 4 above the funding
& distribution of a "major-indie", most musicians can't afford to tour if
the audiences aren't there. But if they don't somehow manage to tour, the
audiences won't *be* there *at all*. Their airplay in the rest of the
country outside the Boston area is problematic at best, because stations
that will play their recordings are few & far-between & hard to find.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, other musicians who want to be thought
of as "just folks/singer-songwriters" are turning up on every public-TV special
& as opening act for every big-time/big-audience singer-songwriter
they can find...
But of course money has nothing to do with it, right?
PegBertsch
>You know, Peg, you and I have actually met in person at the Folk
>Alliance. So in this case, I will say something that is rather cold.
>You looked at me with such obvious fear and discomfort, such judgmental
>shallowness...that what you think of me is immaterial. You are not just
>another faceless corres[pondent on the rec.music.folk, you are someone
>who has had the opportunity to treat me with some sense of dignity and
>failed. You were a person who will judge a person based on their
>appearence (I am very tall and fat). You are example of the type of
>audience that I talk about, you talk the talk, but at least in my case,
>you sure didn't walk the walk.
This isn't only uncalled for, it's flat out wrong. I remember who you are,
Mark, and I remember quite a lot about that 10 or 15 minutes we spent
"talking" (though it is the content of the conversation that made the biggest
impression, not anyone's physical appearance). Mostly I remember that you
walked over to say hi to Andrew (whom I had just met, and the mutual friend
who had introduced us had wandered off from the table), and you two began
talking about the old days (in Chicago?), and that veered off into a seemingly
personal conversation about your health. I felt I could not possibly
participate in such a conversation without appearing rude or nosy (that might
explain my look of discomfort, if there was one... did that ever occur to
you?). And hey, just because I had already been sitting at the table for
more than an hour before you (and Andrew, for that matter) arrived, and had
been getting ready to leave but felt like it would be rude of me to walk away
just as you both sat down, that doesn't have any bearing on the situation
either. I'm sure you must be right; it's not that I'm naturally shy and
quiet and even a little awkward around people I've just met (especially when
they are talking about personal things); no, it must be that I make snap
judgements about them based on their appearance.
I could bring up the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you read something
into that brief encounter that wasn't there, but something tells me you've
made up your mind about me without even really knowing me. But yeah, sure,
*I'm* the one who is being judgemental...
--peg
PegBertsch
[First off, my apologies to erroneously posting my last response to the
group...that was supposed to go directly to Mark, as I didn't think it was
relevant to this discussion...I hit the wrong button and copied the newsgroup]
Re: some of Mark's on topic points:
>What is the difference between critiquing and putting a writer down? I
>put down (I admit) another writer for needing to use swear words in his
>music. I don't question his right, I DO question whether it works.
Fine. It doesn't work for you. The tone of your posts not only puts the
writer down, it also puts down those who do like him (since we're talking
about Dan Bern here), and I take exception to that. I don't respond too well
to Dan's in-your-face style; I won't be buying his CD. I also don't go for
this "next Bob Dylan" hype, but I sure as hell can try to appreciate what he
brings to the table (besides the in-your-face stuff, there's a wicked sense of
humor, and some gentler insights), and why people respond to him. I give him
credit for that, regardless of whether he's "my type". I don't love
everything he does, but I appreciate his decidedly different perspective on
things. And apparently, so do a lot of other people.
As someone who continuously struggles with my own creative process, I'm not one
to question the validity of what works for other writers (or their audience).
There are enough other people (reviewers, listeners, etc.) who are ready with
their own judgements and criticisms...as far as I'm concerned, if another
writer manages to find a receptive audience (whether or not I am a member of
it), I respect that. And I think respect is the operative word here. I know
how hard it is for *anyone* to break through. To me it isn't a question of
being "deserving"; if you managed to do it, you deserve it as much as anyone
(though not necessarily *more* than those who haven't quite broken through).
<<
And Peg...I have performed all over this country and in a few others,as
I said, for 25 years...and I have dang well earned some right and have
the experience and knowledge to make a judgment about whether I think
some songwriter is good or not!!
>>
Mark, it will always be YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION. What I have always taken
exception to over the years of reading your posts (and what finally drove me
over the edge in this thread) is that you act as if those of us who do not
share your opinion of what is "good" songwriting are wrong, or ill-informed,
or less knowledgeable, or incapable of thinking for ourselves unless some
magazine tells us who to like. It doesn't work that way. I don't think you
have the right to decide what's "good" for anyone else...none of us do. I
find your posts too often (though certainly not always) to be negative,
accusatory, and derogatory to both other writers (that you don't like) and
their fans. Is it really necessary? To insult other people because their
tastes/style differ from yours? I don't understand that.
Re: on my statement that reviews, songwriting competitions, etc. don't really
mean anything in the big picture:
<<Very noble...and incredibly unrealistic. Because audiences and bookers
DO care!!! The bookers want you to show them that you can be a draw,
and one of many ways they do this by asking who you have shared the
stage with.
>>
I'm not being noble, or unrealistic. I know as well as anyone how a few good
reviews from the right people or a few credits from songwriting competitions,
etc., can help draw the attention of bookers and potential audience members.
What I'm talking about is whether or not we need to believe (and place too
much stock in) our own press.
Getting bookings and building a following and generating a "buzz" is all part
of the business. I just don't want it to become the focus of why I write,
and why I participate in the folk community. I don't think I'm a good
songwriter because somebody else thinks I am; it certainly is nice to hear,
but I'm pretty hard on myself, and I hope I'm always my toughest critic. It
keeps me striving. I've come a certain distance as a songwriter, but I've got
a long way to go. There are too many great writers out there for me to look
up to, who set the standard I aspire to...I don't have the time (or interest)
in looking down on anyone else or comparing myself to others; I've got my own
house to keep in order.
>So.. where does that leave someone who doesn't
>have a marketiong department behind them, or the money to spend on
>publicity?? Crow about who you have shared the stage with.
>
>
To paraphrase a well-known proverb, I'd rather walk softly and carry a big,
killer song ;-) It may not get *everyone's* attention (bookers included), but
more often than not, it gets the attention of those I most care about. I also
think there are ways to promote yourself without showing any disrespect to
others. But, okay, I shouldn't be projecting my personal style on everyone
else. Go ahead and crow. I just know that I will be in that audience segment
who is turned off rather than intrigued. Not that I expect you care what I
think, of course :-)
>And I am so tired of the folk community thinking they are totally above
>shallowness and trendiness. Of course, we are totally immune to othose
>things...sure, right...uh-huh..
>
We're not, and I'm not. But with all due respect, I don't think you know me
well enough to measure the depth of my belief in the things I say. I'm far
from perfect, but I try not to let my negative emotions take over. I still
think there is too much positive stuff going on, and too many incredible
people coming into my life through my involvement in the folk community, for
me to focus on the negative. It pains me to see other people who do, although
once again, I shouldn't project my own style on other people, I know... I just
hate to see the good things get lost in the shuffle.
--peg
sayan bhattacharyya
In article <63ba1s$a...@necco.harvard.edu>, ghost <j...@deas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>Even with all the talent in the world, & for 2 out of 4 above the funding
>& distribution of a "major-indie", most musicians can't afford to tour if
>the audiences aren't there. But if they don't somehow manage to tour, the
>audiences won't *be* there *at all*. Their airplay in the rest of the
>country outside the Boston area is problematic at best, because stations
>that will play their recordings are few & far-between & hard to find.
>
>Meanwhile, back at the ranch, other musicians who want to be thought
>of as "just folks/singer-songwriters" are turning up on every public-TV special
>& as opening act for every big-time/big-audience singer-songwriter
>they can find...
>
>But of course money has nothing to do with it, right?
If this is the situation in the USA, the richest country in the world
(at least there is a social safety net and no one actually starves),
one shudders to think of what it must be like for struggling musicians
in less fortunate countries.
I guess folk music will be extinct very soon all over the world.
El McMeen
pegbe...@aol.com (PegBertsch) writes:
> >You know, Peg, you and I have actually met in person at the Folk
Peg's eloquent post makes it clear that you shouldn't read
things into people's silences. A good object lesson.
El McMeen http://www.hway.net/mcmeen
Robert Thurlow
In article <345913...@isomedia.com>,
Mark Spittal <mspi...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>You know, Peg, you and I have actually met in person at the Folk
>Alliance. So in this case, I will say something that is rather cold.
>You looked at me with such obvious fear and discomfort, such judgmental
>shallowness...that what you think of me is immaterial. You are not just
>another faceless corres[pondent on the rec.music.folk, you are someone
>who has had the opportunity to treat me with some sense of dignity and
>failed. You were a person who will judge a person based on their
>appearence (I am very tall and fat). You are example of the type of
>audience that I talk about, you talk the talk, but at least in my case,
>you sure didn't walk the walk.
I've met Peg, and can't say strongly enough 1) how wrong I think
you are about Peg, and 2) how much of a jerk I think you are for
writing this crap in public. You needn't expect to see me at a
show where you'll be performing, and it won't be because of your
physical appearance.
Rob T
Mark Spittal
Robert Thurlow wrote:
>
> In article <345913...@isomedia.com>,
> Mark Spittal <mspi...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>
> >Alliance. So in this case, I will say something that is rather cold.
> >You looked at me with such obvious fear and discomfort, such judgmental
> >shallowness...that what you think of me is immaterial. You are not just
> >another faceless corres[pondent on the rec.music.folk, you are someone
> >who has had the opportunity to treat me with some sense of dignity and
> >failed. You were a person who will judge a person based on their
> >appearence (I am very tall and fat). You are example of the type of
> >audience that I talk about, you talk the talk, but at least in my case,
> >you sure didn't walk the walk.
>
> you are about Peg, and 2) how much of a jerk I think you are for
> writing this crap in public. You needn't expect to see me at a
> show where you'll be performing, and it won't be because of your
> physical appearance.
Fine. First, I do regret writing it in public, and that I apoligize
for. It was reaction to something that I personally found offensive in
her post. Not an excuse, an explanation.
Now, as far as you coming to a performace of mine. No great loss.
Because sir, you just reacted and judged me and my music's worth based
on one paragraph, a paragraph which, from my viewpoint was accurate. My
daily experience being 6'10" and 400 pounds gives me knowledge of how
people react to physically different people. Your experience doesn't
make mine invaild. Just so you don't miss a performance from another
fine musician who might not be HWP, alright.
But answer me a question if you could. In a country (the US), where 51%
of the population is overweight, why is it that so few of our popular
performers (pick the art and media) are overweight? I'd settle for more
than there is, but if you don't believe that perhaps one of the most
overwhelming prejudices today is such things as fatophobia, my life
proves you wrong.
Mark
--
________________________________________________
there can be hope in the trying to make the leap
past the anger we carry so deep
there can be hope in the singing of songs that rejoice
in the coming together of our voices
hope/mark spittal/seattle/copyright 1996
Acoustic Northwest -
TJatWS
MarK Spittal Wrote:
>In a country (the US), where 51%
>of the population is overweight, why is it that so few of our popular
>performers (pick the art and media) are overweight?
That's easy. For better or worse, we tend to be guided by our sexual instincts.
After all...the most popular and influential force in music over the last 30
or so year is Rock and Roll...and did you ever stop to think what the term
Rock and Roll means?? Rhythm moves our bodies and words to love songs
stimulate our romantic impulses. So we look for performers who we are
attracted to. And most of us are not attracted to people who are overweight.
Of course there are exceptions, but I bet that if Jewel weren't such a hot
babe, chances are you wouldn't have heard her songs.
Life can be unfair with things like this...when I was in high school, the
cutest guy went out with a girl who was prettier than me...and I didn't make
the basketball team because I wasn't tall enough.
My suggestion Mark, is to make the best of what you got. And not complain at
every incident that you take as a slight. Did you ever think that maybe there
is some reason why whatever Higher Power there may be made you as big as you
are? I don't imagine it was so that you could rail against the world on the
internet.
With love,
Ann
kes...@alum.mit.edu
In <Pine.SOL.3.95q.97103...@rac4.wam.umd.edu>, amy elizabeth lavertu <gum...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
> Well, I had hoped that the discussion on the folk scene would be
>enlightening or, at least, get people to think about why they enjoy folk
>music so much.
Well, I _tried_ to get the discussion restarted under a less provocative
subject line... but it died out after a post or two.
ghost
In article <didlidi-0511...@mfs-01-244.port.shore.net> did...@unshore.net (Matt Griffin) writes:
> My overall feeling is that what needs to come from this discussion is
>a better understanding and *maybe* a better definition of what success is
>for participants in this community.
> We have a tendency to look at people like Shawn Colvin and Jewel and
>judge our expectations for ourselves based on that standard. Whether it
>turns out that that is what we want or not, we use the idea of living
>extremely well off of music as the goal we strive for. There are
>exceptions to this, but in the main, this model is in our minds. Though I
>fight against it, it's in mine, too.
A lot of us grew up watching musicians, both folk & rock, getting
very very rich off of their music. Its the model because we saw so many
examples of it. The joke here is that many of those models didn't plan
for their success, didn't really believe it for quite a while, & trying
to cope with it literally killed some of them the same way trying to cope
with never acheiving the success they think they ought to have has killed
others.
What we are seeing nowadays is the hard-headed
"how to break into the music scene; Aha! Singer-songwriter is an
easy market (full of easy marks) to crash!" view in action.
(I don't think anyone's made a big fortune in the US off of actual
traditional songs since the 50s & 60s, though it *has* happened a few times
since then in Europe). These would-be stars usually weren't drawn to the
singer-songwriter thing by anything warm-&-fuzzy they found within the scene
except maybe the audience's & fellow-musicians' gullibility, nor are they
acting on some kind of deep-seated need of the kind pyschologists like to
theorize about to express something; they just want a quick road to being
the star, because that means they get all the attention they think
they deserve, as well as the big bucks that come with it.
I don't think either Shawn Colvin or Jewel are examples of this
crassly commerical trend.
Colvin has never, to my knowledge, attempted to woo audiences by pretending to
be involved in kinds of music she has no interest in, & has always been frank &
open about her desire make more money at music than she has made
until recently.
Jewel, from what I've read about her, both in the admittedly slanted
popular press & years ago here on the internet, is a for-real
singer-songwriter, with a for-real singer-songwriter's tale of music-industrial
woe (& earlier on, industry lack of interest) until the current label
latched onto her. She wasn't groomed in some "hitmaker" school. No team of
back-stage label personnel are writing her songs for her. She got the
fast road to stardom, but that's because the industry had to have been looking
for someone just like her to promote; an "Ani DiFranco type" without
the spikiness. DiFranco got a lot of mileage out of *not* signing with them,
remember? But they knew a more-controllable DiFranco-like character
would sell.
The 1st time (the only one of 2, actually; despite her million-sellerness,
the radio when I tune it in on long trips seems much more interested in
*playing* Alanis Morissette & Sheryl Crowe) I heard Jewel I thought I was
hearing DiFranco on one of those psychology-altering drugs Greg Bullough keeps
trying to slip into my virtual herb tea here; not the Lithium, but one of the
"have a nice day" drugs, surely. What's going to happen is that Jewel's
fans are going to some day finally hear DiFranco & think
"What's happened to Jewel!! She's gotten awfully surly/crabby/pointed
suddenly, hasn't she?". They (Jewel & DiFranco, who I've heard almost as
little of as Jewel because the local folk station doesn't like her,
& while I like her somewhat I don't like her enough to buy her records ahead of
others I want a lot *more*) *do* have a similar style of writing & mode of
delivery, don't they? But the tone of the messages is different. I've heard
that DiFranco went for the "softer, gentler Ani" on her latest album,
which is going to get all *her* fans confused.
Jewel is just "DiFranco on Prozac". And she's selling more than DiFranco,
because she's being peddled as only the music industry can peddle. I hope
DiFranco doesn't get surly/crabby/pointed about all this when she gets a
lot older, because everyone will tell her "but you had your chance at it".
Joe Williams iii
Please don't take offense - I'm only responding between your lines here
so I can feel like I'm talking to a person, instead of leaving a message
on some giant answering machine! Not trying to tear apart your post or
anything...!
ghost (j...@deas.harvard.edu) wrote:
> In article <didlidi-0511...@mfs-01-244.port.shore.net>
did...@unshore.net (Matt Griffin) writes:
> > My overall feeling is that what needs to come from this discussion is
> >a better understanding and *maybe* a better definition of what success is
> >for participants in this community.
I agree : hearing some individual definitions of success would be a VERY
interesting turn for this discussion, which has been fun to read so
far, I must say!
> > We have a tendency to look at people like Shawn Colvin and Jewel and
> >judge our expectations for ourselves based on that standard. Whether it
> >turns out that that is what we want or not, we use the idea of living
> >extremely well off of music as the goal we strive for. There are
> >exceptions to this, but in the main, this model is in our minds. Though I
> >fight against it, it's in mine, too.
Yep. I can't see anything wrong with making a lot of money playing music.
Seems like a very worthwhile job, you know. Great work if you can get it.
> A lot of us grew up watching musicians, both folk & rock, getting
> very very rich off of their music. Its the model because we saw so many
> examples of it. The joke here is that many of those models didn't plan
> for their success, didn't really believe it for quite a while, & trying
> to cope with it literally killed some of them the same way trying to cope
> with never acheiving the success they think they ought to have has killed
> others.
I can't think of too many people that fall into this category! Can someone
help here? I had an immediate, invountary Elvis Presley response, followed
by a sudden Hank Williams Sr. I'm only 31, so be gentle with me.
> What we are seeing nowadays is the hard-headed
> "how to break into the music scene; Aha! Singer-songwriter is an
> easy market (full of easy marks) to crash!" view in action.
> (I don't think anyone's made a big fortune in the US off of actual
> traditional songs since the 50s & 60s, though it *has* happened a few times
> since then in Europe).
Singer-songwriters and singers of traditional music seem like two
different beasts to me. I agree that some popular performers seem to be
crashing into the singer-songwriter market with that attitude. The terms
folk and singer-songwriter are becoming pretty vague to me, especially the
more I listen to popular radio. Need to stop doing that.
> I don't think either Shawn Colvin or Jewel are examples of this
> crassly commerical trend.
Do folks out there consider the above mentioned as folk singers? I realize
this has been touched on previously in other threads, but what the heck. I
can't see it. I think I have trouble seeing it, partially, because
their actual _sounds_ strike me as crassly commercial. I can't get
completely past the FORM to find the folk content. Ultra clean and
digital. Can folk music really sound that way?
Joe
ghost
In article <34634D...@islandnet.com> wolo...@islandnet.com writes:
>Joe Williams iii wrote:
I (jmf) wrote
>> > I don't think either Shawn Colvin or Jewel are examples of this
>> > crassly commerical trend.
>> Do folks out there consider the above mentioned as folk singers? I realize
>> this has been touched on previously in other threads, but what the heck. I
>> can't see it. I think I have trouble seeing it, partially, because
>> their actual _sounds_ strike me as crassly commercial. I can't get
>> completely past the FORM to find the folk content. Ultra clean and
>> digital. Can folk music really sound that way?
>I don't know much about Jewel, but Shawn Colvin sort of came up through
>the folk circuit, didn't she? That doesn't mean she has to be
>classified as folk now, in fact I think her latest effort is
>intentionally mainstream. But as far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to see
>someone with folk beginnings do well. Being folk shouldn't mean you're
>not allowed to move on to other things.
Colvin came up simultaneously through the folk circuit, the modern-old-time
(now that's a category) circuit, the alternative-country end of the
folk circuit, or maybe the folk end of the alternative-country circuit
(she seems to have adamantly insisted on being marketed as pop/rock, *not*
wanting to have to make the concessions to Nashville that being billed as any
kind of country would obliged her to make), the off-Broadway musical-theater
circuit, the voice-of-commercials circuit (a big money-maker; she's been
doing TV work for years, but only gets noticed for it now that her voice
is well-known from other referents). The point I'm making is that Colvin
never, to my knowledge, tried to market herself as anything but a
singer-songwriter & singer-for-hire of material she liked (aside from the
TV commercials, which were a money-making solid job).
I'm not even that big a fan of Colvin's, or to put it another way I'm a
lot bigger fan of some other, much more consistantly great (by my standards)
songwriters, but Colvin wrote (or co-wrote; a lot of her things are
co-written) "I Don't Know Why", a song that will long outlive not only
her currently flourishing career, but her life on earth as well, I'm sure.
I'll bet a lot of people who sing it, just to themselves, not as any kind
of career move, don't even know she wrote it, either. Instant tradition.
Which brings us back around to the
"why care if people don't cover your songs" thing, which both you &
Mark Spittal have espoused. If *you* don't care, then it really doesn't
matter if other people do or don't, but one of the major aspects that
draws me to music is the timeless quality of some of the material.
If you view your material just as "little post-cards from life", or as
statements you like to make for an audience, then I can see how some of
the audience might find it valuable, but I probably won't find it more
than a momentary distraction. I want songs I can take home with me in
the "wake up trying or wanting to sing them" way, & if your songs don't
have that kind of quality you're not going to rate very high in my judgement.
Doesn't mean everything has to be deadly serious, either. Just memorable,
unshakable, that sort of effect. If it isn't haunting or funny or catchy
or *something* that would make people want to remember it, *why* should
they care about hearing it in the 1st place, unless you're a close personal
friend of theirs? Why are you saying in some form of music what you might
probably be able to express better &/or more clearly in some form of
prose, for instance? Why does what you're writing *have* to be a song??
(Taking a leaf here from one of local DJ Dave Palmater's
stock interview-questions, though I'm not sure if he's ever asked it
in that phrasing. He asks a lot of songwriters whether they used to be &/or
still are poetry-writers &/or journal-keepers. I *haven't* been keeping an
actual tally, but I get the general feel that my favorite songwriters are from
among the poetry-writers, not the journal-keepers. It turns out
very few songwriters he interviews are both. )
Irene Jackson/Michael Woloshen
ghost wrote:
>
> Which brings us back around to the
> "why care if people don't cover your songs" thing, which both you &
> Mark Spittal have espoused. If *you* don't care, then it really doesn't
...sorry, nope it wasn't "me". This is the first time I've posted to
this thread.
Irene Jackson
http://www.islandnet.com/~woloshen/ijackson.html
Mark Spittal
ghost wrote:
> Which brings us back around to the
> "why care if people don't cover your songs" thing, which both you &
> Mark Spittal have espoused. If *you* don't care, then it really doesn't
> matter if other people do or don't, but one of the major aspects that
> draws me to music is the timeless quality of some of the material.
Likewise. I am not against it, but the original poster didn't say what
you imply above.
By the way, as a songwriter, I do enjoy the pleasure of hearing others
perform my songs, and know that all over this country there are a few
performers who perform them. But it hits me that I haven't heard
anybody cover Dar Williams, Erica Whheler....well, all the big names out
of the East Coast. Does this mean they are all horrible? And does
"timeless quality" mean that others perform a song or does it mean that
those who listen are affected by its performance?
MIKE REGENSTREIF
>By the way, as a songwriter, I do enjoy the pleasure of hearing others
>perform my songs, and know that all over this country there are a few
>performers who perform them. But it hits me that I haven't heard
>anybody cover Dar Williams, Erica Whheler....well, all the big names out
>of the East Coast. Does this mean they are all horrible? And does
>"timeless quality" mean that others perform a song or does it mean that
>those who listen are affected by its performance?
>
>Mark
Mark,
There are no value judgements implied in this post but, I'm not aware
that I've heard any performers doing your songs. Perhaps you could tell me who
some of them are becuase I'd like to check them out.
On the other hand, I have heard a number of other performers sing songs
of Dar Williams. Joan Baez, for example, has recorded two on her most recent
album and did a duet with Dar on a DW song on the album before that.
Mike Regenstreof
"Folk Roots/Folk Branches" on CKUT in Montreal
mre...@vax2.concordia.ca
ghost
In article <346491...@isomedia.com> mspi...@isomedia.com writes:
> And does
>"timeless quality" mean that others perform a song or does it mean that
>those who listen are affected by its performance?
I was going to go back & think of a clause to put in in place of
"timeless quality" if it took me hours or days or years, & then I forgot
I was going to do that at all & posted the darn thing, OK, take about
100 points off for "timeless quality". Though it *does* bother me that
some great songs *are* cemented into a particular time, like some of the
great political songs of the 60s. Maybe in 300 years people can sing them,
the same way we can sing political songs of 300 years ago & say
"things haven't changed much" while remarking on the *specifics* that
*have* changed while the generalities remain the same, but I cringe now
when I hear someone launch into, say, "The Times They Are A-Changing"
or "I Aint A-Marching Anymore", even though the points of the songs
*are* still valid, & the songs are still great songs.
Mark Spittal
ghost wrote:
> What Mark Spittal said, which is not as severe, was along the lines of
> 'People thank me for what they've gotten out of my songs & performance,
> & that means as much &/or more than having people cover my songs'.
Exactly. When I write a song, I never consider its possiblbly being
covered by someone else. The process of writing it is sometimes hard
enough without adding such a consideration.
Also, there are different ways to write songs. Some are very technical,
and it is just a technical exercise for them. For me, it is my heart
just saying what it needs to say, and technically...I really don't have
a clue what I am doing!!! I have just been doing it so long it seems to
work out ok usually...
And, this is really important, just because someone doesn't have any
songs recorded by other means nothing from a purely practical view.
Just because I have heard a song by someone else doesn't mean that
anybody else has heard it. That a musician has the ability to deliver
somebody else's songs well. And personall, I have been approached over
the years by different perfomer's from folk, pop and country acts to
perform and record my music...and I asked them not to! Just wasn't
comfortable at the time with what these people were doing in music. I
am sure this true for other songwriters, too.
Joe Williams iii
ghost (j...@deas.harvard.edu) wrote:
> In article <34634D...@islandnet.com> wolo...@islandnet.com writes:
> >But as far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to see someone with folk
> >beginnings (Shawn Colvin) do well. Being folk shouldn't mean you're
> >not allowed to move on to other things.
I agree completely. I just wondered if folks considered her current style
of music Folk. ?
> Why are you saying in some form of music what you might
> probably be able to express better &/or more clearly in some form of
> prose, for instance? Why does what you're writing *have* to be a song??
You may be touching on something I was getting at in my post, too: It
could be very interesting to hear some individual definitions of _success_
of a musician from this group. I'll think on it, too, and try to post my
lastest definition shortly. That definition just seems to change with such
little warning for me...
Joe
ghost
In article <647632$g...@necco.harvard.edu> j...@deas.harvard.edu ( ghost ) writes:
>In article <3463B4...@islandnet.com> wolo...@islandnet.com writes:
>>ghost wrote:
>>> Which brings us back around to the
>>> "why care if people don't cover your songs" thing, which both you &
>>> Mark Spittal have espoused. If *you* don't care, then it really doesn't
>>...sorry, nope it wasn't "me". This is the first time I've posted to
>>this thread.
>You've got about 3 previous posts on this & related topics in my files
>(I'll dig them up for transport rather than just viewing when I'm not
>on the job) so its not the 1st time you've posted on this thread (& a
>couple related threads, but at least 2 of your previous posts were on
>*this* thread).
>
>What I can't find, however, is the comment by *somebody* along the lines of
>"Some of my songs weren't *meant* to be sung by anyone else"
>with your name attached, so I have to go find out *who* said it.
>Thought it was you, though. Maybe there's another Irene posting?
It was you, alright. It wasn't on the "Werner & the folk scene" topic,
it was on the "Definitive versions (or not) of songs" topic,
but it was a comment on the same relevant subject as is discussed
in the "folk scene" discussions.
What follows is your post. My many thanks to the person who dug it up for me.
(I knew it was in there *somewhere*).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Irene Jackson/Michael Woloshen <wolo...@islandnet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.folk
Subject: Re: Loreena McKennett or Why Do They Attempt Songs That Were Already Done to Perfection?
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:10:52 -0800
Organization: Moonstone Productions
References: <3452445a....@news.mindspring.com> <638jpo$bue$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
Reply-To: wolo...@islandnet.com
Ken Josenhans wrote:
>
> I would ask the singer-songwriters: if your songs aren't good enough to
> be picked up by other performers, why are you filling album after album
Who says we all send our songs out to be picked up by other performers?
Hmmmmmm??? :-)
Irene Jackson
http://www.islandnet.com/~woloshen/ijackson.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Jackson/Michael Woloshen
ghost wrote:
>
> In article <3463B4...@islandnet.com> wolo...@islandnet.com writes:
> >ghost wrote:
>
> >> Which brings us back around to the
> >> "why care if people don't cover your songs" thing, which both you &
> >> Mark Spittal have espoused. If *you* don't care, then it really doesn't
>
> >...sorry, nope it wasn't "me". This is the first time I've posted to
> >this thread.
>
> You've got about 3 previous posts on this & related topics in my files
> (I'll dig them up for transport rather than just viewing when I'm not
> on the job) so its not the 1st time you've posted on this thread (& a
> couple related threads, but at least 2 of your previous posts were on
> *this* thread).
I checked Deja News...I made a one line quip to Mark Spittal about
Vancouver which didn't have anything to do with what you seem to think I
said.
>
> What I can't find, however, is the comment by *somebody* along the lines of
> "Some of my songs weren't *meant* to be sung by anyone else"
> with your name attached, so I have to go find out *who* said it.
> Thought it was you, though. Maybe there's another Irene posting?
Is this the posting you are referring to?
Subject: Re: Loreena McKennett or Why Do They Attempt Songs That
Were Already Done to Perfection?
From: Irene Jackson/Michael Woloshen <wolo...@islandnet.com>
Date: 1997/11/02
Message-ID: <345D24...@islandnet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.folk
[More Headers]
Ken Josenhans wrote:
>
> I would ask the singer-songwriters: if your songs aren't good enough to
> be picked up by other performers, why are you filling album after album
Who says we all send our songs out to be picked up by other performers?
Hmmmmmm??? :-)
Irene Jackson
http://www.islandnet.com/~woloshen/ijackson.html
Maybe you should check the above thread for the person you're thinking
of.
Irene
ghost
>> Which brings us back around to the
>> "why care if people don't cover your songs" thing, which both you &
>> Mark Spittal have espoused. If *you* don't care, then it really doesn't
>...sorry, nope it wasn't "me". This is the first time I've posted to
>this thread.
You've got about 3 previous posts on this & related topics in my files
(I'll dig them up for transport rather than just viewing when I'm not
on the job) so its not the 1st time you've posted on this thread (& a
couple related threads, but at least 2 of your previous posts were on
*this* thread).
What I can't find, however, is the comment by *somebody* along the lines of
"Some of my songs weren't *meant* to be sung by anyone else"
with your name attached, so I have to go find out *who* said it.
Thought it was you, though. Maybe there's another Irene posting?
What Mark Spittal said, which is not as severe, was along the lines of
ghost
In article <34673D...@islandnet.com> wolo...@islandnet.com writes:
->Is this the posting you are referring to?
->
->
->Subject: Re: Loreena McKennett or Why Do They Attempt Songs That
->Were Already Done to Perfection?
->From: Irene Jackson/Michael Woloshen <wolo...@islandnet.com>
->Date: 1997/11/02
->Message-ID: <345D24...@islandnet.com>
->Newsgroups: rec.music.folk
->[More Headers]
->
->
->Ken Josenhans wrote:
->>
->> I would ask the singer-songwriters: if your songs aren't good enough to
->> be picked up by other performers, why are you filling album after album
->
->Who says we all send our songs out to be picked up by other performers?
->Hmmmmmm??? :-)
->
->Irene Jackson
->http://www.islandnet.com/~woloshen/ijackson.html
->
->Maybe you should check the above thread for the person you're thinking
->of.
->
->Irene
I'm thinking of you, as both your & my posting this article of yours
makes clear.
Would you care to define your post, as you say it doesn't say what it
appears to say?
You appear to be answering Josenhans' question with a one-liner that
strongly implies writing songs good enough for other performers to pick up
isn't a perogative of yours. I don't think writing for other performers
should be your reason for writing, but don't you think someone
*wanting* to cover one of your songs says something about some quality
they found in the song?
Irene Jackson/Michael Woloshen
I'm not sure what I'm defending here. You seem to be taking my
"one-liner" to a place where it was surely not meant to go. I took the
original poster's remarks as a jab, and I put a smiley face on the end
of my response to imply my facetiousness. That's all there is to it.
Irene Jackson
http://www.islandnet.com/~woloshen/ijackson.html
ghost
In article <3463B4...@islandnet.com> wolo...@islandnet.com writes:
>ghost wrote:
>>
>> Which brings us back around to the
>> "why care if people don't cover your songs" thing, which both you &
>> Mark Spittal have espoused. If *you* don't care, then it really doesn't
>
>...sorry, nope it wasn't "me". This is the first time I've posted to
>this thread.
>
>http://www.islandnet.com/~woloshen/ijackson.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK:
We've already established that it *was* you, it just wasn't on *this* thread,
it was on the "Definitive versions" thread.
Now to establish that this isn't the 1st time you've posted to this thread
(This isn't from Deja News as I don't believe my system is subscribed to
it; its from my file of articles received at this site on this thread):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From wolo...@islandnet.com Mon Oct 27 13:45:57 EST 1997
Article: 115689 of rec.music.folk
From: Irene Jackson/Michael Woloshen <wolo...@islandnet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.folk
Subject: Re: Susan Werner and the folk scene
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 07:18:58 -0800
Organization: Moonstone Productions
References: <19971023171...@ladder01.news.aol.com> <62oe9g$q...@necco.harvard.edu> <345076...@isomedia.com> <gregEIK...@netcom.com> <3451E1...@isomedia.com>
Mark Spittal wrote:
>
> Greg Bullough wrote:
> >
> > In article <345076...@isomedia.com> mspi...@isomedia.com writes:
> > >
> > >Some of the reasons is geographical (I live in Seattle, WA), as the part
> >
> > Yeah, but Seattle musicians are considered wild and exotic everywhere
> > else! And them Vancouver folks... ...<*shudder*> :-)
>
> Wow!! Little ole me wild and exotic..but them Vancouver folks are plain
> crazy.... 8-)
...hey!! What's wrong with Vancouver folks??? :-)
Irene (originally from Van.)Jackson
http://www.islandnet.com/~woloshen/ijackson.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From wolo...@islandnet.com Tue Oct 28 17:28:45 EST 1997
Article: 115775 of rec.music.folk
From: Irene Jackson/Michael Woloshen <wolo...@islandnet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.folk
Subject: Re: Susan Werner and the folk scene
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:18:29 -0800
Organization: Moonstone Productions
References: <19971027160...@ladder02.news.aol.com> <19971028131...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
J Peekstok wrote:
<snip>
> All of that being said, there is no excuse for being condescending to the
> audience, which I have seen a fair bit of. There is no excuse for playing
> prima donna to the person who booked you or to the volunteers that make the
> place happen, which happens a lot. And there is no excuse for allowing any
> unpleasantness whatever to creep into the performance. Any performance is
> an opportunity for both the performer and the audience to have a great
> experience and to make new friends.
I play the kind of music that could probably be put into several
categories, so I've played pubs, clubs, special events, coffeehouses,
festivals, and whatever else I get invited to. But I have to say that
folk clubs and their audiences are the most gracious, generous and
appreciative audiences. I never walk away feeling like it hasn't been a
good experience, no matter how nervous I've been or how worried about
some element of it. And in response to the original poster commenting
on the arrogance of some performers...we can be an odd lot! Before I
play I go through hell worrying about it...sometimes I'll play a song in
a more humourous vein off the top so it warms me and my audience up a
little. Sometimes I'll play a song I wrote that's all about stage
fright and the fear of failure. That gives me the chance to talk about
it, which always alleviates the fear a bit! There are always going to
be "egos" involved in performing, any kind of performing, but that's not
always the reason behind the "coolness".
Irene Jackson
http://www.islandnet.com/~woloshen/ijackson.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From wolo...@islandnet.com Fri Oct 31 19:15:10 EST 1997
Article: 116007 of rec.music.folk
From: Irene Jackson/Michael Woloshen <wolo...@islandnet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.folk
Subject: Re: What's with you people?
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:16:20 -0800
Organization: Moonstone Productions
References: <19971031200...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Folkiegirl wrote:
>
> I just got Online and discovered this newsgroup.
>
> I was really excited to think that there was a way to share and discuss and
> learn about the kind of music I love. But....
>
> I can't beleive that so many seemingly grown people would waste so much time
> and energy bickering about the stupidest things: So Leon Redbone and Arlo
> Guthrie do Commercials..big deal...so Susan Werner may not be a saint...who
> cares?...so Dar Williams may be a Christian..lets' spend a month discussing
> that!...So Dan Bern uses the words Shit and Fuck...big Fucking deal! Who gives
> a Shit?
>
> Don't you think there is a better way to spend your time? Maybe you can spend
> time supporting the performers you like...or writing better songs yourself so
> that a bunch of losers can make stupid assumptions about you or your work or
> motives.
>
> Every once in a while I start to think that people really ARE idiots on the
> whole...
>
> We invent something as useful as Television with so much potential, and the
> best we can do is Jerry Springer....We create the information superhighway and
> we spend time with stupid crap like this newsgroup.
>
> Who needs it?
Looks like you just partook of it :-) If you're new to the internet,
you'll eventually that this kind of stuff goes on in most newsgroups
from time to time. We're justa buncha human beans with good days and
bad days...
Irene Jackson
http://www.islandnet.com/~woloshen/ijackson.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From wolo...@islandnet.com Fri Nov 7 16:52:06 EST 1997
Article: 116456 of rec.music.folk
From: Irene Jackson/Michael Woloshen <wolo...@islandnet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.folk
Subject: Re: Susan Werner and the folk scene
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 09:19:38 -0800
Organization: Moonstone Productions
References: <Pine.SOL.3.95q.97103...@rac4.wam.umd.edu> <63limh$1bd0$4...@watnews2.watson.ibm.com> <didlidi-0511...@mfs-01-244.port.shore.net> <63qtmi$c...@necco.harvard.edu> <63v8fa$ote$1...@fddinewz.oit.unc.edu>
Reply-To: wolo...@islandnet.com
Joe Williams iii wrote:
> > I don't think either Shawn Colvin or Jewel are examples of this
> > crassly commerical trend.
>
> Do folks out there consider the above mentioned as folk singers? I realize
> this has been touched on previously in other threads, but what the heck. I
> can't see it. I think I have trouble seeing it, partially, because
> their actual _sounds_ strike me as crassly commercial. I can't get
> completely past the FORM to find the folk content. Ultra clean and
> digital. Can folk music really sound that way?
>
> Joe
I don't know much about Jewel, but Shawn Colvin sort of came up through
the folk circuit, didn't she? That doesn't mean she has to be
classified as folk now, in fact I think her latest effort is
intentionally mainstream. But as far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to see
someone with folk beginnings do well. Being folk shouldn't mean you're
not allowed to move on to other things.
Irene Jackson
http://www.islandnet.com/~woloshen/ijackson.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
jmf again, 11/11/97:
Hope your memory is now jogged.
Nothing in your posts *above* I find particularly irksome.
Its the post I'm responding to I find irksome.
This thing people have on newsgroups about saying
"Who?? Little Old Me?? I Never Said That" (or "Never Posted Before",
or "Have Been Posting For 42 Years", or whatever)
when these claims can be so easily proven false
(via Deja News, by people with files bigger than they can store,
or whatever)...now that's *irksome*.
Are people writing usenet articles in their *sleep*, that they don't
remember them? Then they should *say* so:
"Hi, I'm asleep, & my comment, that I won't be held responsible for
when I wake, is..."
sayan bhattacharyya
>*have* changed while the generalities remain the same, but I cringe now
>when I hear someone launch into, say, "The Times They Are A-Changing"
>or "I Aint A-Marching Anymore", even though the points of the songs
>*are* still valid, & the songs are still great songs.
Then why do you cringe when you hear them? If you think they *are* still
valid, what makes you cringe at them? Just curious.
ghost
The short answer is that I often hear people singing them as though the 60s
were about to happen instead of had already happened, & as though any
political & social progress made then weren't being overturned here in the 90s.
These singers are either naive &/or very very young or (in most cases)
just going for nostalgia. Or just plain dumb.
If an antiwar song is *old* enough that people aren't even paying attention
to the antiwar sentiment it can be brought back into having that meaning
quite effectively by an update of the events covered,
like Scartaglen did in the last verse they added on to
"Will You Go To Flanders":
(Will you go to Vietnam, my Mollie-o
To the cedars of the Lebanon my Mollie-o
etc).
The obvious problem is how to do this without being unbelievably trite.
The rewriter in Scartaglen was inspired, not preachy.
You *could* maybe make that work, in the same fashion, with
"I Ain't a-Marchin'". But the only thing that might work with
"Times They Are A-Changing" is to write a version that goes
"yeah, they're a-changing right *back*".
And some more of the short answer is that I heard Bob Dylan doing some
of his most political stuff on the Rolling Thunder Review tour in the 80s
& I cringed *then*, simply because he was clearly doing it for the
nostalgic value & to give the audiences a little "acoustic segment".
I don't like it when people sing these things naively, & I like it
even less when they sing them cynically.
And that was the *short* answer.