RFD: rec.music.folk reorganization
Jerry Dallal
unmoderated group rec.music.folk.contemporary (replaces rec.music.folk)
unmoderated group rec.music.folk.traditional
Summary: establish group for the discussion of
traditional folk music
Proponent: Jerry Dallal <gda...@world.std.com>
Distribution: World Wide
Mentor: Jim Jewett <ji...@eecs.umich.edu>
PROCEDURE
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) on the subjects of (1)
creating an unmoderated Usenet Newsgroup, rec.music.folk.traditional
and (2) renaming rec.music.folk as rec.music.folk.contemporary
This message initiates a discussion period to consider the creation
of a rec.music.folk.traditional newsgroup and renaming rec.music.folk
to rec.music.folk.contemporary in order to follow Usenet conventions
for naming newsgroups. Discussion will take place on news.groups.
If discussions are made in other newsgroups, they should always be
cross-posted to news.groups.
*This is not a call for votes. Please do not attempt to vote
now.* A call for votes (CFV) will be issued approximately 4
weeks after this RFD. When the CFV is posted, there will be
instructions on how to mail your votes to the independent vote
counter.
*There will be two separate votes!* It is not necessary to vote in
favor of renaming rec.music.folk in order to vote in favor of
establishing rec.music.folk.traditional. There is precedent for
flouting convention and ending up with rec.music.folk and
rec.music.folk.traditional. See, for example, the
rec.music.makers.guitar and rec.music.bluenote hierarchies.
This RFD is in accordance with the Guidelines for Newsgroups
Creation, and has been cross-posted to the following relevant
newsgroups:
news.announce.newsgroups
news.groups
rec.music.folk
rec.music.country.old-time
rec.music.bluenote.blues
RATIONALE
At present, discussion of traditional folk music takes place in
rec.music.folk, where more than half of the 100+ postings per day
concern nontraditional, singer-songwriter music. There are many
posters and readers of rec.music.folk who are deeply interested in
traditional folk music but are uninterested in singer-songwriter
music.
In order to keep the discussion of the two very different types of
folk music separate and enable those interested in one type to avoid
wading through material irrelevant to them, a separate
rec.music.folk.traditional newsgroup should be established.
Should rec.music.folk.traditional be established, rec.music.folk
should be renamed in order to be consistent with the Usenet
convention of having the discussion groups for different facets of
particular topic at the same level of the hierarchy. The name
rec.music.folk.contemporary complements rec.music.folk.traditional
and emphasizes the difference between the two groups.
CHARTER
The purpose of this newsgroup is to provide a place for the
discussion of all aspects of traditional folk music and its
performers. For the purposes of the news group, traditional folk
music will include folk music whose author is unknown or deceased.
This is primarily to distinguish it from the folk music that might
also be called "singer-songwriter" music--songs written by the
performer, sung to a simple acoustic accompaniment.
Among the issues appropriate for discussion are song lyrics, reviews
of recorded and live performance, performance techniques, and the
surrounding minutiae. Discussion of singer-songwriter music is
inappropriate and should be directed to rec.music.folk, as is the
current practice.
Bill Nash
and the contemporaryists on rec.music.folk would want to go for this. I
am sure I would track both groups and turn my mind over when I went from
one to the other (I'm flexible). It sounds like a good idea.
Bill
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bill Nash work email: bn...@ms3.dseg.ti.com |
| Texas Instruments home email: Muzi...@aol.com _/_/_/ _/_/_/ |
| _/ _/ |
| "Time is the thing that keeps everything from happening _/ _/ |
| all at once at the same time." -- Peter McWilliams _/ _/_/_/ |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
James Alexander Chokey
supposed to take place on news.groups only; follow-ups set accordingly]
Anyway, here's my $.02 worth on the proposed split . . . I just
don't really see how this proposed split could possibly work. How do you
define what's "traditional" and what's "contemporary"? Are you going
to do it by time and say that any post about a folk musician who's alive
should go in *.contemporary and that that any post about one who's dead or
retired should go in *.traditional? Are you going to do it by content?
Any musician who's album contains more than 50% traditional tunes goes
in *.traditional and anyone that contains more than 50% original
compositions goes in *.contemporary? And how on earth are you
going to classify performers? Are the Chieftains traditional
or contemporary? What about, say, the rocked-up renderings of
traditional folk tunes by musicians like Alan Stivell, the Oyster
Band, or Malicorne? It just doesn't make any sense.
The problem is that "traditional" and "contemporary" simply
are not mutually excusive terms when it comes to folk music. Folk
music is a living style and it is simultaneously traditional and
contemporary, and any attempt to break it down on an either/or
basis is going to make no sense. In folk, the "contemporary" of
today will be the "traditional" of tommorrow, just as the "traditional"
of today was the "contemporary" of yesteryear.
I can't help but wonder whether the real thrust of this
proposal is someone's desire to split rec.music.folk into two groups:
rec.music.folk.that.i.like and rec.music.folk.that.i.don't.like.
-- Jim C.
==========================================================================
| James A. Chokey jch...@leland.stanford.edu |
| |
| The infinite, expressed finitely, is the essence of beauty |
| |
| --- Schelling |
==========================================================================
Craig Cockburn
>
> This message initiates a discussion period to consider the creation
> of a rec.music.folk.traditional newsgroup and renaming rec.music.folk
> to rec.music.folk.contemporary in order to follow Usenet conventions
> for naming newsgroups. Discussion will take place on news.groups.
> If discussions are made in other newsgroups, they should always be
> cross-posted to news.groups.
>
>
> rec.music.folk, where more than half of the 100+ postings per day
> concern nontraditional, singer-songwriter music. There are many
> posters and readers of rec.music.folk who are deeply interested in
> traditional folk music but are uninterested in singer-songwriter
> music.
>
rec.music.folk.singer-songwriter ?
You will have a much easier time defining "Singer-songwriter" than
"traditional"
Craig
--
Craig Cockburn (pronounced "coburn"), Edinburgh, Scotland
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
Ken Josenhans
> *There will be two separate votes!* It is not necessary to vote in
> favor of renaming rec.music.folk in order to vote in favor of
> establishing rec.music.folk.traditional. There is precedent for
> flouting convention and ending up with rec.music.folk and
> rec.music.folk.traditional. See, for example, the
> rec.music.makers.guitar and rec.music.bluenote hierarchies.
After a suitable period of mourning for the further dismemberment
of my favorite newsgroup, I have decided to support
rec.music.folk.traditional. I expect it to zoom off on a far more
academic tangent than the current rec.music.folk -- in a direction
very similar to where the FOLKTALK mailing list was when I left it.
I think this community knows what it wants to talk about and knows
where its boundaries are, even if they are fuzzy ones.
> Should rec.music.folk.traditional be established, rec.music.folk
> should be renamed in order to be consistent with the Usenet
> convention of having the discussion groups for different facets of
> particular topic at the same level of the hierarchy. The name
> rec.music.folk.contemporary complements rec.music.folk.traditional
> and emphasizes the difference between the two groups.
rec.music.folk.contemporary should be voted down.
rec.music.folk should be left as a catch-all group, open to anything
with a plausible claim to the term "folk". r.m.f has always been
an open, tolerant and messy group, and I really want it to stay that way.
------
As long as a re-organization is on the table, UK readers should now
push for the creation of rec.music.folk.uk. Several UK readers
have complained that r.m.f is too high volume, and too Ameri-centric,
for their interests.
Some Americans think that these discussions belong in rec.music.celtic,
but the English in particular don't seem to be too fond of Americans
designating them as honorary Celts. :-)
I would prefer that the discussion of British folk music continue
in the rec. hierarchy, where the trans-Atlantic exchange of the
last decade can continue, rather than have someone eventually
create a uk.music.folk which would be poorly propagated in North
America.
------
So, in summary, let's go for:
rec.music.folk.traditional
rec.music.folk.uk
rec.music.folk
This reorganization is not symmetrical, and it doesn't provide
hard and fast limits on topics, but I think it does carve out
identifiable subgroups which r.m.f readers can identify with
and participate in.
-- Ken Josenhans
k...@netsun.cl.msu.edu
Craig Cockburn
k...@netsun.cl.msu.edu "Ken Josenhans" writes:
> So, in summary, let's go for:
>
> rec.music.folk.traditional
> rec.music.folk.uk
> rec.music.folk
>
My favourite form of music is traditional Gaelic music from Scotland. By
the above hierarchy, it could fit into all 3 as well as rec.music.celtic
I don't want my favourite form of music split across 3 or 4 groups !!
I suggest either having rec.music.folk.singer-songwriter or less favoured,
rec.music.folk.na (for bands or music from North America or bands touring
North America).
It seems the problem is the US biased and Singer-songwriter bias to
rec.music.folk, so why not split that discussion off rather than trying
to form specialised groups for everyone else (ie rec.music.folk.traditional).
You're going to have a much tougher time defining what is traditional than
who or who isn't a singer-songwriter.
Abby Sale
JAC> Anyway, here's my $.02 worth on the proposed split . . . I just
JAC> don't really see how this proposed split could possibly work. How do
JAC> you define what's "traditional" and what's "contemporary"? Are you
The thing is, that those interested in traditional material _do_
understand what it means and how it would work. It will be
self-defining.
JAC> to do it by content? Any musician who's album contains more than 50%
That's it, you see. It's not the musician, it's the content that's
interesting.
JAC> earth are you going to classify performers? Are the Chieftains
JAC> traditional or contemporary?
Both. They're also Celtic. So what?
JAC> I can't help but wonder whether the real thrust of this
JAC> proposal is someone's desire to split rec.music.folk into two groups:
JAC> rec.music.folk.that.i.like and rec.music.folk.that.i.don't.like.
I know that it's strange to you. But that has absolutely nothing to do
with the issue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: | Abby...@animece.oau.org, as...@animece.oau.org
Abby Sale | ...!ucf-cs!alfred!animece!Abby.Sale
Orlando, FL | FIDOnet: 1:363/137.0 (407) 834-6090
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Alexander Chokey
Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I suggest either having rec.music.folk.singer-songwriter or less favoured,
>rec.music.folk.na (for bands or music from North America or bands touring
>North America).
The problem with r.m.f.singer-songwriter is it exceeds the
"magic number" of 14 characters per term, that many newsreaders still
have. Something like r.m.f.contemp-singer, or r.m.f.singr-songwrtr,
would work though.
>It seems the problem is the US biased and Singer-songwriter bias to
>rec.music.folk, so why not split that discussion off rather than trying
>to form specialised groups for everyone else (ie rec.music.folk.traditional).
>You're going to have a much tougher time defining what is traditional than
>who or who isn't a singer-songwriter.
Indeed. If this were just a proposal to create a separate
group for contemporary singer-songwriters in a folk tradition, I'd
have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with (as I mentioned
in a previous post) is the attempt to split the existing r.m.folk
up into two separate groups: one for "traditional" folk and one
for "contemporary" folk. Not only are these two terms extremely
vague in and of themselves, the problem is that a lot of contemporary
folk is very traditional, and a lot of traditional folk is being
done right now. These two terms simply aren't mutually exclusive
to the degree that is necessary for a split to be effective.
Kevin Rolph
: In article <3up465$q...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
: k...@netsun.cl.msu.edu "Ken Josenhans" writes:
: > So, in summary, let's go for:
: >
: > rec.music.folk.traditional
: > rec.music.folk.uk
: > rec.music.folk
: >
: I don't want my favourite form of music split across 3 or 4 groups !!
Agreed. Removing the .trad from the above would solve it (?)
In previous threads we have surely seen that it is **not** going to be
possible to clearly define "traditional". I have always been in favour
of a **geographical** split as it is:
1. clearly definable.
2. would naturally account for broad interpretations of the
word 'Folk'. (Note. a lot of what US posters call Folk, UK types
call Country - not a comment on the music, simply a fact of life)
3. Could still be read by everyone.
: I suggest either having rec.music.folk.singer-songwriter or less
: favoured, rec.music.folk.na (for bands or music from North America or
: bands touring North America).
I'd :. go for .na group but would prefer .usa as a name.
Could we go for .usa .uk and .misc only???
Will the non us/uk posters stand up, please?
.euro rather than .uk ??
--
Kevin Rolph, Cambridge, England. ke...@primag.co.uk
==========================================================================
Engineer, Manager, Dad, Decorator, Woodworker, Gamer, Quaker, Folk Dancer,
Advanced Driver, Bodhran player, Gardener. Specialisation is for insects.
Kevin Rolph
: Could we go for .usa .uk and .misc only???
: Will the non us/uk posters stand up, please?
Ooops. forgot .can[ada] Humblest apologies. grovel grovel.
Will the non American-continent/European posters stand up, please?
Sergio Gelato
Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3up465$q...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
> k...@netsun.cl.msu.edu "Ken Josenhans" writes:
>> So, in summary, let's go for:
>> rec.music.folk.traditional
>> rec.music.folk.uk
>> rec.music.folk
[Craig notes that Scottish Gaelic singing fits in all three +r.m.celtic,
and adds:]
>I suggest either having rec.music.folk.singer-songwriter or less favoured,
>rec.music.folk.na (for bands or music from North America or bands touring
>North America).
Why not combine the two ideas into rec.music.folk.new-american?
Fits in the 14-character limit, and kills both biases with one stone.
The byline could be "Performers of mostly original material active
mainly on the North American circuit."
>It seems the problem is the US biased and Singer-songwriter bias to
>rec.music.folk, so why not split that discussion off rather than trying
>to form specialised groups for everyone else (ie rec.music.folk.traditional).
>You're going to have a much tougher time defining what is traditional than
>who or who isn't a singer-songwriter.
Probably. Although personally I wouldn't mind having
r.m.f.new-american
r.m.f.traditional
and perhaps
r.m.f.misc
But then, I don't see any real need for a split in the first place:
with a threaded newsreader, the current traffic is quite manageable.
(I must say that I don't even try to read everything. Maybe I should
also think of those who do. jmf, would you care to suggest a split
that would allow you to unsubscribe from the s/sw side entirely?
Your idea of not splitting anything but of preparing a FAQ with pointers
to the mailing lists instead was good, but we still need a volunteer to
maintain the FAQ, and besides quite a few people seem to prefer newsgroups
to mailing lists.)
--
Sergio Gelato <gel...@sissa.it>
ghost
>But then, I don't see any real need for a split in the first place:
>with a threaded newsreader, the current traffic is quite manageable.
Good old model-T "rn" is *supposed* to be able to follow threads, but if
on your system it to works consistently, good for you. I've got an overly
graphicized version of "rn" at work with which I could follow threads if I
could get the typeface large enough to *see*. Those of us using freebie
workplace newsreading software couldn't get fancy useful newsreading software
installed at the workplace even if we paid for it (*not* me! I'm not
volunteering to buy the toys!).
>(I must say that I don't even try to read everything. Maybe I should
>also think of those who do. jmf, would you care to suggest a split
>that would allow you to unsubscribe from the s/sw side entirely?
Huh what? Did I hear my name taken in vain? About 1/3 to 1/2 of what I
go out to hear are singer-songwriters. The good ones.
>Your idea of not splitting anything but of preparing a FAQ with pointers
>to the mailing lists instead was good, but we still need a volunteer to
>maintain the FAQ, and besides quite a few people seem to prefer newsgroups
>to mailing lists.)
Eventually any s-ser with a fanatic, if not even large enough following, will
get their own mailing list. I've been scooped onto one I didn't even
subscribe to. I think the reason some lists don't have more action is that
people just don't know they're there. The FAQ for this group, which I've seen
posted exactly once, would be the logical place to store pointers, but if
that's going to be one of its purposes it has to get launched as a
periodically-posted FAQ (I don't know how its done, but most are just that,
so the possibility is out there) so that people can bump into it without a
search.
[I can't subscribe to that many lists myself,
due to useless-on-lists sorting options of the lousy "mail" & "pine" mail
readers, so I default to getting a few digests that I never have the time to
cut & paste from & I watch the mail pile up;
yes, there is a better mail-reader available here, but it takes stuff out
of your mail file & sorts it into folders in your real account, & I don't
have room to do that with hundreds of mailing-list pieces of mail.]
Jerry Dallal
: Kevin Rolph (ke...@primag.co.uk) wrote:
: : Could we go for .usa .uk and .misc only???
: : Will the non us/uk posters stand up, please?
I suppose you could get another RFD going. My RFD wasn't prompted by
wanting a US/UK separation, but by an urge to have a group for the
disucssion of traditional folk music.
Aaron R. Priven
I see singer-songwriters as starting more with Woody Guthrie and the
Weavers than more recently. So when people talk about Pete Seeger as
'traditional' I have to wonder. Leadbelly maybe was traditional.
Of course, I participate in rec.music.folk only rarely -- maybe if we
just had the "announce" group that would be enough for me. I like to
listen to folk music, not talk about it!
=Aaron=
--
Aaron Priven; | America, America, God mend thine every flaw
San Jose, CA, USA. | Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law!
aa...@chrysopylae.com, aar...@best.com <URL: http://www.chrysopylae.com/>
Dick Wisan
I think several different things are going on under the UK/US dis-
tinction.
1. There's the question of geography: performers in (from?) the UK
and performers in (from?) the US (or north America?) --and where
do Australians go?
2. On the other hand, there's the question what is _meant_ by "folk
music" in the uk (and, it appears, all over (most of) the world
outside the US) that is, something like "traditional" and what it
means in the US, which is hard to put your finger on but includes
what "singer-songwriters" (whatever _that_ is exactly, but at any
rate, they can be alive) do. I think this is the real ground of
the desire to split.
Certainly, if this is the way you split, lots of US people will be
edging in on the UK group. It's also the hardest to define.
3. Or, you can try to make the split on the geography of the _music_.
In that case, an awful lot of what Americans think of as their
traditional music turns out to be UK, too. As, "Billy Boy" in the
US resembles though it differs from the version sung (I understand)
in the UK, but both turn out to be versions of "Lord Randall" which
as authentically, Childishly, UK as you can get.
I like some of the singer-songwriter stuff, but I certainly would
be happy to be free of the endless news about which of them has what
on which records and where they'll be performing (except, of course
when I want to know some of those things). I'd like what I think
people mean by a "traditional" group (#2 above), but I'm hanged if
I can formulate it so it would stand up in court.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: internet WIS...@hartwick.edu
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
James Alexander Chokey
>Jerry Dallal (gda...@world.std.com) wrote:
>
>: I suppose you could get another RFD going. My RFD wasn't prompted by
>: disucssion of traditional folk music.
>
Actually, it's not. Generally, Dave Lawrence (the news.announce.
newsgroups moderator) doesn't allow more than one re-organization
proposal for a group to be active at any time. If this were just
a proposal for the creation of rec.music.folk.traditional, that
wouldn't be a problem; but since this a wholesale split of r.m.f.,
it's probably that Dave wouldn't accept any more re-org proposals
for r.m.f. until this one is either brought to a vote or withdrawn.
>but I'd have thought that the actual driver was to try and
>reduce the volume of traffic for those of us who want to only see (or
>rather: pay for) a subset. To this end I think that a geographic split
>is more likely to succeed because it is so much easier to define and
>use.
Agreed. "Traditional" and "contemporary" are too vague
and too overlapping to produce an effective split. Personally, I
have no problem with r.m.f. the way it is, but I agree that if
it were to be split up, a geographical split would make a *lot*
more sense than the subjective labels of "traditional" and
"contemporary".
Maybe something like:
rec.music.folk.north-american
rec.music.folk.british-isles
rec.music.folk.european
rec.music.folk.african
rec.music.folk.asian
rec.music.folk.latin-american
and rec.music.folk.misc
Of course, there may not be enough interest/traffic to justify
creating all of these groups-- I justed wanted to point out what a
geographical-split might look like.
>The D of RFD should allow for the possibility of adaption of the
>original plan.
Indeed, and I hope the main proponent is willing to consider
modifications and alternatives that would make the proposal more
sensible *and* would give it a better chance of passing a CFV. At
this point, sadly, it looks like he's not too interested in changing
the proposal in any way in light of the various criticisms that
have been made of, but is only paying marginal lip service to them.
>Speaking personally, my folk music interests spans trad and
>contemporary, so a trad split off doesn't help. I want a split, but I
>don't like this one, so I don't know how to vote.
Well, if it's not a split you like, you should vote NO on
it as a whole. That will mean that a better proposal can be made
later. Hopefully, however, the proponents of this proposal will
modify it so that a lot of the problems inherent in it can be
elimanted-- or at least reduced. My fear, however, is that
they just want to railroad this through the discussion period
as is. I hope I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any signs of
flexibility or willingness to adapt the proposal in any way.
If it comes to a vote as is, I'd be voting NO straight through,
although I could certainly envision another, better re-org
proposal that I could vote YES on.
Kevin Rolph
: I suppose you could get another RFD going. My RFD wasn't prompted by
: wanting a US/UK separation, but by an urge to have a group for the
: disucssion of traditional folk music.
Fair point, but I'd have thought that the actual driver was to try and
reduce the volume of traffic for those of us who want to only see (or
rather: pay for) a subset. To this end I think that a geographic split
is more likely to succeed because it is so much easier to define and
use.
The D of RFD should allow for the possibility of adaption of the
original plan. I've just been through a proposal for a uk games group
and the end result is significantly different to, and much better than,
my original suggestion.
Speaking personally, my folk music interests spans trad and
contemporary, so a trad split off doesn't help. I want a split, but I
don't like this one, so I don't know how to vote.
--
James Alexander Chokey
Aaron R. Priven <aar...@best.com> wrote:
>Hmm.
>
>I see singer-songwriters as starting more with Woody Guthrie and the
>Weavers than more recently. So when people talk about Pete Seeger as
>'traditional' I have to wonder.
That's exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. With
folk music, today's "traditional" was yesterday's innovative and
"contemporary"-- and today's contemporary will be tommorrow's
"traditional." Frankly, I find myself wondering whether those
members of the folk police who like to fetishize the diffrence
between what they call "traditional" and all other kinds of folk
music really know just how recently much of the "traditional"
music that they go on about was actually written.
M. Jonas
James Alexander Chokey <jch...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
> Agreed. "Traditional" and "contemporary" are too vague
>and too overlapping to produce an effective split. Personally, I
>have no problem with r.m.f. the way it is, but I agree that if
>it were to be split up, a geographical split would make a *lot*
>more sense than the subjective labels of "traditional" and
>"contemporary".
>
> Maybe something like:
>
> rec.music.folk.north-american
> rec.music.folk.british-isles
> rec.music.folk.european
> rec.music.folk.african
> rec.music.folk.asian
> rec.music.folk.latin-american
>and rec.music.folk.misc
>
> Of course, there may not be enough interest/traffic to justify
>creating all of these groups-- I justed wanted to point out what a
>geographical-split might look like.
>
Yes, I would agree with this proposal - it seems to make a lot more sense
than the one in the RFD. Without discriminating against other cultures,
I would say that we only really need the first two of those (and perhaps
the .misc one for the "What is folk" thread). Over the last almost three
years that I've been a regular on r.m.f there has never been any significant
amount of discussion in European, African, Asian or Latin-American folk
music there, mostly because these traditions have come to be summed up
under the misleading but marketing-friendly term "world music" and already
have their own home on USENET. The issue of world music has muddied waters
a bit in news.groups, but I think we should disregard it - for better or
for worse, these traditions are largely out of the scope of r.m.f as it
exists and will be out of the scope of any follow-up group that might
evolve.
>At this point, sadly, it looks like he's not too interested in changing
>the proposal in any way in light of the various criticisms that
>have been made of, but is only paying marginal lip service to them.
>
>>Speaking personally, my folk music interests spans trad and
>>contemporary, so a trad split off doesn't help. I want a split, but I
>>don't like this one, so I don't know how to vote.
>
> Well, if it's not a split you like, you should vote NO on
>it as a whole. That will mean that a better proposal can be made
>later. Hopefully, however, the proponents of this proposal will
>modify it so that a lot of the problems inherent in it can be
>elimanted-- or at least reduced. My fear, however, is that
>they just want to railroad this through the discussion period
>as is. I hope I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any signs of
>flexibility or willingness to adapt the proposal in any way.
>If it comes to a vote as is, I'd be voting NO straight through,
>although I could certainly envision another, better re-org
>proposal that I could vote YES on.
>
I fully agree with this - if it comes to a vote on the proposal as it
stands now, I will vote NO on both parts and I recommend the same for
anybody who isn't happy with the traditional/contemporary split, even if
you want some sort of split to happen. Once a split has been made, it's
next to impossible to correct it, so we have to get it right the first
time.
Martin
Jim Jewett
James Alexander Chokey <jch...@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> Generally, Dave Lawrence (the news.announce.
>newsgroups moderator) doesn't allow more than one re-organization
>proposal for a group to be active at any time. If this were just
>a proposal for the creation of rec.music.folk.traditional, that
>wouldn't be a problem; but since this a wholesale split of r.m.f.,
>it's probably that Dave wouldn't accept any more re-org proposals
>for r.m.f. until this one is either brought to a vote or withdrawn.
Uhmm ... until withdrawn, or several months after the vote.
(3 if it passes, 6 if it fails.)
Would people be happy with a combination of splits?
One for UK, one for North America, and one for traditional (which
would admittedly be a split more of UK than of USA, but might
take both) as well?
_________ Have a favorite group or mailing list? Describe it to
| grou...@pitt.edu
jJ | Take only memories. ji...@eecs.umich.edu
\__/ Leave not even footprints. jew...@pitt.edu
Yet Another Steve
(James Alexander Chokey) wrote:
> In article <3v47lt$f...@shell1.best.com>,
> Aaron R. Priven <aar...@best.com> wrote:
> >Hmm.
> >
> >I see singer-songwriters as starting more with Woody Guthrie and the
> >Weavers than more recently. So when people talk about Pete Seeger as
> >'traditional' I have to wonder.
>
> That's exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. With
> folk music, today's "traditional" was yesterday's innovative and
> "contemporary"-- and today's contemporary will be tommorrow's
> "traditional." Frankly, I find myself wondering whether those
> members of the folk police who like to fetishize the diffrence
> between what they call "traditional" and all other kinds of folk
> music really know just how recently much of the "traditional"
> music that they go on about was actually written.
What, you mean the Pilgrims didn't sit around singing "This Land Is Your Land"?
Dang, there goes my cozy image of the first Thanksgiving sing-along.
Steve
Cat Eldridge
>Would people be happy with a combination of splits?
>
>One for UK, one for North America, and one for traditional (which
>would admittedly be a split more of UK than of USA, but might
>take both) as well?
UK, between traditional and perhaps not traditional, can be neatly
separated out. What I see happening is a lot of cross-posting between
whatever groups emerged as posters tried to get their message out to all
groups.
By the way, someone earlier talked anout how hard it was using tin to
properly get a threaded discussion. I hope everyone realizes that the bulk
of readers are using some form of a gui-based interface that easily lets
you read a thread. Which means that most of us aren't being overwhelmed by
too many messages! I simply delete material I'm not interested in.
*****************************************
Cat Eldridge / I cursed him in my heart. "Um, what day is it?"
Booking Manager / With the infinite patience of someone
Portland Folk Club / used to dealing with drunks, musicians,
Portland, Maine / and techies, he replied, "Sunday."
*****************************************
James Alexander Chokey
M. Jonas <mj1...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <3v3brc$j...@elaine25.Stanford.EDU>,
>> Maybe something like:
>>
>> rec.music.folk.north-american
>> rec.music.folk.british-isles
>> rec.music.folk.european
>> [other potential groups omitted]
>Yes, I would agree with this proposal - it seems to make a lot more sense
>than the one in the RFD. Without discriminating against other cultures,
>I would say that we only really need the first two of those (and perhaps
>the .misc one for the "What is folk" thread).
And, of course, for the folk music of all those places that aren't
covered by the categories "north-america" and "british-isles"
>Over the last almost three
>years that I've been a regular on r.m.f there has never been any significant
>amount of discussion in European, African, Asian or Latin-American folk
>music there,
Well, there is the occasional discussion of French and Breton
traditional music and its modern incarnations and there has been an
increasingly frequent (although still quite minor) amount of discussion
of eastern european stuff. But on the whole, you're right. At this
point, there's not really enough traffic to justify creating
separate groups for any of these other regions.
>mostly because these traditions have come to be summed up
>under the misleading but marketing-friendly term "world music" and already
>have their own home on USENET.
Well, there is alt.music.world, but I don't think there is
any such equivalent group in the rec.music.* hierarchy. (Please correct
me if I'm wrong.) Rec.music.folk is the closest group there is--
although, as I already agreed, it doesn't seem to get used much for
this.
>The issue of world music has muddied waters
>a bit in news.groups, but I think we should disregard it - for better or
>for worse, these traditions are largely out of the scope of r.m.f as it
>exists and will be out of the scope of any follow-up group that might
>evolve.
I'm not so about the latter part of this statement. After
all "world music" is folk music, just under a different name, and
I know there's a lot of folks on rec.music.folk who are very
very interested in folk traditions from the non-Anglophone world.
(I guess I'm keen on this issue because I'm one of them.) But that's
the future and this is now, and you're right-- it's not really an issue
worth worrying about at this time. If/when it ever does come up, we can
deal with it then.
ghost
>Here's an idea: The folks who want a home for a traditional
>folk music discussion should go for rec.music.traditional.
>This leaps over the discussion of "splitting" rec.music.folk.
reasonable, but I'd prefer to stay in the folk hierarchy.
>The precedent for this would be rec.music.celtic, whose topics are
>largely shaped by what lots of readers would call folk music, yet
>which is not in a rec.music.folk hierarchy. (Today's topics in
I just think it was some kind of misguided Celtic pride thing that got
that created; still, it will as-chartered tolerate discussions of
Celtic rock groups (if you can find any identifiably Celtic ones without
strong folkie connections).
>Given the discussion so far, though, I really have to wonder
>if any of these ideas would pass. The tradition-discussers might
>want to investigate how well a new alt.music.traditional or
>alt.music.folk.traditional would propagate at their sites.
No *please*, though I'm sure the suggestion is well-intentioned;
there are reputed to be alt groups I'd be interested in
(alt.culture.cajun, alt.music.jewish) that have not appeared at this
site yet. I don't know what the criteria around here is for hosting
alt groups, but whatever it is it doesn't seem to make a heck of a lot
of sense, whereas groups in the regular hierarchy appear soon after
creation.
Perry
>>
Excuse me!? Are we perhaps forgetting the second largest country in the
world?? This is exactly the reason I don't like the idea of a geographical
split.
.
James Alexander Chokey
Ken Josenhans <k...@netsun.cl.msu.edu> wrote:
>Here's an idea: The folks who want a home for a traditional
>folk music discussion should go for rec.music.traditional.
>
>This leaps over the discussion of "splitting" rec.music.folk.
>
>largely shaped by what lots of readers would call folk music, yet
>which is not in a rec.music.folk hierarchy.
It's actually not a bad precedent to bring up. One of
the two main reasons why r.m.c. was proposed as r.m.c. and not
as r.m.f.c. was the desire to avoid splitting rec.music.folk.
The second main reason for doing so was because people wanted a place
where they could talk about Celtic rock, Celtic-inspired new age, and
other "modern" variations of Celtic music without having the folk
police breathing down their necks and saying "That's not traditional!"
Leaving "folk" out of the name of the group was done to indicate that
all forms of Celtic-based music were welcome topics of discussion.
>Today's topics in
>rec.music.celtic include bodhrans, High Level Ranters, Deanta, Dick
>Gaughan, Cilla Fisher and Artie Fisher, the Chieftains, Jock Tamson's
>Bairns -- sure sounds like a folk music newsgroup to me!)
The most traditional forms of Celtic music are the predominant
topics of discussion on r.m.c., but if you read the group regularly,
you know that you'll also see discussions of Wolfstone, Tempest, Boiled
in Lead, The Pogues, Horslips, The Levellers, Loreena McKennitt, Alan
Stivell, Grace, Enya-- sometimes even the Cranberries or Sinead O'Connor.
Not that this has any direct bearing on the current proposal, of course.
Ken Josenhans
folk music discussion should go for rec.music.traditional.
This leaps over the discussion of "splitting" rec.music.folk.
The precedent for this would be rec.music.celtic, whose topics are
largely shaped by what lots of readers would call folk music, yet
which is not in a rec.music.folk hierarchy. (Today's topics in
rec.music.celtic include bodhrans, High Level Ranters, Deanta, Dick
Gaughan, Cilla Fisher and Artie Fisher, the Chieftains, Jock Tamson's
Bairns -- sure sounds like a folk music newsgroup to me!)
Given the discussion so far, though, I really have to wonder
if any of these ideas would pass. The tradition-discussers might
want to investigate how well a new alt.music.traditional or
alt.music.folk.traditional would propagate at their sites.
-- Ken Josenhans, really too busy to write about this
k...@netsun.cl.msu.edu
Steve Goldfield
add a new objection to the creation of rec.music.folk.traditional.
The rec.music.country.old-time newsgroup was created only in
January of this year and certainly discusses traditional
folk music, among other things. If you followed the creation of
that newsgroup, you may recall that there was a dispute over its
name. I wanted to call it rec.music.old-time, but had to add
country to overcome objections by the moderator and his
consultants. In terms of those familiar with old-time music,
that would clearly have been the best name, the one most likely to
help them find the discussion. The addition of the word "country"
only confuses them. I understand that the intent was to help
steer away those who mean something else by old-time, but we
get a small but steady influx of those who think any kind of
country music is OK to discuss there, too. Still, we can live
with that as long as it remains small.
My concern is that the creation of a rec.music.folk.traditional
newsgroup would mean that our existing discussion could be split
into two newsgroups, which would be very undesirable. Some people,
looking for a discussion of old-time music, would see that name
and justifiably conclude that it would be a place, or even the
place, to discuss old-time music. You could cover that issue
in a charter or FAQ, but most people wouldn't see those before
posting to the newsgroup.
As I said earlier on before the RFD came out, what seems to
work best is if a newsgroup reflects a coherent community.
There is such an old-time community, and I'd like to see us
hold our discussions in a single place.
I'm sure there are lots of types of traditional music that
are not old-time and that are legitimate to discuss, though
I'd guess that there are also lots of communities that play
and discuss those types of music, not just one. I also share
the frustration of the preponderance of singer/songwriter
material in rec.music.folk. But I'm becoming convinced that
rec.music.folk.traditional is not the solution, and I'm
concerned that it will create new problems.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steve Goldfield :-{ {-: s...@coe.berkeley.edu
University of California at Berkeley Richmond Field Station
Perry
>From: jch...@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
>Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.folk reorganization
>Date: 27 Jul 1995 00:24:00 -0700
>In article <perry.777...@bud.peinet.pe.ca>,
>Perry <pe...@bud.peinet.pe.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Excuse me!? Are we perhaps forgetting the second largest country in the
>>world??
> What does India have to do with it? :-) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
> -- Jim C.
You get an A for Humour, but a D- for Geography. :-)
P.
.
Jerry Dallal
All I want is a place to discuss traditional folk music where it will not
be necessary to wade through a preponderance of nontraditional material.
I don't care what it's called as long as the name hints at its purpose.
The difficulty I'm having with most objections is that the only way they
can be satisfied is by withdrawing the RFD. Since passage requires a
2/3 vote in favor with at least 100 more yes votes than no votes, and
since many have expressed an interest in seeing rmft established, I will
not withdraw the RFD. But, I *will* listen to any suggested modification
that achieves the goals of the previous paragraph. I'm open to any
suggestion other than a variation on "withdraw the RFD".
James Alexander Chokey
Jerry Dallal <gda...@world.std.com> wrote:
>The difficulty I'm having with most objections is that the only way they
>can be satisfied is by withdrawing the RFD.
Nonsense. They could easily be satisfied simply by *modifying*
the proposal and posting a second RFD. That happens a lot, especially with
re-org proposals, which often involve a lot of revision. (The result
proposal to re-organize the various animal/pet related groups has
gone through 4 RFD's.) You seem to be confused by the fact that *other*
people can't issue new re-org RFDs at the same time as yours is being
considered.
>But, I *will* listen to any suggested modification
>that achieves the goals of the previous paragraph. I'm open to any
>suggestion other than a variation on "withdraw the RFD".
Several have been given. I gave you one myself in a previous
post-- namely to drop the issue of renaming rec.music.folk to rec.
music.folk.contemporary, and just go for creating r.m.f.traditional.
I know you said that Dave Lawrence and/or group-davice told you
that it is customary to rename base groups when doing re-orgs so
that all the groups are at the same hierarchical level. That's
not a hard and fast rule in any case, but if you want to do it, just
propose renaming r.m.f. to r.m.f.misc. I know you said earlier that
you rejected that idea because you thought it sounded "elitist,"
but I honestly don't see how elitism comes into that at all; it's
just common Usenet practice to rename the base group to *.misc when
it's renamed-- not to something vague and bizzare like "contemporary."
Other people have also suggested that you might consider altering
the proposal so as to incorporate some sort of geographical element
into it, either by creating a r.m.f.north-america and an r.m.f.british-isles
in addition to (or instead of) the r.m.f.traditional. It might also
be worthwhile to consider just trying to create rec.music.folk.usa.traditional
if you don't want to involve yourselve in a larger geographical split.
Lots of suggestions have been made, but in spite of your claim to
being open to them, you haven't been willing to consider them as serious
options.
Marcus Turner-TVNZ
On 26 Jul 1995, James Alexander Chokey wrote:
> In article <3v47lt$f...@shell1.best.com>,
> Aaron R. Priven <aar...@best.com> wrote:
> >Hmm.
[Stuff dedeted]
> That's exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. With
> folk music, today's "traditional" was yesterday's innovative and
> "contemporary"-- and today's contemporary will be tommorrow's
> "traditional." Frankly, I find myself wondering whether those
> members of the folk police who like to fetishize the diffrence
> between what they call "traditional" and all other kinds of folk
> music really know just how recently much of the "traditional"
> music that they go on about was actually written.
>
I suspect that applies to much more than just folk music. I'm sure many
of the "traditional" rituals in our societies are more recent than we
might have believed. We seem to get a certain comfort and security from
that which seems old and solid. In the days it was created, be it a
building, a painting or a song, it probably offended somebody, however,
because it was too innovative. All a big illusion - but I still like
"traditional" things.
Telling people what they're allowed to sing, however, is another thing
altogether.........
_...._
" " .__ . " . Marcus Turner mar...@earthlight.co.nz
" *.__ . ) o
" ~* . ~ o o o | P.O. Box 474
|@@\-------:--------=========================|* * * * ` . Dunedin
|@@/-------:------===========================|* * * * .' New Zealand
" __.* . " o o o |
". *~ .- . o
",. .____. " Phone +64 3 4799878 Fax +64 3 4799916
James Alexander Chokey
Marcus Turner-TVNZ <mar...@sol.earthlight.co.nz> wrote:
>> "traditional." Frankly, I find myself wondering whether those
>> members of the folk police who like to fetishize the diffrence
>> between what they call "traditional" and all other kinds of folk
>> music really know just how recently much of the "traditional"
>> music that they go on about was actually written.
>>
>
>I suspect that applies to much more than just folk music. I'm sure many
>of the "traditional" rituals in our societies are more recent than we
>might have believed.
Absolutely. You might be interested in reading some of the
essays in E.J. Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger's _The Invention of
Tradition_ (Cambridge University Press, 1983) if you're interested
in finding out about how many "ancient, time-honored traditions"
were in fact invented in the eighteenth and nineteenth century.
Prys Morgan's essay on "The Hunt for the Welsh Past during the
Romantic Period" actually touches briefly on the subject of
"traditional" music in Wales and its connection to Welsh nationalism.
James Alexander Chokey
Perry <pe...@bud.peinet.pe.ca> wrote:
>
>Excuse me!? Are we perhaps forgetting the second largest country in the
>world??
What does India have to do with it? :-) (Sorry, couldn't
resist.)
Anna Peekstok
On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Jerry Dallal wrote:
> All I want is a place to discuss traditional folk music where it will not
> be necessary to wade through a preponderance of nontraditional material.
> I don't care what it's called as long as the name hints at its purpose.
I agree. I am interested in traditional material and don't like having to
wade through all the stuff about singer-songwriters. Today it took me 1.5
hours to get through 485 postings, out of which I was interested in less
than 50 (would have taken <.5 hr. to read if the singer-songwriter stuff
wasn't there).
Anyone who can't differentiate between traditional music and contemporary
or singer-songwriter stuff needs to take a closer look. Just because a
singer-songwriter has been around awhile doesn't make his/her music
traditional. Traditional songs and melodies have been polished by many
generations of musicians, and traditional musical styles are completely
different from those of singer-songwriters. Of course it's a matter of
personal taste, but personally, I am bored to tears by most s-s material.
Why can't those of you who happen to like both types of music (i.e.,
contemporary s-s music and traditional folk music) read two groups
instead of forcing those of us with more limited tastes to wade through
one massive one?
Anna Peekstok
Frank Dalton
>Why can't those of you who happen to like both types of music (i.e.,
>contemporary s-s music and traditional folk music) read two groups
>instead of forcing those of us with more limited tastes to wade through
>one massive one?
>Anna Peekstok
Wouldn't that be nice, Anna? I've been banging my head against this brick
wall (in Philadelphia, land of King Gene Shay & the Philadelphia "Folk"
Festival for too many years. Thanks for speaking up. You are not alone.
Frank
J J Farrell
[ regarding alternative split proposals ]
>
> Several have been given. I gave you one myself in a previous
>post-- namely to drop the issue of renaming rec.music.folk to rec.
>music.folk.contemporary, and just go for creating r.m.f.traditional.
>I know you said that Dave Lawrence and/or group-davice told you
>that it is customary to rename base groups when doing re-orgs so
>that all the groups are at the same hierarchical level. That's
>not a hard and fast rule in any case, but if you want to do it, just
>propose renaming r.m.f. to r.m.f.misc. I know you said earlier that
>you rejected that idea because you thought it sounded "elitist,"
>but I honestly don't see how elitism comes into that at all; it's
>just common Usenet practice to rename the base group to *.misc when
>it's renamed-- not to something vague and bizzare like "contemporary."
What's "vague and bizzare" about "contemporary" in this context?
In my experience, the term "contemporary folk" has been in normal
usage to describe the singer-songwriter style of music for as long
as "traditional folk" has been used to describe what was previously
known as "folk".
I would object strongly to ending up with r.m.f and r.m.f.t; I would
also object (though less strongly) to r.m.f.m and r.m.f.t. If this
split has to happen, "contemporary" and "traditional" seem the obvious
terms to use, since they are the terms which have been used to
distinguish these two types of music for the last 30 or so years.
> Other people have also suggested that you might consider altering
>the proposal so as to incorporate some sort of geographical element
>into it, either by creating a r.m.f.north-america and an r.m.f.british-isles
>in addition to (or instead of) the r.m.f.traditional. It might also
>be worthwhile to consider just trying to create rec.music.folk.usa.traditional
>if you don't want to involve yourselve in a larger geographical split.
I really would get stroppy if we ended up with a geographic split!
Geographic splits of this sort, especially for the traditional music,
are nonsensical. Much of the interest and fascination in traditional
music is how it changes and develops as it travels. Much of the
traditional music in the English-speaking world is based on traditional
music from the British Isles; some of the most interesting versions of
the ancient British-Isles ballads come from the Appalachian mountains
in the USA. Comparing versions and spotting connections is much of the
joy in traditional music for me, and would be curtailed if discussion
of different places were in different groups. Many of the older songs
and tunes can be traced across language and racial borders as well.
My opinions; I do not speak for my employer.
Anna Peekstok
On 29 Jul 1995, M. Jonas wrote:
> You still haven't said what traditional folk music *is*. In which group
> do you discuss e.g. Steeleye Span, who do folk/rock versions of traditional
> ballads?
No problemo. Folk/rock versions of TRADITIONAL ballads would be discussed
in the TRADITIONAL group. Steeleye Span are not singer-songwriters,
therefore there would be no confusion as to whether to discuss them on the
traditional group or the singer-songwriter group.
Those few people who actually compose in the traditional style could be
discussed in either group or both (as opposed to the swarming multitudes
who CLAIM to be writing tomorrow's "traditional" music but who are really
acoustic pop musicians).
> It is possible that your division makes sense for the US scene,
> it certainly doesn't make sense on the UK scene, where there are a lot of
> people performing traditional songs in styles ranging from unaccompanied
> singing to full-blown rock and everything in between.
We're not talking here about performance style, but about the origin of
the material and the compositional style of the actual melodies and lyrics
themselves. When I perform medieval music using a didjeridu or
synthesizer, it's still medieval music. If Eddie Vedder were to sing
"Donald McGillavry" with Pearl Jam, it would still be traditional music,
and of interest to many of us traditional music aficionados.
And please, please, oh PLEASE don't split this group along geographic
lines! The Internet is about bringing people together from around the
world to share like interests. A geographic split would defeat this goal,
and would force me to read all the groups AND sift through them for the
traditional gems among all the singer-songwriter chaff.
Anna Peekstok
tel...@aol.com
(My opinions are my own, but I'm happy to share!)
Ton Maas
pe...@bud.peinet.pe.ca (Perry) wrote:
>In article <3v7eug$9...@elaine17.Stanford.EDU> jch...@leland.Stanford.EDU (James
>Alexander Chokey) writes:
>>>Excuse me!? Are we perhaps forgetting the second largest country in the
>>>world??
>
>> What does India have to do with it? :-) (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
>
>> -- Jim C.
>
>You get an A for Humour, but a D- for Geography. :-)
I hate to intrude on this issue, but when did empty, uninhabited wasteland
become an issue of *any* relevance? I therefore would like to see that low
mark re-evaluated into an A (for social geography if need be).
;-)
Ton Maas, Amsterdam NL
PS: No offense to people with leaves on their flags. I love your country,
even though I find it rather small...
M. Jonas
>
>be necessary to wade through a preponderance of nontraditional material.
>I don't care what it's called as long as the name hints at its purpose.
>
You still haven't said what traditional folk music *is*. In which group
do you discuss e.g. Steeleye Span, who do folk/rock versions of traditional
ballads? It is possible that your division makes sense for the US scene,
it certainly doesn't make sense on the UK scene, where there are a lot of
people performing traditional songs in styles ranging from unaccompanied
singing to full-blown rock and everything in between.
>The difficulty I'm having with most objections is that the only way they
>can be satisfied is by withdrawing the RFD. Since passage requires a
>2/3 vote in favor with at least 100 more yes votes than no votes, and
>since many have expressed an interest in seeing rmft established, I will
>not withdraw the RFD. But, I *will* listen to any suggested modification
>that achieves the goals of the previous paragraph. I'm open to any
>suggestion other than a variation on "withdraw the RFD".
Sure, it's been said before by several people (including me): create
rec.music.folk.north-america
rec.music.folk.british-isles
rec.music.folk.misc
and you will find that the .british-isles group discusses mostly
traditional and tradition-based folk music, as we don't regard singer-
songwriters to be folk music. For traditional North-American music, there
is rec.music.country.old-time. I'm not particularly interested in
singer-songwriters myself, but to split along the lines you suggest
leaves a sizeable segment of the discussion in the group homeless. You
can adapt my proposal by changing the RFD without having to withdraw it -
are you going to do it?
Martin
Sergio Gelato
Dick Wisan <wis...@hartwick.edu> wrote:
>I think several different things are going on under the UK/US dis-
>tinction.
>1. There's the question of geography: performers in (from?) the UK
> and performers in (from?) the US (or north America?) --and where
> do Australians go?
Australians? Under "world music", of course, like most of the rest of us.
[The problem with "world music", incidentally, is that the term carries
the implication that it is not from your own backyard, that those
participating in the discussion do not have an in-depth knowledge of
the culture that spawned the music. Those who do have an in-depth
knowledge may not have the patience to carry out their discussion in
the same room (or in the same language) as those who don't. My view
is that discussion of *all* folk music, from whatever tradition, is
theoretically within the scope of r.m.folk. That in practice r.m.f
is so anglocentric is largely a matter of network demographics. Maybe
also of lifestyles: just like US teenagers spend far more time on the
phone than their European counterparts, I predict that interest in Usenet
will always remain stronger in the US than here. But I digress.]
>2. On the other hand, there's the question what is _meant_ by "folk
> music" in the uk (and, it appears, all over (most of) the world
> outside the US) that is, something like "traditional" and what it
> means in the US, which is hard to put your finger on but includes
> what "singer-songwriters" (whatever _that_ is exactly, but at any
> rate, they can be alive) do. I think this is the real ground of
> the desire to split.
Then the split should be designed accordingly. If you want to move
discussion of US singer-songwriters' gigs and "product" out of the
way, say so outright. In fact, there is no real need to split r.m.f.
One could equally easily issue a
RFD: rec.music.coffeehouse (note: no .folk., it's unnecessary)
For discussion of the music usually associated with (North American)
coffeehouses. (Defining characteristics: usually involves a singer;
typically more subdued than hardcore rock'n'roll, as it has to also
be acceptable to an older audience or one of quieter people who prefer
coffee to alcohol; excludes performers with such a massive following
that they can only play in large halls or stadiums; excludes music that
is normally the apanage of classical concert halls or jazz clubs.)
Such a group might take care of the problem, especially if the r.m.f
FAQ started to advertise its existence, and r.m.f regulars made it a
habit to respond to stray queries with a suitable cross-post and a followup-to:
to r.m.c-h only. (It's easy enough to set up one's kill file to filter
out all articles that are cross-posted to a certain group.)
The group might also end up covering some of the so-called "alternative"
bands (whatever that means); should be perfect for cross-overs like
Jabbering Trout.
>3. Or, you can try to make the split on the geography of the _music_.
> In that case, an awful lot of what Americans think of as their
> traditional music turns out to be UK, too. As, "Billy Boy" in the
> US resembles though it differs from the version sung (I understand)
> in the UK, but both turn out to be versions of "Lord Randall" which
> as authentically, Childishly, UK as you can get.
Splitting by geography of the music presents a problem: what do you do
with fusion? (Except perhaps dump it into alt.music.world, as one
of the few things that actually belong there.) Also, many
different styles may overlap geographically but be different enough to
warrant separate discussion. Splitting by style is what makes the most
sense to me: it's likely to provide the best match to people's interests.
>I like some of the singer-songwriter stuff, but I certainly would
>be happy to be free of the endless news about which of them has what
>on which records and where they'll be performing (except, of course
>when I want to know some of those things). I'd like what I think
>people mean by a "traditional" group (#2 above), but I'm hanged if
>I can formulate it so it would stand up in court.
Gig announcements should be hidden away on conc...@calendar.com or
equivalent service. (Shall we amend the charter of r.m.f to explicitly
say so?) I don't see an easy way to get rid of requests for discographies
and critical recommendations, other than to separate the traffic according
to people's areas of expertise. On the other hand, I find that whenever
I see such a request (the subject line is often a giveaway) my finger is
rarely very far from the 'k' key...
--
Sergio Gelato <gel...@sissa.it>
Dick Wisan
> I have written this to two people privately, so let me post it publicly.
>
> All I want is a place to discuss traditional folk music where it will not
> be necessary to wade through a preponderance of nontraditional material.
> I don't care what it's called as long as the name hints at its purpose.
>
> can be satisfied is by withdrawing the RFD. Since passage requires a
> 2/3 vote in favor with at least 100 more yes votes than no votes, and
> since many have expressed an interest in seeing rmft established, I will
> not withdraw the RFD. But, I *will* listen to any suggested modification
> that achieves the goals of the previous paragraph. I'm open to any
> suggestion other than a variation on "withdraw the RFD".
If you won't _withdraw_ the RFD, are you willing to resubmit it with
changes in charter and/or name? (I presume that means the countdown
towards CFV would start all over again.) If you won't go that far, the
discussion can proceed only under the condition: if you want to revise
it, vote No.
It's important, because the way it's shaping up, it seems to me the
major distinction is about singer-songwriters. What the "traditionalist"
people (count me in) want involves a certain attitude towards the music
we sing. What puts the "moderns" into a different class is that they
think you are supposed to be creative and that "creative" means you ex-
press "yourself" and to do that you must write most of your own songs.
It's a thoroughly modern (meaning maybe since some time in the 19th Cen-
tury?) attitude towards art, and that's where traditionalists (sing me
the old songs, and sing them _right_) differ.
But, how to explain the difference? I think the term "singer-songwriter"
makes it clearer than any other term proposed. So, rather than secede
from the group, I would want to split it into, say,
rec.music.folk.traditional
rec.music.folk.singer-songwr (or however many chars we're allowed)
I'm leaving the "folk" on both sides there in hope of preventing hys=
teria. Now, would that kind of change count as "withdrawing the RFD",
that is, something you would refuse to do?
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: internet WIS...@hartwick.edu
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Cat Eldridge
>On Thu, 27 Jul 1995, Jerry Dallal wrote:
>
not
>> be necessary to wade through a preponderance of nontraditional material.
>> I don't care what it's called as long as the name hints at its purpose.
>
>I agree. I am interested in traditional material and don't like having to
>wade through all the stuff about singer-songwriters. Today it took me 1.5
>hours to get through 485 postings, out of which I was interested in less
>than 50 (would have taken <.5 hr. to read if the singer-songwriter stuff
>wasn't there).
I disagree. You don't need to read the postings about singer-songwriters so
it shouldn't take that long to read just what you want. And I don't believe
that singer-songwriter v trad is all that clear. Richard Thompson is both a
singer-songwriter and a singer who uses trad material. Will you ban
discussion of him from your new group?
>Anyone who can't differentiate between traditional music and contemporary
>or singer-songwriter stuff needs to take a closer look. Just because a
>singer-songwriter has been around awhile doesn't make his/her music
>traditional. Traditional songs and melodies have been polished by many
>generations of musicians, and traditional musical styles are completely
>different from those of singer-songwriters. Of course it's a matter of
>personal taste, but personally, I am bored to tears by most s-s material.
Hmmm... Woodie Guthrie is a singer-songwriter. Is he also banned from your
new group? Or are you only concerned about the current corp of
singer-songwriters? Sounds like the folk police are riding again! Who makes
the grade in your new order? Will this be a moderated group where
singer-songwriters are banned?
>Why can't those of you who happen to like both types of music (i.e.,
>contemporary s-s music and traditional folk music) read two groups
>instead of forcing those of us with more limited tastes to wade through
>one massive one?
Because it's damn silly to create multiple new groups when the present
group is working. Call me a traditionalist, but change for the sake of
change is not my cup of tea1
Cat Eldridge
>No problemo. Folk/rock versions of TRADITIONAL ballads would be discussed
>in the TRADITIONAL group. Steeleye Span are not singer-songwriters,
>therefore there would be no confusion as to whether to discuss them on the
>traditional group or the singer-songwriter group.
Now I understand! If you like a group, they are not singer-songwriters!
Steeleye Span are most certainly singer-songwriters in that they perform
material they write. Or are you only concerned with excluding North
American singer-songwriters? As my earlier post to you noted, it looks like
the folk police are active once!
James Alexander Chokey
Dick Wisan <wis...@hartwick.edu> wrote:
>
>If you won't _withdraw_ the RFD, are you willing to resubmit it with
>changes in charter and/or name? (I presume that means the countdown
>towards CFV would start all over again.)
Not usually. Unless there are *radical* changes in a proposal
(in Dave Lawrence's judgement), the "countdown" dates from the first RFD.
>It's important, because the way it's shaping up, it seems to me the
>major distinction is about singer-songwriters. What the "traditionalist"
>people (count me in) want involves a certain attitude towards the music
>we sing. What puts the "moderns" into a different class is that they
>think you are supposed to be creative and that "creative" means you ex-
>press "yourself" and to do that you must write most of your own songs.
>It's a thoroughly modern (meaning maybe since some time in the 19th Cen-
>tury?) attitude towards art, and that's where traditionalists (sing me
>the old songs, and sing them _right_) differ.
Ironically, the idea of "folk music" as we usually understand
it, (along with folk art, folk tales, and other forms of "folk culture")
is largely an invention of a populist romantic nationalism in the late
18th and 19th centuries-- one that believed that the essence of
national culture was to be found, not in "high art," but in those
supposedly ancient cultural forms that were passed on from generation
to generation among the "common people." (Not that this bears any
direct relevance on the proposal.)
>
>But, how to explain the difference? I think the term "singer-songwriter"
>makes it clearer than any other term proposed. So, rather than secede
>from the group, I would want to split it into, say,
>
> rec.music.folk.traditional
> rec.music.folk.singer-songwr (or however many chars we're allowed)
This is certainly a lot better than the current proposal,
but I still question whether even this division would be workable.
As at least one other poster pointed out earlier in this discussion,
much so-called "traditional" music is, in fact, of quite recent origin
and was composed by singer/songwriters (e.g. Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger).
The problem, it seems to me, is that the very category "traditional,"
as used by many of the proponents of this proposal, has extremely
arbitrary boundaries. As the proponents seem to be using it, it includes
all that supposedly ageless and timeless music that has been passed on
for generations as well as all that more recent stuff by those singer-
songwriters whom the proponents also happen to enjoy. As I noted in my
first post, it really comes down to an attempt to create a rec.music.folk.
that.i.like and a rec.music.folk.that.i.don't.like. Not that there's
anything inherently bad about trying to create a group for a particular
type music that you like, but it does become a problem when you just
decide that you're going to call whatever kinds of folk music you happen
to like "traditional" and say, "Don't worry about the definition. We
all know it when we hear it."
That said, I still wish to repeat what I said above-- that
this idea of r.m.f.traditional and r.m.f.singer-songwr is still
much better than the original proposal-- although I would also
hasten to add that there really should be a *.misc group created
if this is a genuine re-organization.
J J Farrell
>
>You still haven't said what traditional folk music *is*. In which group
>do you discuss e.g. Steeleye Span, who do folk/rock versions of traditional
>ballads?
I don't understand why there's a question here; if we're talking about
traditional ballads, we do so in the traditional music group.
>It is possible that your division makes sense for the US scene,
>it certainly doesn't make sense on the UK scene, where there are a lot of
>people performing traditional songs in styles ranging from unaccompanied
>singing to full-blown rock and everything in between.
I disagree entirely; I've been involved in the UK folk scene for over 20
years, and it makes perfect sense to me. If the songs are traditional,
they're discussed in the traditional music group.
I think we may be having problems because of different approaches to
folk music. Some people, such as myself, are primarily interested in
the music; the proposed split makes sense to us (whether or not we
consider it necessary). Others are primarily interested in talking
about different performers of the music, and want to know where particular
performers would be discussed; I can see how the split would make
less sense to such people since many performers include traditional
and non-traditional music in their repertoires.
>Sure, it's been said before by several people (including me): create
>
>rec.music.folk.north-america
>rec.music.folk.british-isles
>rec.music.folk.misc
>
>and you will find that the .british-isles group discusses mostly
>traditional and tradition-based folk music, as we don't regard singer-
>songwriters to be folk music. For traditional North-American music, there
>is rec.music.country.old-time.
I strongly disagree with a geographic split. Much of the traditional
music in the English-speaking world is based on music from the British
Isles. Separate groups for North America and the British Isles would
tend to suppress some of the most interesting discussions comparing
different versions of the same song from around the world.
>I'm not particularly interested in
>singer-songwriters myself, but to split along the lines you suggest
>leaves a sizeable segment of the discussion in the group homeless.
I don't understand this. What music is left homeless by a split to
contemporary and traditional?
>You
>can adapt my proposal by changing the RFD without having to withdraw it -
>are you going to do it?
I sincerely hope not. I don't think a split is necessary; but if it is
to happen, a split to contemporary and traditional is far preferable to
a geographic split in my opinion.
Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be
Anna Peekstok <peek...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>No problemo. Folk/rock versions of TRADITIONAL ballads would be discussed
>in the TRADITIONAL group. Steeleye Span are not singer-songwriters,
>therefore there would be no confusion as to whether to discuss them on the
>traditional group or the singer-songwriter group.
>. . . .
>If Eddie Vedder were to sing
>"Donald McGillavry" with Pearl Jam, it would still be traditional music,
>and of interest to many of us traditional music aficionados.
>. . . .
I'm becoming less and less happy about the idea of the tradition-contemporary
split. This is becoming more and more of a line-drawing issue, with everyone
drawing different lines. Thus, I think the split should be refocused.
I don't like the geographic approach either; there's too much
cross-fertilization artistically.
I'd like to revive the suggestion I made when the RFD first came out. We
should split the group by the functional subject matter of the message. Thus,
concert announcements, recording announcements and reviews, general Q&A, and
possibly a few other subjects would get different groups. Perhaps a survey of
a week's messages would be useful in identifying what would be appropriate
dividing lines.
Daniel Reitman
Joanne Doughty
>I'm becoming less and less happy about the idea of the tradition-contemporary
>split. This is becoming more and more of a line-drawing issue, with everyone
>drawing different lines. Thus, I think the split should be refocused.
>I don't like the geographic approach either; there's too much
>cross-fertilization artistically.
>I'd like to revive the suggestion I made when the RFD first came out. We
>should split the group by the functional subject matter of the message. Thus,
>concert announcements, recording announcements and reviews, general Q&A, and
>possibly a few other subjects would get different groups. Perhaps a survey of
>a week's messages would be useful in identifying what would be appropriate
>dividing lines.
> Daniel Reitman
I think a functional split would be better too. I also read
rec.music.classical There are several classical groups available and I
subscribe to several but, not all of them.
rec.music.classical (notice that this hasn't been changed to .misc)
rec.music.classical.recordings
rec.music.classical.guitar (probably not to good for folk)
rec.music.classical.performing
I believe that this group could come up with a small set of sub groups that
would satisfy many of the readers.
Maybe groups for recordings, gig dates, performing (for those who need help
getting started or have questions about performing) and songwriting as an
activity (not singer songwriter). We could then have the original group for
everything else. Jody
Dick Wisan
In article <3vfenl$d...@elaine16.Stanford.EDU>, jch...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(James Alexander Chokey) writes:
> In article <1995Jul29....@hartwick.edu>,
> Dick Wisan <wis...@hartwick.edu> wrote:
>>
>>But, how to explain the difference? I think the term "singer-songwriter"
>>makes it clearer than any other term proposed. So, rather than secede
>>from the group, I would want to split it into, say,
>>
>> rec.music.folk.traditional
>> rec.music.folk.singer-songwr (or however many chars we're allowed)
>
> This is certainly a lot better than the current proposal,
> but I still question whether even this division would be workable.
> As at least one other poster pointed out earlier in this discussion,
> much so-called "traditional" music is, in fact, of quite recent origin
> and was composed by singer/songwriters (e.g. Woody Guthrie and Pete
I thought about that, but I think it makes less difference than you'd
suppose. A mediaevalist told me once, when you see a reference to
"from time immemorial" it generally means about 100 years --about as
far back as Grandpa heard tell of. The difference between the "singer-
songwr" people and the "traditional" people is not so much in the music
as in the attitude _towards_ the music.
There will be overlap, but unless people _never_ can tell which group
would be appropriate, how much does it matter that there are overlaps
about particular performances of particular songs? I don't see why one
shouldn't discuss Copeland's or Percy Grainger's settings of traditional
songs along with Steeleye Span's in r.m.f.traditional, so long as it's
the _song_ that's in point.
J J Farrell
>
>In previous threads we have surely seen that it is **not** going to be
>possible to clearly define "traditional". I have always been in favour
>of a **geographical** split as it is:
>
> 1. clearly definable.
>
> 2. would naturally account for broad interpretations of the
> word 'Folk'. (Note. a lot of what US posters call Folk, UK types
> call Country - not a comment on the music, simply a fact of life)
>
> 3. Could still be read by everyone.
>
>Could we go for .usa .uk and .misc only???
As a UK resident whose primary interest is English-language traditional
song, I am utterly opposed to a geographic split. Discussion of different
versions of songs from around the English-speaking world is a fascinating
part of r.m.f. A UseNet newsgroup is an excellent resource for studying
this area with people from Britain, Ireland, Australia, USA, Canada, NZ,
and so on all being able to chip in with their own local versions. This
is an area which was very difficult and expensive to explore in depth
before modern communications came along, and r.m.f is great for this.
Splitting the group along geographic lines which separate English-speaking
areas would destroy this.
John Peekstok
: Anna Peekstok writes:
:
: >I agree. I am interested in traditional material and don't like having to
: >wade through all the stuff about singer-songwriters. Today it took me 1.5
: >hours to get through 485 postings, out of which I was interested in less
: >than 50 (would have taken <.5 hr. to read if the singer-songwriter stuff
: >wasn't there).
:
: I disagree. You don't need to read the postings about singer-songwriters so
: it shouldn't take that long to read just what you want. And I don't believe
: that singer-songwriter v trad is all that clear. Richard Thompson is both a
: singer-songwriter and a singer who uses trad material. Will you ban
: discussion of him from your new group?
What's the problem? Why does there need to be some kind of hair-splitting
rules about what goes where? It's pretty obvious that newsgroup
discussions are defined as time goes on by the people who subscribe to
the group.
(Anna again:)
: >Anyone who can't differentiate between traditional music and contemporary
: >or singer-songwriter stuff needs to take a closer look. Just because a
: >singer-songwriter has been around awhile doesn't make his/her music
: >traditional. Traditional songs and melodies have been polished by many
: >generations of musicians, and traditional musical styles are completely
: >different from those of singer-songwriters. Of course it's a matter of
: >personal taste, but personally, I am bored to tears by most s-s material.
(Cat:)
: Hmmm... Woodie Guthrie is a singer-songwriter. Is he also banned from your
: new group? Or are you only concerned about the current corp of
: singer-songwriters?
I think it's rather obvious that most people who like traditional folk
music and don't like s/s music have little or no interest in Woody
Guthrie. Is part of the problem here that a lot of people think Woody
Guthrie and Pete Seeger are traditional folk musicians? If so, please
dis-abuse yourselves of the notion.
The group will discuss what the people who are on it want to discuss.
Sometimes it might even have a thread about composed music. If it happens
too often, or about music that is too far outside most of our interests,
people will complain. Groups tend to be self-defining.
(Cat:)
: Sounds like the folk police are riding again! Who makes
: the grade in your new order? Will this be a moderated group where
: singer-songwriters are banned?
Please stop calling people names. I've been accosted by the folk police on
many occasions and the only thing they all had in common was that they
were obnoxious. Name calling in this discussion fits that description more
than anything else I've seen. As does using phrases like "makes the grade
in your new order" and "s/s's are banned". Are you just offended because a
bunch of people are suddenly saying that we don't much like s/s music? If
you think that is being folk police, try playing traditional music in a
"non-traditional" (whatever that means) way for the wrong audience.
Having an audience member loudly saying that I am playing it wrong is
meeting the folk police. Being disagreed with politely and clearly during
a discussion on whether or not to split a newsgroup is not.
(Anna again:)
: >Why can't those of you who happen to like both types of music (i.e.,
: >contemporary s-s music and traditional folk music) read two groups
: >instead of forcing those of us with more limited tastes to wade through
: >one massive one?
(Cat:)
: Because it's damn silly to create multiple new groups when the present
: group is working. Call me a traditionalist, but change for the sake of
: change is not my cup of tea1
You seem to be missing the point that, for many of us, the present group
is not working. Change for the sake of change is always stupid. I haven't
seen anyone propose that here. And you didn't answer Anna's question,
which was asking what is stopping you from reading two moderately sized
groups instead of one huge one.
--
_______________________________________
John Peekstok john...@cyberspace.com (My own opinions, of course)
Telynor tel...@aol.com
John Peekstok
: >therefore there would be no confusion as to whether to discuss them on the
: >traditional group or the singer-songwriter group.
:
: Now I understand! If you like a group, they are not singer-songwriters!
: Steeleye Span are most certainly singer-songwriters in that they perform
: material they write. Or are you only concerned with excluding North
: American singer-songwriters? As my earlier post to you noted, it looks like
: the folk police are active once!
Now, now, Cat. Calm down. Take a deep breath and talk coherently or you
will be asked to stand in the corner until you can interact with people
in a rational (and polite) fashion.
Are you familiar with Steeleye Span? Are you aware that they became
famous for doing rock versions of traditional folk songs? I don't think
anyone has ever said that they do not write any of their own material.
But that is not what they are well-known for. Their later albums are full
of self-penned items which are a good deal less interesting than the earlier
material, at least to people who like traditional music. I can foresee a
discussion on rec.music.traditional in which a newbie is asking for names
of bands that do trad music in a rock style. He would be given the name
of Steeleye Span almost immediately along with a suggestion to look for
the early albums rather than the newest ones.
What's the problem?
And before you jump all over me with your hair-splitting, yes I know that
the early albums had some original material and the later albums had some
traditional material.
Again, what's the problem?
Another thing to keep in mind is that people who are writing original
music that is based on/soundslike/grew out of tradtional music are pretty
interesting to most trad music folks. And yes, this music sounds a lot
different than most s/s music. And no, we don't need any hard and fast
definitions in a group like rec.music.traditional.
The only people I have seen asking for sharply delineated definitions are
those who have also said they are opposed to the split. It seems like
maybe they are creating a non-issue to support their cause.
In any event, Cat, once again, please stop calling people names. It is so
undignified.
Sergio Gelato
Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be <drei...@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote:
[In response to a previous comment:]
>>No problemo. Folk/rock versions of TRADITIONAL ballads would be discussed
>>in the TRADITIONAL group. Steeleye Span are not singer-songwriters,
>>therefore there would be no confusion as to whether to discuss them on the
>>traditional group or the singer-songwriter group.
>I'm becoming less and less happy about the idea of the tradition-contemporary
>split. This is becoming more and more of a line-drawing issue, with everyone
>drawing different lines. Thus, I think the split should be refocused.
>I don't like the geographic approach either; there's too much
>cross-fertilization artistically.
>I'd like to revive the suggestion I made when the RFD first came out. We
>should split the group by the functional subject matter of the message. Thus,
>concert announcements, recording announcements and reviews, general Q&A, and
>possibly a few other subjects would get different groups. Perhaps a survey of
>a week's messages would be useful in identifying what would be appropriate
>dividing lines.
This is indeed the most reasonable approach. Make the distinction not on
the basis of the music, but of the slant of the discussion. Questions about
particular contemporary performers, their tour schedules, recordings, and
biographical details, would be discussed in one forum; questions about
the songs (in a broad sense, including instrumental pieces and dance as well)
that transcend a particular performer might find their place elsewhere.
Recording announcements and reviews would fit mostly in group A.
Concert announcements, in my view, don't belong in a newsgroup at all but
should be handled by a specialised server like conc...@calendar.com. (The
more complete the listings of such a server, the more useful it becomes to
everyone.) Concert reviews would also belong in group A.
Group B would collect some of the "lyrics sought" messages and their
replies, technical discussions about the instruments (if not covered in
some rec.music.makers.* group), and anything not associated with a particular
contemporary performer. To take the Steeleye Span example, if the emphasis
is on the ballad itself and on comparing the various versions in existence
it would fit in group B, while if it is only on the Steeleye Span version
it belongs in group A. Who actually wrote the song is of secondary importance.
I'm still of two minds on where performers of previous eras (Leadbelly,
Guthrie, Ochs maybe, to name but the Americans; is Seeger still "contemporary"
in anything other than a technical sense?) would belong. Maybe it doesn't
really matter: the important thing is that the bulk of day-to-day "John
Gorka/Dar W./David W./Catie C./Hugh B./June T./Ralph McT./Altan is great;
what recordings should I buy next?" traffic would be clearly on one side (A).
Other doubt: should a question like "CDConnection lists 14 different
versions of Stewball; any recommendations as to which is best?" go under A
or B? One might think A (it's a request for recording reviews), but this
can easily degenerate into a detailed discussion of the verses, which would
be meant for B. This is the sort of thing that makes it difficult to
get the split perfectly right. (I'd lean towards asking that question in B;
that's why I said that only "most" record reviews would go under A.)
Possible names for A and B? As I've done before, let me throw a few
ideas at you and see if there are any that you particularly like. Feel free
to add suggestions of your own.
B: r.m.f.standards
A: r.m.f.performers; r.m.f.singers; r.m.f.misc; + the various ideas under
r.m.* but outside r.m.folk.* that have already been mentioned.
I think the idea of calling B: r.m.f.traditional and A:
r.m.f.contemporary has met enough objections to be more or less ruled out.
Someone should indeed take a week's messages and see if the split
along the lines I described (or according to any other lines proposed by
others) makes sense to him or her. An absolute measure might be how many
threads would have to be crossposted or split by the divide.
A more subjective measure for those who'd like to unsubscribe from one
of the groups is whether the split would allow them to do so conveniently;
I can't guess the answer for anyone but myself.
As to the RFD, there is nothing wrong with revising it and going
for a second round of discussion; in fact, if you try a CFV without that,
a number of us will try to block it by voting no, and all we'll have gained
is the privilege to go through this discussion all over again six months
later. There is also nothing wrong with taking a poll on the main alternatives
that have been proposed; that will help ensure that the final proposal has
enough support to pass.
--
Sergio Gelato <gel...@sissa.it>
Steve Goldfield
John Peekstok <john...@case.cyberspace.com> wrote:
#>I think it's rather obvious that most people who like traditional folk
#>music and don't like s/s music have little or no interest in Woody
#>Guthrie. Is part of the problem here that a lot of people think Woody
#>Guthrie and Pete Seeger are traditional folk musicians? If so, please
#>dis-abuse yourselves of the notion.
I think you should speak for yourself, rather than trying to
speak for the rest of us. Personally, I'm very interested in
traditional folk music and have a great interest in Woody Guthrie,
who was part of a very old and important tradition of composer/
performers of topical songs. You apparently aren't interested
in that tradition, but that is no excuse for denying that it is
a tradition. You illustrate my point that there are lots of
traditions with different groups interested in those traditions.
Makes no sense to lump them together, especially when one of them
says that only some of the traditions belong. Woody Guthrie was
certainly immersed in his tradition; consider that he borrowed
melodies from the Carter Family, for example. (Are we next going
to hear that the Carters weren't traditional?)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steve Goldfield :-{ {-: s...@coe.berkeley.edu
University of California at Berkeley Richmond Field Station
Majjick
invention of the marketroids anyway, I would prefer to see a
rec.music.singer.songwriter. (This has, of course, nothing whatsoever to
do with whether such music is any good or not).
folk.traditional seems redundant to me.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Paul Magnussen
Anna Peekstok
> I disagree. You don't need to read the postings about singer-songwriters so
> it shouldn't take that long to read just what you want.
I don't read them. It wastes literally hours of my time just sifting
through the subject lines, because there appear to be at least 10 posts
about singer-songwriters for every one about traditional music.
> Richard Thompson is both a
> singer-songwriter and a singer who uses trad material. Will you ban
> discussion of him from your new group?
As I have already said elsewhere, those few writers who actually write
material in the traditional style could be discussed in the traditional
music group. Most of Richard Thompson's material is pretty straightforward
pop music, so I would talk about his traditional stuff on the traditional
group and his singer-songwriter stuff on the singer-songwriter group.
What's so horrible about that?
> Hmmm... Woodie Guthrie is a singer-songwriter. Is he also banned from your
> new group?
I'm not into "banning" people -- just lightening the load I have to wade
through in order to find the posts that interest me. As far as I'm
concerned Woodie was obviously a singer-songwriter who made no effort to
write in any existing musical tradition. If a lot of people disagree and
want to talk about him on r.m.f.traditional, that's fine with me, as long
as some effort is made to weed out the teeming hordes about whom there is
really no question (i.e., Iris Dement, Shawn Colvin, Joni Mitchell, etc.)
> Sounds like the folk police are riding again!
Sounds to me like you use the term "folk police" against anyone who
happens to disagree with you. I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing
anything. I'm just asking for the traditional material and the
singer-songwriter material to be in two different places so those of us
not blessed with your eclectic tastes might find what we seek without
spending hours hitting the "delete" button. Would it kill you to read two
groups instead of one?
> Because it's damn silly to create multiple new groups when the present
> group is working. Call me a traditionalist, but change for the sake of
> change is not my cup of tea
OK, I'll say it one more time: The present group is NOT working for me and
others like me. This morning I am wading through 137 posts, most of which
are of no interest to me. It would take you the same amount of time to
read two groups as to read one, but it would save me hours every week to
read a focused r.m.f.traditional. Don't be a dog in the manger. Just
because YOU don't need something doesn't mean that no need exists.
Anna Peekstok
tel...@aol.com
Anna Peekstok
On 30 Jul 1995, Cat Eldridge wrote:
> Anna Peekstok writes:
> >No problemo. Folk/rock versions of TRADITIONAL ballads would be discussed
> >in the TRADITIONAL group. Steeleye Span are not singer-songwriters,
> >therefore there would be no confusion as to whether to discuss them on the
> >traditional group or the singer-songwriter group.
> Now I understand! If you like a group, they are not singer-songwriters!
> Steeleye Span are most certainly singer-songwriters in that they perform
> material they write. Or are you only concerned with excluding North
[snip]
If you will please recall, the post to which I was responding asked where
a group that played rock versions of traditional music would be
discussed, and used Steeleye Span as an example of such a group.
To clarify my position, I would discuss Steeleye Span on the traditional
group because most of their recordings were of traditional music,
including traditional songs set to new music (which still qualify as
traditional in my book). If you wanted to discuss their composed works on
the singer-songwriter group, that would be fine with me.
Why are you getting so upset about this?
Anna Peekstok
tel...@aol.com
Cat Eldridge
>To clarify my position, I would discuss Steeleye Span on the traditional
>group because most of their recordings were of traditional music,
>including traditional songs set to new music (which still qualify as
>traditional in my book). If you wanted to discuss their composed works on
>the singer-songwriter group, that would be fine with me.
>
>Why are you getting so upset about this?
to what you think should be. I'm oppossed to this split because I suspect
that the one hundred and fifty odd posts a day will, if two or more groups
are created, result in three hundred or more posts a day. For example,
soc.culture.irish was split off from soc.culture.celtic. Did this result in
a leaner soc.culture.celtic? No, it didn't... (The same thing happened
when soc.culture.scottish was created.) We just two large groups instead of
one large group! My belief is that all we'll get is two groups of equally
the same size with _lots_ of cross-posting as many participants won't be
quite sure what is relevant to one one group or the other. I'm simply not
convinced that this proposal accomplishes increase beyond increasing the
number of newsgroups. So I'll voted no when the voting takes place.
ghost
>On 30 Jul 1995, Cat Eldridge wrote:
>> Hmmm... Woodie Guthrie is a singer-songwriter. Is he also banned from your
>> new group?
>I'm not into "banning" people -- just lightening the load I have to wade
>through in order to find the posts that interest me. As far as I'm
>concerned Woodie was obviously a singer-songwriter who made no effort to
>write in any existing musical tradition. If a lot of people disagree and
Jesus-Blanking-Christ; talk about showing your complete & utter ignorance.
A test may follow on where he got his tunes (something he never tried to
hide); on the other hand, why bother? You probably haven't heard the sources either.
Ken Josenhans
> On 30 Jul 1995, Cat Eldridge wrote:
> > I disagree. You don't need to read the postings about singer-songwriters so
> > it shouldn't take that long to read just what you want.
> I don't read them. It wastes literally hours of my time just sifting
> through the subject lines, because there appear to be at least 10 posts
> about singer-songwriters for every one about traditional music.
From her description, I'm guessing that Anna is using rn to read
the newsgroup.
rn is a very old piece of software. It worked great with the volume
of news articles we had in the 1980s. If one is using it to read
newsgroups with more than about 50 articles per day, it's probably
time to change.
I switched over to tin about a year ago. Tin allows me to easily
select/discard threads, and it highlights articles by my favorite
posters. I spend minutes, not hours, sifting.
I read news on a Unix system; I'm not sure what Anna is using.
But most of the news readers I have heard about which were written
since 1990 have dealt with the issues of giving the user more
selectivity in choosing what articles to read. I can't speak for the
big commercial systems, such as AOL.
This is offered in the hope of saving Anna (and perhaps others)
hours of time, starting now, rather than waiting for the results of
a reorganization vote.
Life is too short to read *all* of rec.music.folk. :-)
-- Ken Josenhans
k...@netsun.cl.msu.edu
Anna Peekstok
On 31 Jul 1995, ghost wrote:
> Jesus-Blanking-Christ; talk about showing your complete & utter
> ignorance.
> A test may follow on where he got his tunes (something he never tried to
> hide); on the other hand, why bother? You probably haven't heard the
> sources either.
Look, I don't know whether Woody Guthrie swiped some traditional tunes or
not. I personally have very little interest in Mr. Guthrie's music, which
is a matter of taste. This does not make me a card-carrying member of the
Folk Police or a puppy-kicker.
Woody Guthrie was mentioned as an example of someone who might pose a
problem as to whether he should be discussed in a hypothetical
r.m.f.traditional group or the hypothetical r.m.f.singer-songwriter (or
whatever) group. And I stated quite clearly that I don't care which group
he's discussed on, as long as somewhere there is a group where I can
participate in discussions about traditional folk music without having to
wade through zillions of posts about Joni Mitchell boxed CD sets, John
Prine, Dar Williams, James Taylor, Shawn Colvin, Linda Waterfall, Bill
Staines, and so forth.
I'm sure these are all very worthy people, but I am not blessed with the
kind of eclectic taste that seems to make people blind to the difference
between traditional folk and acoustic pop music.
Anna Peekstok
tel...@aol.com
Anna Peekstok
> Hmmmm... Ok, I want a list of traditional singer-songwriters that would be
> apprpriate for rec.music.folk.traditional.
But singer-songwriters WOULDN'T be discussed on r.m.f.traditional,
unless they happened to also perform traditional folk music, or composed
something that resembled traditional folk music enough to interest those
of us who like trad music and dislike s-s music. This doesn't happen as
often as some people seem to think.
> After all, all folk material was
> in all likelihood written by a singer-songwriter. How old does it have to
> be to be traditional?
Sorry, Cat, but you have just demonstrated total ignorance of what
traditional folk music is. The essential element of trad music is that it
*wasn't* written by any one person. It may have started with one person's
composition, but when someone else learned it, s/he changed it a bit, and
so on down the line, until you end up with something written by a lot of
people (i.e., the "folk" in "folk music") which has been polished into a
state of perfection rarely attained by any one composer.
Sometimes, a composer steeped in the tradition is able to write music that
has this same feel. These new works are accepted with gratitude by
traditional music fans, and are easy for us to distinguish from the pop
tunes produced by singer-songwriters.
Anna Peekstok
tel...@aol.com
Steve Goldfield
said that clubs in this country usually specialize in either
traditional or contemporary and advertise themselves that way.
My main experience is with the Freight & Salvage in Berkeley,
which is the oldest folk club west of the Mississippi. The
Freight certainly does not operate that way; they book a wide
range of material, from that which anybody would consider
traditional to that which anybody would consider isn't
traditional. Since many of the groups that appear at the
Freight also appear at other clubs (I know from seeing people's
touring schedules and from reports here on the Internet), I
know that there are lots of other clubs with a similar mix.
I'm not sure what relevance booking policy has to this discussion,
but it appeared to be used as an argument to support the creation
of rec.music.traditional. So I question it as a statement of
fact, as well as denying its relevance to this thread.
Kevin Rolph
: In article ke...@primag.co.uk (Kevin Rolph) writes:
: >
: > 3. Could still be read by everyone.
: >
: [objection...] A UseNet newsgroup is an excellent resource for studying
: this area with people from Britain, Ireland, Australia, USA, Canada, NZ,
: and so on all being able to chip in with their own local versions.
Read 3 again.
This is probably my last post directly to this group. I can no longer
justify the download time or the disc space.
Let me know if/when it gets split into **sensible** size chunks.
Bye.
--
Kevin Rolph, Cambridge, England. ke...@primag.co.uk
==========================================================================
Engineer, Manager, Dad, Decorator, Woodworker, Gamer, Quaker, Folk Dancer,
Advanced Driver, Bodhran player, Gardener. Specialisation is for insects.
Cat Eldridge
>Sorry, Cat, but you have just demonstrated total ignorance of what
>traditional folk music is. The essential element of trad music is that it
>*wasn't* written by any one person. It may have started with one person's
>composition, but when someone else learned it, s/he changed it a bit, and
>so on down the line, until you end up with something written by a lot of
>people (i.e., the "folk" in "folk music") which has been polished into a
>state of perfection rarely attained by any one composer.
For example, I think Altan and Patrick Street are traditional groups and
they do write some of their material. I find your way of defining
traditional folk to be excessively narrow. The idea that the only
traditional folk music is that for which we do't know the author means that
by your standard the brillant compositions of O'Carolan aren't folk. Give
me a break!
John Peekstok
:
: No, it's not "total ignorance," just a different idea of what traditional.
: For example, I think Altan and Patrick Street are traditional groups and
: they do write some of their material. I find your way of defining
: traditional folk to be excessively narrow. The idea that the only
: traditional folk music is that for which we do't know the author means that
: by your standard the brillant compositions of O'Carolan aren't folk. Give
: me a break!
Cat, you asshole, if you are going to respond to someone's post, at least
respond to the whole thing. Or did you just miss the second paragraph of
Anna's post, the one where she talked about some musicians who are
steeped in the tradition writing music that is generally accepted by the
traditional folk community as being part of the tradition? I notice you
failed to copy it during your reply . . .
Here's a question for you: Why do you keep arguing about minor details and
specific examples instead of about the issue at hand? Woody Guthrie isn't
the problem. Turlough O'Carolan isn't the problem. No one musician or
song is the problem. I think this has been said several times now.
You seem pretty hung up on forcing there to be a specific definition of
what traditional folk music is. Sorry, no specific definition exists. As
with most things in life, there are huge grey areas. That doesn't bother
me. Why does it bother you so much? As soon as r.m.f.traditional exists it
will start defining itself, as newsgroups do, according to the interests
of the people who subscribe.
Here's another question you haven't really answered yet: Why would it be
such a hardship for you to read two medium sized groups instead of one
huge one? And don't give me the bullshit about you being afraid of both
groups growing to be too big. All the newsgroups are growing all the time.
Thousands of new people are coming on-line every week. Any group that gets
too big splits into more specific subjects, like this one is trying to do.
John Peekstok
: In article <3vikkk$r...@case.cyberspace.com>,
: John Peekstok <john...@case.cyberspace.com> wrote:
: #>I think it's rather obvious that most people who like traditional folk
: #>music and don't like s/s music have little or no interest in Woody
: #>Guthrie. Is part of the problem here that a lot of people think Woody
: #>Guthrie and Pete Seeger are traditional folk musicians? If so, please
: #>dis-abuse yourselves of the notion.
: I think you should speak for yourself, rather than trying to
: speak for the rest of us. Personally, I'm very interested in
: traditional folk music and have a great interest in Woody Guthrie,
: who was part of a very old and important tradition of composer/
: performers of topical songs.
Oh, great. First the singer-songwriters assume the name of a genre of
music (folk). Now you are trying to take the adjective (traditional) that
we had to start using to differentiate traditional music from whatever
folk has come to mean.
Sorry, being part of a tradition of singer-songwriters is not the same as
writing traditional folk music. In many ways, being a singer-songwriter
is the exact opposite of being a traditional folk musician. Yes, I know
that many traditional musicians write original material. There's a big
difference, which I won't go into here since it is being pretty well
covered elsewhere in this thread.
Steve Goldfield
John Peekstok <john...@case.cyberspace.com> wrote:
#>Steve Goldfield (s...@hera.EECS.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
#>: In article <3vikkk$r...@case.cyberspace.com>,
#>: John Peekstok <john...@case.cyberspace.com> wrote:
#>: #>I think it's rather obvious that most people who like traditional folk
#>: #>music and don't like s/s music have little or no interest in Woody
#>: #>Guthrie. Is part of the problem here that a lot of people think Woody
#>: #>Guthrie and Pete Seeger are traditional folk musicians? If so, please
#>: #>dis-abuse yourselves of the notion.
#>
#>: I think you should speak for yourself, rather than trying to
#>: speak for the rest of us. Personally, I'm very interested in
#>: traditional folk music and have a great interest in Woody Guthrie,
#>: who was part of a very old and important tradition of composer/
#>: performers of topical songs.
#>
#>Oh, great. First the singer-songwriters assume the name of a genre of
#>music (folk). Now you are trying to take the adjective (traditional) that
#>we had to start using to differentiate traditional music from whatever
#>folk has come to mean.
#>
#>Sorry, being part of a tradition of singer-songwriters is not the same as
#>writing traditional folk music. In many ways, being a singer-songwriter
#>is the exact opposite of being a traditional folk musician. Yes, I know
#>that many traditional musicians write original material. There's a big
#>difference, which I won't go into here since it is being pretty well
#>covered elsewhere in this thread.
#>--
#>_______________________________________
#>John Peekstok john...@cyberspace.com (My own opinions, of course)
#>Telynor tel...@aol.com
This is a case of the pot and the kettle in my opinion. I'm not
taking over traditional as an adjective. I'm using it the way
I've always used it and the way most people I speak to and have
spoken to use it. You, on the other hand, appear to be trying to
impose a strange usage on the word. As far as I can determine
from your remarks, if you don't know the names of the people
who contributed to the shaping of a song, that makes it
traditional. But if the people who change a song (and Woody Guthrie
is an excellent example) are known, then it isn't traditional.
Seems like a totally meaningless and inane distinction to me.
And, of course, not only songs are traditional; tunes may also
be traditional.
A tradition is something that develops over time and is passed
on, regardless of whether those who develop it are known or not.
Therefore, to be traditional, is to take such a genre and carry
it on. I agree that there are lots of contemporary singer/
songwriters who are not based in any tradition that I'm familiar
with, but that was certainly not true of Woody Guthrie. It's
also possible to be based in a tradition and to consciously
depart from it. Then we have to make judgments about whether
such a performer is still within the tradition, and there will
be inevitable disagreements, which is healthy.
Another fly in the ointment is that there are lots of composed
tunes that have entered tradition. One of the best examples
I can think of is "Liza Jane," one of the most widely played
songs/tunes in the old-time tradition. It turns out that it
was composed and published late in the nineteenth century,
which is something most people have forgotten. Does that mean
it has to be cast out of the tradition? Certainly not. "Liza
Jane" is sung today with essentially the same words with which
it was composed and with the same melody. Does our knowledge
of these facts determine whether the song is traditional or
not? I say no. The only factor should be whether or not the
song has entered the tradition, which it certainly has. With
new songs and tunes, there's room for discussion about whether
or not they are part of the tradition. A good example I can think
of is Steve Rosen's tune, "Nail that Catfish to a Tree," which
is played all over the country only a few years after it was
written and recorded. Most of the people who have learned it
have learned it in jams and at festivals rather than from
the recording. Everybody I've heard play it plays it just like
Steve wrote it. I'd argue that it's squarely traditional, and
that its acceptance is the best evidence.
I could go through the same sort of example in the blues
tradition.
In summary, for me the criteria for whether music is traditional
are 1) there exists a tradition that it could belong to and
2) it is generally accepted as part of that tradition by those
keeping the tradition alive.
That turns out to be a fairly objective set of criteria.
We can determine whether a tradition exists by looking for
traditional behavior, viz., the ways of passing on the
music from generation to generation. And we can determine
whether music is accepted by whether or not those in the
tradition play it. Note that by this definition there will
be traditional music which you will probably strongly
reject. I see that as your problem.
What does this mean for a "traditional" newsgroup? I continue
to believe that it makes no sense to create a newsgroup under
that name. It might make sense to create newsgroups for
particular traditions, as we have with old-time, but not
for all traditions lumped together. The disagreement we're
having about what traditional means is precisely evidence
that your approach is wrong.
Anna Peekstok
Steve Goldfield wrote:
> [...]I'm not
> taking over traditional as an adjective. I'm using it the way
> I've always used it and the way most people I speak to and have
> spoken to use it. You, on the other hand, appear to be trying to
> impose a strange usage on the word.
Whether you like it or not, Steve, "traditional" is the word that has been
applied to folk music that arises out of established cultural and musical
traditions ever since singer-songwriters appropriated the phrase "folk
music" for their political and/or self-expressive compositions in the
middle of the 20th century. Within the music industry, "traditional" now
means something more than Webster's definition and more than it means in
general conversational usage.
As a performing musician, when I speak to booking agents, I tell them that
I play traditional music and they know what I'm talking about. When I fill
out applications to perform at festivals, I write "traditional folk music"
in the "describe your act in 3 words or less" blank. No one has any
confusion about the phrase.
> As far as I can determine
> from your remarks, if you don't know the names of the people
> who contributed to the shaping of a song, that makes it
> traditional.
No, what we're trying to say is that traditional music really is different
from singer-songwriter music, and that people who know and love
traditional music don't have much trouble telling the difference. TWO of
the characteristics of MOST traditional music are that it's been around
awhile and the author(s) are anonymous.
> A tradition is something that develops over time and is passed
> on, regardless of whether those who develop it are known or not.
> Therefore, to be traditional, is to take such a genre and carry
> it on.
By that argument, all the Led Zeppelin copycats on MTV would be
traditional musicians. Remember, we're talking about a special usage of
the word "traditional" here, that is needed because the term "folk music"
was swiped by singer-songwriters.
> [...] It's
> also possible to be based in a tradition and to consciously
> depart from it.
As a matter of fact, that's what John and I do. We perform progressive
arrangements of songs and melodies from traditional sources, often using
instruments from cultures other than the one where the material
originated. We still consider it traditional music, and it is still of
interest to many of the people who like traditional music.
> Another fly in the ointment is that there are lots of composed
> tunes that have entered tradition.
Why is this a fly in the ointment? As I've said before, trad music fans
welcome new additions to traditional music, as long as they're not pop
songs masquerading as traditional.
> In summary, for me the criteria for whether music is traditional
> are 1) there exists a tradition that it could belong to and
> 2) it is generally accepted as part of that tradition by those
> keeping the tradition alive.
>
> That turns out to be a fairly objective set of criteria.
> We can determine whether a tradition exists by looking for
> traditional behavior, viz., the ways of passing on the
> music from generation to generation. And we can determine
> whether music is accepted by whether or not those in the
> tradition play it. Note that by this definition there will
> be traditional music which you will probably strongly
> reject. I see that as your problem.
You're getting way off track here. None of us trad fans is trying to split
hairs about what is traditional and what is not. We're just asking for a
room of our own so we can discuss what we're interested in without having
to listen to all the singer-songwriter fans talking about what we're NOT
interested in.
> What does this mean for a "traditional" newsgroup? I continue
> to believe that it makes no sense to create a newsgroup under
> that name. It might make sense to create newsgroups for
> particular traditions, as we have with old-time, but not
> for all traditions lumped together.
No traditional music fan has asked for a separation of different types of
traditions. We've only asked for a separation FROM singer-songwriters.
And I wish those of you who aren't traditional music fans would quit
trying to impose definitions on something you neither know nor love, and
quit trying to pigeonhole us in inappropriate ways!
> The disagreement we're
> having about what traditional means is precisely evidence
> that your approach is wrong.
No it isn't; it just means that you don't have a clue but are willing to
jump into the fray and argue about it anyway.
Anna Peekstok
tel...@aol.com
Harold Stevens
|> Jesus-Blanking-Christ; talk about showing your complete & utter ignorance.
|>
|> A test may follow on where he got his tunes (something he never tried to
|> hide); on the other hand, why bother? You probably haven't heard the sources either.
Ah ( ghost ) again, with charming repartee hinting classic Harvard brillance.
Aux Ray-Bans, everyone; the illuminati cometh.
Regards, Weird
ghost
->Ah ( ghost ) again, with charming repartee hinting classic Harvard brillance.
->Aux Ray-Bans, everyone; the illuminati cometh.
->
-> Regards, Weird
Gee, Weird (I like my goofy name better than yours), as I keep telling
you people, I only work here. Purchasing Clerk. Got it?
Illuminating repartee is not a job requirement.
Anna Peekstok
On 1 Aug 1995, Cat Eldridge wrote (in response to my statement that he had
just demonstrated total ignorance of the meaning of "traditional folk
music"):
> No, it's not "total ignorance," just a different idea of what traditional.
Cat, I'm not making this up as I go along. I'm a professional musician
working in an industry that defines traditional music the way I do. The
venues, dealers, festivals, and audiences I associate with all share this
definition.
Since you obviously aren't a fan of the genre, why are you arguing about
it?
> For example, I think Altan and Patrick Street are traditional groups and
> they do write some of their material.
I have said repeatedly that writing your own material doesn't disqualify
you from being a traditional musician.
> I find your way of defining
> traditional folk to be excessively narrow. The idea that the only
> traditional folk music is that for which we do't know the author means that
> by your standard the brillant compositions of O'Carolan aren't folk. Give
> me a break!
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that "the only traditional folk
music is that for which we don't know the author." For one thing, I would
never utter a sentence so ridiculously convoluted. For another, its the
same kind of extremist rubbish you've been twisting my posts into all
along, and I'm getting tired of it.
Anna Peekstok
tel...@aol.com
Steve Goldfield
Anna Peekstok <apee...@aol.com> wrote:
#>Cat, I'm not making this up as I go along. I'm a professional musician
#>working in an industry that defines traditional music the way I do. The
#>venues, dealers, festivals, and audiences I associate with all share this
#>definition.
Seems to me your problem, though, is that you speak as though
you're the only traditional musician in this discussion. I'm
a traditional musician, too, but though I've been paid to play,
I wouldn't characterize myself as a professional musician. You
dismiss those of us who disagree with your definition as not
having a clue, which in most circles would be considered
arrogant.
This discussion reminds me of the phenomenon--covered in a recent
article in the Old-Time Herald--by which one kind of dance group
has been traveling the state capitols trying to get itself
declared the official state/national dance. Problem is they're
just one kind of dancing (very ritualized, formalized training,
and dancing to recordings). I've got no idea what kind of music
you play because you have yet to describe it, and I certainly
haven't heard of you as a performer, though I listen to a broad
range of what I consider to be traditional music, which is the
music I tend to prefer, though I listen to lots of nontraditional
music, too.
You say you belong to an industry with a clearcut sense of
what traditional means. Yet you apparently are unable to
articulate that sense; at least you haven't made any attempt
to do so yet. I don't think I've missed such a posting.
Now we come to usenet. Usenet names are both for those interested
in a subject and for those not interested in the subject. Thus
terms used in a usenet name need to be understandable to those
not knowledgable as well as those in the know. I believe that
Cat (whom I don't know) and I are using the word traditional
in the sense that it is widely used by speakers of the English
language, at least in the United States. You should expect that
that sense is the one most usenet users will share. Therefore,
if by "traditional," you mean something else, you shouldn't
try to use it in a newsgroup name since it will only mislead
most people who see it.
I consider myself to be more knowledgeable about traditional
music than the vast majority of speakers of the English
language. (You're welcome to dispute that.) I would be misled
by the meaning you apparently have for the word. (I say
apparently since I'm still waiting for some clarification of
that meaning.) One more attempt to make this point: a friend
of mine is the chair of the traditional music subcommittee
for the North American Folk Music and Dance Alliance, better
known as the Folk Alliance. The Folk Alliance is a perfect
example of a dichotomy between singer/songwriter types and
traditional musicians, since that's pretty much who belongs
to it. I have a pretty good sense of how my friend would
define traditional music (he books the club I go to most
often). It's pretty much the way I do. If you would dismiss
that sense of the word traditional by the largest professional
folk organization in North America, then it would seem you're
part of a pretty small crowd.
As an example of how I'd proceed: I decided, in writing the
FAQ for rec.music.country.old-time, that it wasn't possible
to write a concise (or maybe even a long) definition of
old-time music. Instead, I wrote a fairly long description
of different types of old-time music and included long lists
of people generally considered to be old-time performers,
both historic and contemporary.
If you or some other adherent of this split would do something
like that (you'd need to do it anyway for an FAQ later), this
discussion would greatly improve in quality and clarity. It's
possible that you might not end up with a newsgroup called
rec.music.folk.traditional, but you might end up with the
newsgroup you want.
Scott Russell
and singer-songwriters, I would certainly prefer to keep these
music discussions all in one place, rather than two.
As a presenter of both traditional folk artists and
singer-songwriters, the tone of recent postings has convinced
me that there is one traditional group that I will *never*
book. I can't imagine working with folks who are so nasty.
Even on the Net I have rarely heard such vitriol. I can't
believe that there is not a way to keep this discussion civil.
Calling people "assholes" (and more) over simple semantic
disagreements is going a bit too far.
Please, Please, bring this discussion back to some semblance
of civility.
Peace,
Scott
Tracy Hart
those who argue for a split due to too many posts, why spend bandwidth
calling people "assholes" and belittling individuals' opinions on what is
considered "traditional" folk music? The depth to which the so-called
"traditionalist" camp has stooped in terms of name-calling in order to
further its agenda has sold me on the idea that "traditionalism" is a
veiled gate-keeping which runs contrary to the populist nature of folk.
Suffice to say, no matter how much I have come to cringe at the lack of
collegiality and mutual respect afforded others in this newsgroup, I will
be voting against this split. Tracy Hart
Bruce Blood
being a contemp myself, I'd likely spend more time there, and visit the
trad side less. Net effect: less Telynor info, which would be a shame.
I'm not finding rmf unmanageable in it's current form. If a thread doesn't
interest me, I skip it. I agree that a lot of acoustic pop gets mentioned
here, but I am more than willing to bear this in the interest of being exposed
a wide variety, ani difranco and Telynor inclusive (but not exclusive).
Somebody wake me up when it's time to vote *NO*.
Bruce Blood
My opinions, of course, bearing no relationship to my employer.
Anna Peekstok
> [...] you speak as though
> you're the only traditional musician in this discussion.
When did I say that? All I remember saying was that I am a traditional
musician and have experience with this branch of the music industry, and
therefore am not inventing "my" definition of traditional music.
> I'm
> a traditional musician, too, but though I've been paid to play,
> I wouldn't characterize myself as a professional musician.
Where I come from, being professional is something to be proud of.
> You
> dismiss those of us who disagree with your definition as not
> having a clue, which in most circles would be considered
> arrogant.
The only people I accused of not having a clue are those who claim that 1)
traditional music is nothing but singer-songwriter material that's been
around awhile or whose author is unknown, and 2) traditional music is not
already an existing and well-defined category of folk music. Both of these
statements show ignorance of the subject at hand. In my book, arguing and
name-calling out of ignorance are arrogant.
> This discussion reminds me of the phenomenon--covered in a recent
> article in the Old-Time Herald--by which one kind of dance group
> has been traveling the state capitols trying to get itself
> declared the official state/national dance. Problem is they're
> just one kind of dancing (very ritualized, formalized training,
> and dancing to recordings).
I don't see the connection here. Nobody is demanding a traditional
discussion group that contains only one kind of traditional music. In
fact, most of us are arguing *against* splits by nationality, geography,
cultural origin, etc. I have never once argued that any of the supposedly
questionable artists (i.e., Guthrie, O'Carolan, etc.) should not be
discussed on the trad group. Listen carefully: WE JUST WANT A GROUP WHERE
TRADITIONAL MUSIC *IS* DISCUSSED AND NON-TRADITIONAL SINGER-SONGWRITERS
*ARE NOT* DISCUSSED.
> I've got no idea what kind of music
> you play because you have yet to describe it,
Actually, I described it at length in one of the two posts you are
apparently responding to. Not that it has any bearing on the RFD.
> and I certainly
> haven't heard of you as a performer, though I listen to a broad
> range of what I consider to be traditional music
That's all right. I've never heard of you, either. Obscurity is an
occupational hazard of playing trad music.
> You say you belong to an industry with a clearcut sense of
> what traditional means. Yet you apparently are unable to
> articulate that sense; at least you haven't made any attempt
> to do so yet. I don't think I've missed such a posting.
I have in fact made several attempts. Here's another, off the cuff:
A. Traditional music is what used to be called "folk music" before pop
singers with guitars swiped the term for their three-chord manifestos of
political and emotional self-expression.
B. The musical "traditions" referred to in the term arose over time --
usually many generations -- among people in a specific area who learned
and played music together and developed certain forms (i.e., jigs, reels,
strasthpeys, padushkos, ruchenitsas, an dros, ballads, etc.) and stylistic
preferences (i.e., trad Irish music tends to be fast and lilting; trad
music from Scotland tends to be raw and powerful).
C. A trad song or melody tends to be passed on from performer to performer in
something called the "folk process", in which changes -- either deliberate
or accidental -- are made to the melody and/or lyrics, so you end up with
many different versions of a song or dance tune from different places,
each with many anonymous authors.
D. Because of the beauty of music that is polished by many hands in this way,
and because of the similarities in purpose of this music across different
geographical locations (i.e., Bretons and Bulgarians both want to dance
and have a good time; Scandinavians and Spaniards both know the pain of
unrequited love and express it in song), and because some songs and tunes
are so popular that they turn up everywhere from finland to Appalachia,
many traditional music lovers are interested in most or all traditional
music, wherever it arises.
E. Many of us also welcome progressive arrangements or performances of this
music, because we see these traditions and the folk process as ongoing
rather than frozen at some point in history. We also welcome new
contributions (i.e., a new "Irish" tune that is structured and styled like
the old ones, even if written by someone in Germany or Shanghai).
> Now we come to usenet. Usenet names are both for those interested
> in a subject and for those not interested in the subject. Thus
> terms used in a usenet name need to be understandable to those
> not knowledgable as well as those in the know. I believe that
> Cat (whom I don't know) and I are using the word traditional
> in the sense that it is widely used by speakers of the English
> language, at least in the United States. You should expect that
> that sense is the one most usenet users will share. Therefore,
> if by "traditional," you mean something else, you shouldn't
> try to use it in a newsgroup name since it will only mislead
> most people who see it.
Nonsense. Anyone looking at a group called rec.music.folk.traditional is
going to get a pretty clear idea what's on that group. And if they can't
figure it out, they can read a few subject lines. If they're offered the
two choices "rec.music.folk.traditional" and
"rec.music.folk.contemporary", they'll have an even better idea.
> I consider myself to be more knowledgeable about traditional
> music than the vast majority of speakers of the English
> language. (You're welcome to dispute that.) I would be misled
> by the meaning you apparently have for the word.
What meaning is that? And in what way would it mislead you? What would
YOU expect to find on a group called rec.music.folk.traditional?
> [...] a friend
> of mine is the chair of the traditional music subcommittee
> for the North American Folk Music and Dance Alliance, better
> known as the Folk Alliance. The Folk Alliance is a perfect
> example of a dichotomy between singer/songwriter types and
> traditional musicians, since that's pretty much who belongs
> to it.
I just let my membership in the Folk Alliance lapse because as far as I
could tell it's an organization by and for singer-songwriters. IMHO, the
conference in Portland this year was basically a singer-songwriter meat
market.
> I have a pretty good sense of how my friend would
> define traditional music (he books the club I go to most
> often). It's pretty much the way I do.
And how is that?
> If you would dismiss
> that sense of the word traditional by the largest professional
> folk organization in North America, then it would seem you're
> part of a pretty small crowd.
Let me get this straight. You're speaking for your friend, who speaks
officially for the entire membership of the Folk Alliance. Why don't you
claim God and Moses on your side while you're at it?
I'm still waiting for you to state *your* definition of "traditional
music", and/or explain what is bothering you about mine.
Anna Peekstok
tel...@aol.com
Anna Peekstok
> I find all of this slander-cum-discussion quite distasteful.
So do I. I was called a "Folk Nazi" as soon as I dared to speak out in
favor of the split.
> For all of
> those who argue for a split due to too many posts, why spend bandwidth
> calling people "assholes" and belittling individuals' opinions on what is
> considered "traditional" folk music?
*I* haven't called anyone an asshole, nor wasted bandwidth belittling
anyone's opinion. I have told two people that their statements
demonstrated ignorance of the subject they were arguing about. I think
that is fair game in any debate.
> The depth to which the so-called
> "traditionalist" camp has stooped in terms of name-calling in order to
> further its agenda has sold me on the idea that "traditionalism" is a
> veiled gate-keeping which runs contrary to the populist nature of folk.
One person loses his temper and calls another person a bad word, so
everyone on the name-caller's side must be wrong about the whole issue? My
gosh, what do you do during a presidential election?
And when did "my" side of the debate turn into an "agenda", while "your"
side is merely an "opinion"?
> Suffice to say, no matter how much I have come to cringe at the lack of
> collegiality and mutual respect afforded others in this newsgroup, I will
> be voting against this split. Tracy Hart
And evidently doing so out of spite rather than any sense of what's best
for the group and those reading it. Heck, if we "traditionalists" are so
awful, why do you want us in your group anyway?
Anna Peekstok
tel...@aol.com
Anna Peekstok
> As a follower and supporter of both traditional folk artists
> and singer-songwriters, I would certainly prefer to keep these
> music discussions all in one place, rather than two.
Yes, but what about those of us who *don't* follow both?
Say there are a total of 100 posts: 50 about singer-songwriters, and 50
about traditional performers. You want to see all 100. Whether you do this
on one group or two makes a very small difference in the amount of time
you have to spend.
But someone who is only interested in singer-songwriters would save a
great deal of time by reading only one group with singer-songwriter
related posts. Having to pick through all 100 posts on the big group would
take much more time. And, alas, we don't all have access to threaded news
readers.
> As a presenter of both traditional folk artists and
> singer-songwriters, the tone of recent postings has convinced
> me that there is one traditional group that I will *never*
> book.
I presume you are referring to me and my husband. That's certainly your
perogative, but I feel I'm being blacklisted for being on the wrong side
of a public debate.
My husband lost his temper over what he saw as repeated and deliberately
provocative misunderstandings of my statements by one individual. I'm not
going to apologize for the spouse; he's his own person and not under my
control. That outburst aside, what else have we said to offend you?
Anna Peekstok
tel...@aol.com
M. Jonas
Sergio Gelato <gel...@oort.ap.sissa.it> wrote:
>
>Had you proposed an entirely new
>group humanities.folklore.music, this whole debate would not be taking
>place: the only questions would be "do you have a big enough constituency
>to push the proposal through" and "shouldn't that be music.folklore".
>
That is actually a *great* idea and I would love to have a group like that -
or maybe a group alt.ballads.child or whatever. An academic group, not
connected to fandom and perfomers at all and unrelated to rec.music.folk.
It"s just a bit doubtful whether there will be many readers. Unfortunately,
what the supporters of the RFD want is not a new forum where they can
discuss a topic that didn't have a home before and that I for one would
love to discuss (there are occasional discussion about the metaphorical
content of, say, The False Knight On The Road on r.m.f., but they tend to
be short and unsatisfying, alas) - what they want is a place where they
can read a subset of the current r.m.f discussion without "having" to
read about topics they're not interested in. In put that in quotes, because
it's largely a rethorical point or a sign that they don't have good
newsreaders - the volume of r.m.f is very managable and unlike most other
Usenet groups, the subject headers are almost always a very good indication
of what's being discussed - it's a matter of 5 minutes per day, tops, to
skip all posts about singer-songwriters. What's the problem - why split?
>What I would like to avoid are
>(a) making two groups that end up covering the same material, with heavy
>crossposting or (worse) with different contributors but very similar traffic;
That's exactly the situation we already have with rec.music.folk and
rec.music.celtic - r.m.c is still a group without separate identity and
I see pretty little difference in the range of topics. In fact, while I
can conceive people reading just r.m.f (like the s/s people), I find it
hard to imagine anyone reading r.m.c and *not* r.m.f. However, while almost
everything in r.m.c would be relevant to r.m.f, there is hardly any
cross-posting at all and you just end up having to read both groups if
you want to get the whole discussion. However, the discussion about the
creation of r.m.c last year was *extremely* similar to the one going on
now, namely the supporters saying "Well, we can't define the purpose of
the new group very well, but after all, we *know* what we mean by it, don't
we" and the empty promises about how lots of stuff would be cross-posted
if it turned out to be relevant to both groups.
>In fact, the r.m.m.songwriting fiasco is the main reason why I am inclined
>to squarely vote against the current proposal if I fail to be convinced that
>it will really work. The "we know what we want, just let us do it" line has
>been heard before; its persuasive power has waned as far as I'm concerned.
>
Yes, full agreement here - you made your bad experience with r.m.m.s, I
made mine with r.m.c - let's not just repeat the same mistakes over and
over again, shall we?
Actually, in fact the flawed creation of rec.music.celtic is one of the
direct reasons why we have this debate now - that group drained r.m.f
of a good proportion of the traditional music discussion, but not of all
of it (not even of all Irish/Scottish traditional discussion), so that
the remaining traditional content in r.m.f is now outnumbered by
s/s discussion - it didn't use to be that way, up to last year r.m.f
had a pretty good balance between the two.
Martin
John Peekstok
: As a presenter of both traditional folk artists and
: singer-songwriters, the tone of recent postings has convinced
: me that there is one traditional group that I will *never*
: book. I can't imagine working with folks who are so nasty.
: Even on the Net I have rarely heard such vitriol. I can't
: believe that there is not a way to keep this discussion civil.
: Calling people "assholes" (and more) over simple semantic
: disagreements is going a bit too far.
: Please, Please, bring this discussion back to some semblance
: of civility.
Yeah, you're right, I lost my temper and I shouldn't have.
I did not, however, consider it a simple semantic disagreement. The person
I insulted started calling my wife Anna the "Folk Police" as soon as she
disagreed with something he said. He then, several times, misconstrued
what she said in what seemed to me a willful manner. When I finally lost
my temper at him it was because he manipulated the quote function on his
newsreader to really misrepresent what she said. He quoted the first
paragraph of a post of hers and responded to it pretty strongly and
negatively. He did not quote the second paragraph of her post, which
clarified her position and answered in advance his objections.
He made it look like her opinion was the opposite of what she actually
stated it to be, and then blasted her for it. This made it clear to me
that he was arguing for the sake of arguing and/or for the scoring of
points. These actions on his part put him within my definition of the name
I called him.
But I agree that it was undignified and pointless of me to succumb to my
frustration at him in this fashion. For what it's worth, I'm sorry I did so.
I'm also sorry that you have decided you don't like me based on this. I'm
really a pretty friendly person, if somewhat opinionated. I am generally
considered to be helpful, supportive, excessively honest and very hard
working. Oh well, maybe we will actually meet sometime and you can judge
for yourself.
And I'm really sorry that you have said that you will make booking
decisions about my band based on my personal opinions and comments. That's
why I, like so many others, have the disclaimer in my sig file.
--
_______________________________________
John Peekstok john...@cyberspace.com (My own opinions, of course)
Telynor tel...@aol.com
AbbySale
With some healthy room for argument, clarification & "what about xxx"'s, I
like Anna's descrption of Trad. Might emphesize that it covers myriad
"styles," but rather refers to the "process." OK.
I also know that Steve is very pleasantly knowledgable & experienced in
just exactly that stuff. (But prefers a slightly different aspect.)
Now kiss & make nice.
Ken Josenhans
> Say there are a total of 100 posts: 50 about singer-songwriters, and 50
> about traditional performers. You want to see all 100. Whether you do this
> on one group or two makes a very small difference in the amount of time
> you have to spend.
It makes quite a bit of difference in the community of participants,
and in the exchange of ideas. R.m.f, in my opinion, suffered
significantly when rec.music.celtic was voted in.
> And, alas, we don't all have access to threaded news
> readers.
The software shortcomings of Anna's site are not a good reason
for a split. Lobby the responsible systems people!!
-----
I really hate to see the tone to which things have degenerated
in this thread. Given the rules of Usenet group creation,
a newgroup or reorg proposal needs either a consensus, or an
overwhelming tide of voters. Unless there are a large number of
silent lurkers ready to vote this in, I don't see this RFD winning
approval. Too many people are getting ticked off, and discord
works in favor of the status quo.
-- Ken Josenhans, who *really* shouldn't be wasting time on this
k...@netsun.cl.msu.edu
Sergio Gelato
>TRADITIONAL MUSIC *IS* DISCUSSED AND NON-TRADITIONAL SINGER-SONGWRITERS
>*ARE NOT* DISCUSSED.
Too damn loud, Anna. You really shouldn't be using amplification.
Now, please get out of "caps lock" mode and face the reality: if
you want a discussion forum that is exactly right, launch a moderated
mailing list (you won't get a moderated newsgroup right away, although
in the long run all bets are off). I recognise that it may be difficult
(or simply expensive) to operate it from AOL, but there are other providers.
But accept that an open, unmoderated newsgroup is going to be shaped
by *all* its participants, and that if there isn't a consensus on what
discussions are appropriate, chaos will result. Look at the countless
failed newsgroups on Usenet. Trying to force your own conceptions through
against the general feeling is a losing proposition: even if you get
things your way today, by tomorrow the result will have degenerated into
something you didn't want.
As far as I'm concerned, the discussion can now end, and I'm
not recommending a CFV. Should there be one, I'll vote no. Not out of
spite against anyone, but because I have thought about various ways of
splitting things and still remain unconvinced that any of them will work.
(That includes my own modest suggestions in previous postings.)
My impression, from reading your arguments, is that your concept of
traditional music is largely ideological. In any case, it makes me yawn.
--
Sergio Gelato <gel...@sissa.it>
John Peekstok
David Gandolfo (dga...@orion.it.luc.edu) wrote:
: I think Anna and John should just talk to themselves and then the rest of
: us ("assholes", according to John) can continue without them. They are
: certainly no fun to listen to. Talk about spoiling a good thing!
One of the reasons we haven't been too much fun to listen to is that
throughout this debate folks have been ascribing statements to us that we
didn't actually make. As you are doing here. I used that term (in the
singular form, by the way, so you shouldn't put an "s" on the end of it if
you are going to put it in quotes and ascribe it to me) on one specific
person for specific actions he took. I have, twice now, clearly explained
my reasons for doing so. And I have apologised to the group for the
ill-considered nature of my verbiage.
I haven't seen anyone taking him to task for calling Anna a member of the
Folk Police as soon as she dared to disagree with him about something.
GMorgan675
me is its diversity... we're opening a big can of worms if we all feel we
have to go sit in
our respective corners. Whose corner do I sit in playing
trad/celtic/bluegrass/
and writing some of my own material? Should we then further limit our
horizons
by splitting into male/female, gay/ straight, longhair/shorthair, tastes
great/less filling type of subsections?
Folk music is about it all. That what the name says. It has to start
somewhere,
and that is what singer/songwriters do, it has to endure, and that is what
traditional folks do, but more importantly than either of these, it has to
be able to breathe in order to survive, and that is where new people
become interested in this, just as I did when I found this really cool
music 32 years
ago called folk....I was ten years old at the time.
Cool down the egos friends... this isn't about slamming each other.
Captain Morgan
Scott Russell
>Scott Russell (sc...@professionals.com) wrote:
>: As a presenter of both traditional folk artists and
>: singer-songwriters, the tone of recent postings has convinced
>: me that there is one traditional group that I will *never*
>: book. I can't imagine working with folks who are so nasty.
>: Even on the Net I have rarely heard such vitriol. I can't
>: believe that there is not a way to keep this discussion civil.
>: Calling people "assholes" (and more) over simple semantic
>: disagreements is going a bit too far.
>: Please, Please, bring this discussion back to some semblance
>: of civility.
>
>Yeah, you're right, I lost my temper and I shouldn't have.
(justification eliminated for brevity)
>But I agree that it was undignified and pointless of me to succumb to my
>frustration at him in this fashion. For what it's worth, I'm sorry I did so.
>I'm also sorry that you have decided you don't like me based on this. I'm
>really a pretty friendly person, if somewhat opinionated. I am generally
>considered to be helpful, supportive, excessively honest and very hard
>working. Oh well, maybe we will actually meet sometime and you can judge
>for yourself.
>And I'm really sorry that you have said that you will make booking
>decisions about my band based on my personal opinions and comments. That's
>why I, like so many others, have the disclaimer in my sig file.
There is way too much talent out there for me to have to deal with unpleasant people.
I can book a very successful series by booking only people with whom I enjoy working.
That said, I am not so shallow that I will totally base my opinion of an individual on
one emotion-charged incident. Hey, I'll give you a second chance. ;)
On 2 Aug 1995, Anna Peekstok (tel...@aol.com) wrote:
>On 2 Aug 1995, Scott Russell wrote:
>> As a follower and supporter of both traditional folk artists
>> and singer-songwriters, I would certainly prefer to keep these
>> music discussions all in one place, rather than two.
>
>Yes, but what about those of us who *don't* follow both?
>Say there are a total of 100 posts: 50 about singer-songwriters, and 50
>about traditional performers. You want to see all 100. Whether you do this
>on one group or two makes a very small difference in the amount of time
>you have to spend.
>But someone who is only interested in singer-songwriters would save a
>great deal of time by reading only one group with singer-songwriter
>related posts. Having to pick through all 100 posts on the big group would
>take much more time. And, alas, we don't all have access to threaded news
>readers.
I disagree with the general time saving argument. Inevitably, a great deal of content
will be cross-posted. As someone interested in all forms of "folk" music, I prefer not
to have to read postings more than once. This already happens a great deal with
rec.music.celtic and rec.music.folk. Fortunately, I do have the benefit of a threaded
mail reader, so it is easy for me to scan the headings and pick and choose what I care
to read. For some individuals there may be a time savings. For others, there will not
be a time savings, but just the opposite.
We need to get away from the "What is folk?" discussions and focus on the real issue.
As I see it, the main issue is one of *convenience*. i.e., Are there a greater number
of individuals who are only interested in trad. folk (or s/s "folk") for whom it is
inconvenient to wade through postings on other topics? Or are there a greater number
of individuals who embrace all forms of "folk music" and find it more convenient to
have as much of the discussion in one place as possible?
No matter what one's personal definition of traditional folk is, the final vote will
inevitably come down to a question of convenience based on one's personal definition.
There is no need to force one's definition on another. If rec.music.folk.traditional
is created, it will define its own character in good time. I don't see it as a debate
on restricting discussion or "policing" the folk world or any of these issues which
seem to now dominate the discussion. The information will still be presented in some
form. The proposed new format will simply be more or less convenient to some.
Peace,
Scott
Ken Josenhans
) > We're talking about naming a newsgroup, and it seems to me
) > that some are trying to impose a very strange (in the sense
) > that it's pretty distant from the common usage of the term
) > traditional--deriving it from Bela Bartok is completely
) > foreign to my usage of the term)
Dick Wisan wrote:
) The terminology on this subject is an utter mess. No, Bartok
) didn't define a use of "traditional". He (and others) invented
) the idea and the term "folk" music.
It should probably be emphasized here that Dick isn't saying
that folk music derives from Bartok's string quartets, or
BLUEBEARD'S CASTLE. Bartok was a significant collector of folk songs,
just like the well-known English collectors.
I seem to vaguely recall a compilation of Bartok's field cylinder
recordings being released sometime in the early 1980s. ???
-----
Later on, Steve mentions two Heartbeats recordings. *Two*?
I just have the one on Rounder from around 1993; what's the other
one? My SO says they're kind of like an American Poozies, so
I suspect the recording we have is the "contemporary" one.
-- Ken Josenhans
k...@netsun.cl.msu.edu
Jon Weisberger
Goldfield) writes:
>...
>...[various cogent comments on "folk" and "traditional" deleted]
>...
>My reaction to the proposal, and I suspect that of lots of others
>I've read, too, is based on the perception that the proponents are
>erring on the side of exclusivity.
That's certainly mine. Part of the problem is that r.m.f. doesn't only
deal with singer-songwriters on the one hand, and traditional artists
and material as they've been defined or hinted at by r.m.f.t proponents
on the other. ered
--
Jon Weisberger, Cincinnati jo...@ix.netcom.com
Anna Peekstok
I'm sorry, but I just don't have time to respond to every personal attack,
misrepresentation, and threat against my livelihood that results from my
defense of the proposal to split r.m.f. and form r.m.f.traditional.
Henceforth, I'm sticking to the subject at hand. Since I seem to be
carrying the banner for the pro-split side, I will try to respond
reasonably to reasonable requests for clarification, and will be happy to
discuss objections or amendments to the split as proposed, or to a split
in general.
To summarize, a proposal has been made to split this newsgroup into two
groups of equal standing in the Usenet hierarchy. One of these groups
would be for the discussion of traditional folk music; the other would be
for discussion of contemporary singer-songwriter music.
The split was requested because some readers of rec.music.folk are
interested in traditional folk music but not in singer-songwriters, and
would like a group devoted to their area of interest. If there are readers
who are interested in singer-songwriters but not in traditional music,
they have been remarkably quiet.
Some of the debate has focused on concerns that the proposed
r.m.f.traditional would be too narrowly defined and would exclude
performers with any taint of the modern world. The definition of
traditional music in the RFD is in fact quite broad, and I believe every
proponent of the split has stated that the group would be more inclusive
than exclusive.
Some have insisted that there is no such category as "traditional folk
music" that is distinct from singer-songwriter music. I respectfully ask
these people to recognize that many people, from many different places,
have posted to say that the category does indeed exist for them. If you
would like to discuss its definition, fine. But denying its validity as a
subset of folk music seens pointless.
There have been repeated requests for a "for instance" list of
performers/composers who would be discussed on the traditional newsgroup.
On the assumption that those requests represent a good-faith effort to
understand the purpose of the split, here's a short, spur-of-the-moment
list of some people I would expect to read about on such a group. It is
not in any way intended to be exclusive, and I apologize in advance for
misspellings.
Martin Carthy, Alan Stivell, John Renbourn, Cathy Barton, Soig Siberil,
Steeleye Span, Jean Ritchie, the House Band, Kornog, Malicorne, Lo Jai,
the Chieftans, Capercaille, Altan, Woody Guthrie, Neal Dickey, T.
O'Carolan, Robert Burns, Doc Watson, Mary Bergin, Musikas, Tempest, Bard,
Brass Monkey, Joe Hickerson, Burl Ives, The Kingston Trio, Joan Baez,
William Pint and Felicia Dale...
Please note that many of these artists have at some time in their careers
performed non-traditional music. I for one don't see where this
disqualifies their traditional work from discussion on a traditional
newsgroup.
People whom I would expect to see discussed on the singer-songwriter group
rather than the traditional group include: Harry Chapin, Cat Stevens,
Linda Waterfall, Shawn Colvin, Dar Williams, Suzanne Vega, Mark Spittal,
John Prine, Joni Mitchell, James Taylor, Carly Simon, Bob Dylan, and Paul
Simon. Any performances by any of these people of traditional music would
of course be relevant to the traditional group.
Finally, some people have asked what kind of topics would be discussed on
the traditional group. How about: people who perform traditional music,
recordings of traditional music, concert reviews and announcements,
performance practice and techniques, instruments, venues, resources (such
as web sites and published collections of trad music), and people who
write traditional music and their material.
Anna Peekstok
tel...@aol.com
Harold Stevens
Relax, ( ghost )!! No question who has the goofier pseudonym, and most
demanding job, but now that "you people" identity is unclear. Anything
else to add to the RFD, other than opening a followup to Anna Peekstok
with a cheery "Jesus-Blanking-Christ; talk about showing your complete
& utter ignorance."? Is it a job requirement to understand that you're
*representing* endor.harvard.edu, like it or not? Please note that I'm
including (as usual) my legal name, sponsor organizations, and a valid
Reply-To. It's a part of my job requirement, but I would do it anyway,
because I'm just an all around nice guy!
Regards, Weird :) :o :)
PS: To yell at voicemail: (214) 952-3293
Cat Eldridge
of traditional. Folk is a spectrum of styles which include traditional
(however you define it), singer-songwriters, and much more. Hell, I bet
there are artists that call themselves trad singer-songwriters! The present
group covers everything (--and I wish that the crowd ganging out in
rec.music.celtic was still part of this group). This propsal simply doesn't
make sense.
*****************************************
Cat Eldridge / I cursed him in my heart. "Um, what day is it?"
Booking Manager / With the infinite patience of someone
Portland Folk Club / used to dealing with drunks, musicians,
Portland, Maine / and techies, he replied, "Sunday."
*****************************************
Steve Goldfield
#>
#>I'm still waiting for you to state *your* definition of "traditional
#>music", and/or explain what is bothering you about mine.
#>
#>Anna Peekstok
#>tel...@aol.com
Maybe each of us is only seeing some of the posts of the other.
I posted a clear definition of traditional music a couple of
days ago. The one you posted in the post I'm quoting from is
the first I've seen from you. More importantly, I did explain
what is bothering me about your definition before I saw it.
I want to see some lists--they don't have to be comprehensive--
of whom you consider to be traditional musicians. Examples would
be much clearer than the definition you posted because it's
precisely in the examples (judging by the exchange on Woody
Guthrie) that we are likely to diverge.
As an example, a presenter listed acts booked recently and
asked which are contemporary and traditional. I noticed
Dan Gellert and the Volo Bogtrotters on the list; both
are certainly traditional musicians by my definition.
Regarding the traditional showcases at the Folk Alliance,
they included people like Mike Seeger, Skip Gorman, Jeff
Davis, Jody Stecher & Kate Brislin, the Volos, the Boiled
Buzzards, Alice Gerrard, and Barry and Holly Tashian. I'd
say that Barry and Holly are the only ones who aren't
traditional musicians in that bunch. (Most of my examples
are old-time musicians, but then that's mostly what I listen
to and play.) One reason I'm interested in your response is
that I'm wondering whether the dreaded traditionalist vs.
revivalist issue is hidden somewhere in this discussion.
[The following isn't relevant to the newsgroup RFD.]
Also, I deleted your remarks about the Folk Alliance conference
in Portland but want to respond to them. I think you described
it as something like a meat market for singer/songwriters. That
certainly went on. But while it did, I spent four or five days
listening to and playing almost exclusively traditional music.
(There were two showcases specifically for traditional music,
and the Rounder showcases featured it quite a bit, too.) There
was constant jamming by traditional musicians in public places
in the hotel. I showed three hours of videos about traditional
music and dance (well, one of the eight videos I showed wasn't
entirely traditional) as an official part of the program. We
should also note that the Folk Alliance was started by two
people who actively promote traditional music, and its manager
is a good friend of traditional music. I've had some
debates with friends who think traditional musicians should
abandon the Folk Alliance. My view is that it's much more
effective to work to increase the presence of traditional music
there than to give up on it.
Jim Jewett
Julie M. Lehrman <jm...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>c...@nyc.pipeline.com writes:
>> I'm oppossed to this split because I suspect
>> that the one hundred and fifty odd posts a day will, if two or more groups
>> are created, result in three hundred or more posts a day.
Of course it will. Lots of people who are interested in one (but not
the other) topic will suddenly find that the group is now small enough
to wade through. And lots of others will come online, even if you don't
split. (Heck, I gave up on the group a long time ago, but I might skim
either part, depending on mood. The singer-songwriter might actually
be more interesting to me, though what I really want is probably the
humanities.folklore.music someone else mentioned.)
Would .old-songs, .performers, and .misc break things up in
an acceptable manner without misleading people over the name?
>I would like to reiterate this point. I am very worried about
>excessive cross posting between the two groups by people
>hoping to get the "best response" to their queries generating
>LOTS of extraneous traffic on both groups.
Would moderation work, assuming that a non-offensive
name could be found? i.e., moderate the (non-songwriters) group,
and the moderator can bounce that stuff? Or even just post
it to the misc or songwriters group, or whatever, if people
are ready to trust the moderator (and the moderator agrees).
_________ Have a favorite group or mailing list? Describe it to
| grou...@pitt.edu
jJ | Take only memories. ji...@eecs.umich.edu
\__/ Leave not even footprints. jew...@pitt.edu
Jim Jewett
In article <3vp0rk$p...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
Ken Josenhans <k...@netsun.cl.msu.edu> wrote:
>Anna Peekstok (peek...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>> Say there are a total of 100 posts: 50 about singer-songwriters, and 50
>> about traditional performers. You want to see all 100. Whether you do this
>> on one group or two makes a very small difference in the amount of time
>> you have to spend.
>It makes quite a bit of difference in the community of participants,
>and in the exchange of ideas. R.m.f, in my opinion, suffered
>significantly when rec.music.celtic was voted in.
But the people proposing this split have already stated that
(1) They aren't interested in the singer-songwriters (or, at least,
not at the same time).
(2) They therefore don't read those posts.
In other words, the community wouldn't really be split any more than
now -- you're just letting these people do their screening automatically.
>> And, alas, we don't all have access to threaded news
>> readers.
>The software shortcomings of Anna's site are not a good reason
>for a split. Lobby the responsible systems people!!
Can you propose a 50 line killfile that would do what the splitters
want? (i.e., junk discussions of new songs, regardless of which
singer-songwriter wrote them.) One that will hold up in a month?
Steve Goldfield
Dick Wisan <wis...@hartwick.edu> wrote:
#>In article <3vj2su$q...@agate.berkeley.edu>, s...@hera.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
#>(Steve Goldfield) writes:
#>
#>>
#>> There's no quarrel about what some people are interested in.
#>> We're talking about naming a newsgroup, and it seems to me
#>> that some are trying to impose a very strange (in the sense
#>> that it's pretty distant from the common usage of the term
#>> traditional--deriving it from Bela Bartok is completely
#>> foreign to my usage of the term) and very arbitrary meaning
#>> of the word traditional in the name of a proposed newsgroup.
#>
#>The terminology on this subject is an utter mess. No, Bartok
#>didn't define a use of "traditional". He (and others) invented
#>the idea and the term "folk" music. Through about 1960, that
#>was a pretty well understood term by people who used it at all.
#>Then, along with various other forms of social transformation,
#>a bunch of what we now call singer-songwriters began to use
#>the word "folk" to refer to a _style_ of song and songwriter.
#>
#>So, nowadays, trying to use the word "folk" in the old way causes
#>people to complain about the "folk police" and feel that somebody
#>wants to ban them and all they hold dear.
#>
#>So, in desperation, the word "traditional" --originally,
#>"traditional folk" music came in to distinguish what used
#>to be called just "folk". That's why your refusal to let them
#>use this stipulated term is driving them up the wall. What
#>should they call it? The word that was created to mean that
#>has been stretched so now it means now is singer-songwriting.
#>If you like, define "traditional" as "what 'folk' meant in
#>1950".
#>
#>--
#>R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: internet WIS...@hartwick.edu
I have no problem with most of what you write above. But Woody
Guthrie was certainly considered a folk musician in 1950. Yet
some of the proponents of this split dismiss him as a
singer/songwriter not belong to a tradition and berated me
as "having no clue" when I said that he certainly was part of
a tradition. To me that means that they want some traditions
in the new group (I'm still waiting to hear what specifically
they find acceptable) but reject other, equally valid in my
view, traditions. That sounds like arbitrariness to me and
has no place in defining what is traditional.
Another problem with the notion of the split. There are lots
of musicians who generate different kinds of music. One good
example is the Heartbeats, an all-women band with a solidly
traditional first recording and then a very contemporary
second recording. To me, it would be inane to say that the
first could be discussed but not the second because the
relationship between the two, i.e., what's the role of
their traditional roots in shaping their contemporary music,
is a very exciting discussion and one with tremendous
implications for the tradition. Maybe the proponents of
r.m.f.t don't want to participate in such a discussion.
That's fine; that's their right. But if they try to
define it out of a traditional newsgroup--as it appears
they would--it won't work.
There's a great quote in the liner notes from Laurie Lewis' and
Tom Rozum's new duet album from Edmund Spencer I think it is.
Quoting the last bit from memory, "Excessive respect for
tradition becomes traditionalism. And traditionalism kills
the tradition." What that means to me is that the edges of a
tradition must be kept very fluid and flexible if it is to
stay alive. The same would be true of a traditional newsgroup.
It has to be willing to err on the side of inclusiveness to work.
My reaction to the proposal, and I suspect that of lots of others
I've read, too, is based on the perception that the proponents are
erring on the side of exclusivity.
ghost
& other people have already made most of my points for me
(I should be happy; there would be those who would think
"so why bother posting", but not me) so pardon the discontinuities,
here it goes:
Some semi-random thoughts:
I still vote for a cycling FAQ with directions to appropriate mailing lists
as more important than splitting rec.music.folk.
I also think that however the split happens, & it eventually will happen,
the ordering of names in the hierarchy should take into accounting future
needs to split on logical grounds, be they "type of music" or geographical,
but *without* creating all the logical subgroups at this time.
As the participatory audience served by the net gets larger there perhaps
will be a need for, & traffic in
"rec.music.folk.trad.special-drums.algerian.aboriginal"
vs
"rec.music.folk.trad.special-drums.algerian.arabic"
(not a fictional distinction; I recently met someone who claimed to be
of the aboriginal, pre-Arabic population of Algeria. They certainly
*looked*, as remnants of aboriginal populations tend to look,
"like no-one else on earth". And they said they have distinctly different
music than the Algerian Arabs.)
The argument, name calling aside, is whether various singer-songwriters
belong in a group with "trad" in its name at all. I believe the single
most annoying clause (I'd better go look it up) in the original charter
sought to exclude living songwriters, regardless of their style. I find
this ridiculous. In most cases the s-sers who intend themselves to
be within an existing style are easy to pick out. [By this original
charter, curiously enough, Woody Guthrie would clearly be *in*
(unless someone knows something I don't about his mortality status).]
I also find the concept of "*all* trad songs/tunes being
"well-worn pearls, worked on by many hands over the ages" to be an
idealistic & (as documented with examples by Steve Goldfield)
often inaccurate concept...&, endorsement of collectivism that it is,
extremely odd to hear coming from the Peekstoks; I guess sharing the
wealth is OK with them if you haven't bothered to trace the wealth's
originators?
Because of all the name calling that's gone on, & its very familiar sources,
I feel that any appearance of "someone the Peekstoks & their buddies
don't like" in a discussion of trad would just bring on
calls of "get that singer-songwriter out of here", regardless of their
suitablilty for discussion under charter. The point is to create
"rec.music.folk.trad" & "rec.music.folk.s-ser" only if the people voting
*now*, not when the net has expanded to cover the universe, feel the need,
& not to cave in to "rec.music.folk.peekstok-&-friends.private-group".
If they want that, they can set up & maintain just such a mailing list.
A larger problem is:
The difficulty with an amorphous term like "contemporary" or "pop" is that
the contents of the group change greatly from era to era, & with "trad"
is that distinctly emergent styles among the previous era's "contemporary"
become a new category of trad.
The Lowell Folk Festival had Marcia Ball's (amazing) barrelhouse
piano-based group, as well as a doo-wop group (with instruments, which
frosted some doo-wop purists), & a couple other rockabilly/R&B piano types,
along with the more expected menu of Celtic, American Indian, Southeast Asian
etc. To forestall any bellyaching about 50s radio styles being today's "trad"
the festival organizers used the historical-derivation-of-the-styles argument,
& I feel they were justified. The Cajun & Zydeco groups they frequently book
rock pretty good, as do many of the Celtics; but everyone who complains about
barrelhouse piano allows that Cajun & Celtic are OK inclusions in "trad"
because the styles either never were nation-wide hits, or were hits long
enough ago to be considered "folk" *now*.
That's a pretty good definition, to me, of "folk", or "trad"; any style that
people (the folk) still value & carry on, despite its position in
mass-marketing popularity polls. It doesn't take eons for something to
become adopted by the folk; it doesn't take eons for it to change radically
into something still related, & still folk (Acadian-to-Cajun is a beautiful
example of that very shortened time frame; does the use, in practically
unaltered form, of the old fiddle tune "The 12th of January" as the tune to
a colloquial history lesson on the Battle of New Orleans, & the appearance of
that song on the pop charts of the 50s, suddenly render the tune "not-folk"?).
(I find it a common theme that "rocking pretty good" makes you suspect as
"legitimately trad", even though the slowing-down & pomposity-ing up of
trad pieces is historically a function of the ruling class, ever eager to be
accompanied by music that makes them feel dignified & regal.
The Perfume River Ensemble, from Hue, Vietnam, at the aforementioned
Lowell Festival, did a lot of singing that resembled Chinese court music, but
rocked out pretty good on what their traveling musicologist assured us were
ancient Vietnamese pieces: Intense percussion, singing to match, & something
that looked & sounded suspiciously like a bombarde. Now, did they adopt
that from the French or is it, too, an original Oriental invention???
While I'm at it, note that the rich-toned many-note bowed one-string-thing
solo was pretty nifty too.]
All these styles have historical traditional roots, & the ones that get
some complaint all have in common recent adulation followed by a
fall from grace.
Do you hear them on the radio these days except on specialty shows,
or see new or not-already famous practitioners of them becoming mega-stars?
Marcia Ball obviously hopes there's still the chance, as do all the cranked-up
versions of Celtic (but how many Pogues will the market tolerate?),
& there probably *is* more of a chance for recently dismissed but
still-loved styles or old&new fusion-styles than there is for, say,
deliberate "early music" types.
Nevertheless, I somehow feel the Peekstoks don't want a "trad" group so
they can discuss barrelhouse piano, or Woody Guthrie's links to English
balladry. The want a little club where they can go into the fine points
of only the forms of music, & worse yet, the lyric contents,
that interest them.
At some point rec.music.folk will either split or be abandoned to a
self-selected group, or set of groups, who want to talk only to each other;
I've run into it after-the-fact in one group that summarily rejected any
notion of splitting, & saw signs of it starting in another before the group
got too damn big (much bigger than rec.music.folk) for me to comprehensibly
& attentively follow.
An inclusive split is preferential to the exclusive private-club set-up.
The way I see rec.music.folk re-arranging itself is (eventually) into
"rec.music.folk.trad.subgroups",
where the subgroups are distinct, though
sometimes overlapping, styles; that way the barrelhouse-piano fans & the
wire-strung harp reconstructionist fans don't have to bump into each other
if they don't want to.
(& I have to read many, many groups. I do already.).
And if we get the styles prized out from each other by fine enough threads,
the Peekstoks et al will get their exclusive group (or groups) by default,
though they may have to wait a while for it.
Does barrelhouse piano, or doo-wop, derserve a rec.music.folk.trad.subgroup
group? If the slack hasn't been taken up by some pre-existing home on the
net, why not?
If, after all this making-like-an-amoeba, the "rec.music.trad.subgroup"
inhabitants *still* feel there's enough need, because of
stylistic differences, & traffic out there, to warrant the creation of
"rec.music.folk.trad.barrelhouse.uk" &
"rec.music.folk.trad.barrelhouse.usa",
then so be it.
I don't think a geographic split right now makes any more sense than
does creating a clubhouse for the Peekstoks.
The way I see "rec.music.folk.s-ser" rearranging itself is into mailing lists
for both the very best & the very worst (as is already happening), with all
the new names up for discussion falling into the parent group.
I guess we meta-philosophisers would end up on rec.music.folk.misc,
miscellaneously meta-philosophizing only to each other? (We probably
are already.) Oh well. Its been fun. Sometimes.
Scott DeLancey
> I want to see some lists--they don't have to be comprehensive--
> of whom you consider to be traditional musicians. Examples would
> be much clearer than the definition you posted because it's
> precisely in the examples (judging by the exchange on Woody
> Guthrie) that we are likely to diverge.
You know, folks, this is starting to get old. How many people
have to say, how many times, that arguments about this or that
performer are entirely beside the point?
Somebody in another post brought up the Grateful Dead (and commented
that they do more traditional material than Michelle Shocked, in a
tone which sounded to me like he thought that might be a surprise to
somebody!). Well, now, surely nobody is going to want to discuss the
entire Hunter-Garcia oeuvre, or beg for show tickets, on r.m.f.t--after
all, there's a whole newsgroup just for that. But if somebody wanted
to ask on r.m.f.t. if anybody knew where Jerry picked up "Cold Rain
and Snow", or wanted (this might actually be fun) to start a thread
on 60's covers of "Fennario", from Joan Baez to the Dead--what the hey?
They're traditional songs all right--I much doubt there'd be a problem.
> to and play.) One reason I'm interested in your response is
> that I'm wondering whether the dreaded traditionalist vs.
> revivalist issue is hidden somewhere in this discussion.
Now, Steve, this is downright unfair. As far as I can see, every
proponent of r.m.f.t. who has contributed substantially to this
discussion has made it crystal clear that this is absolutely not
the issue. In fact, Anna Peekstock, who seems to be your bete
noire here, has identified herself pretty unmistakably as a revival
musician, and said explicitly that she sees that as being an
important part of what r.m.f.t. would be about.
In fact, for all the truly nasty and mean-spirited nattering we've
been subjected to about the "folk police", as far as I can see it's
exclusively the opponents of this proposal who are obsessed with
exclusion and who and what gets pushed out. What's your problem,
guys?
Scott DeLancey
Steve Goldfield
#>Later on, Steve mentions two Heartbeats recordings. *Two*?
#>I just have the one on Rounder from around 1993; what's the other
#>one? My SO says they're kind of like an American Poozies, so
#>I suspect the recording we have is the "contemporary" one.
#>
#> -- Ken Josenhans
#> k...@netsun.cl.msu.edu
I think you mean Green Linnet, not Rounder. The earlier one,
on cassette only, is "Living Black & White" on Marimac. It's
very traditional. I really like both of them; I might add.
I don't know who the Poozies are so I can only guess on that one.
I think the Green Linnet title is "Spinning World."
Scott DeLancey
issue, wrote:
> Another problem with the notion of the split. There are lots
> of musicians who generate different kinds of music. One good
> example is the Heartbeats, an all-women band with a solidly
> traditional first recording and then a very contemporary
> second recording. To me, it would be inane to say that the
> first could be discussed but not the second because the
> relationship between the two, i.e., what's the role of
> their traditional roots in shaping their contemporary music,
> is a very exciting discussion and one with tremendous
> implications for the tradition. Maybe the proponents of
> r.m.f.t don't want to participate in such a discussion.
> That's fine; that's their right. But if they try to
> define it out of a traditional newsgroup--as it appears
> they would--it won't work.
An interesting example, Steve (though one that, actually,
would probably be more productively discussed in r.m.c.old-time,
don't you think?). To be honest, I don't see any implications,
tremendous or otherwise, for the tradition--which is there already,
and immune to anything the Heartbeats or the Dead or anyone else
can do to it. But you have a different opinion. Now *that*,
IMHO, would make a very interesting thread for r.m.f.t (much
more interesting than the Heartbeats' contemporary stuff, which
is pure yawn as far as I'm concerned. Tara is one hell of a
fiddler; I'd much prefer she just do what she does best rather
than trying to keep up with the times).
> My reaction to the proposal, and I suspect that of lots of others
> I've read, too, is based on the perception that the proponents are
> erring on the side of exclusivity.
Well, while I'm on the subject of r.m.c.o-t--is my memory going,
Steve, or am I right in remembering that when r.m.c.o-t was
just stretching its wings, you were serving as chief enforcer
and "old-time police" trying to keep it on track? I seem to
remember some pretty rancorous discussion of exactly that during
the first few weeks. Not that I'm complaining, mind you--it's
not a job I'd take on myself, but having somebody invest some
energy in keeping down the amount of noise about Bosephus and
No-show Jones definitely makes r.m.c.o-t a more enjoyable place
for me. But now--even though, as far as I know, no proponent
of r.m.f.t. has even suggested acting in any such role--you
seem to be in quite a dither about the possibility. For me,
to tell the truth, r.m.f.t. and r.m.c.o-t seem very similar
in spirit, and my reasons for wanting both are pretty much
the same. I take it you see it differently, but I sure don't
understand why.
Scott DeLancey