Performance style...
Mark Bluemel
I found it odd that they closed their eyes to perform - open while
talking, very engagingly, to the audience, but when singing and playing,
closed.
It felt "distancing" and unengaging to me. Any comment from the floor?
Mark
--
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck ...
It probably needs a little longer in the microwave
Mark Bluemel
http://www.bluemel.org.uk
Chris Rockcliffe
> I went to see a noted performer at a local folk club a little while ago.
> I found it odd that they closed their eyes to perform - open while
> talking, very engagingly, to the audience, but when singing and playing,
> closed.
> It felt "distancing" and unengaging to me. Any comment from the floor?
It's a bad habit and one I'm still trying to overcome myself.
Closing one's eyes does help one concentrate on pitch and words, but it
doesn't make for - as you say - an 'engaging' live performance.
I'm getting a bit better at it, but I admit I still do it - a lot. I think
with amateur performers it's a more acceptable technique when trying to
overcome overt nervousness.
But with professionals, we expect them to have overcome any inability to
hold concentration whilst looking directly at the audience.
One very famous performer on the folk scene keeps his eyes open but stares
into the back of the room with what my partner called, 'the eyes of a dead
shark'. Not sure that's much better but it looks more professional.
CR
David Kilpatrick
Mark Bluemel wrote:
> I went to see a noted performer at a local folk club a little while ago.
>
> I found it odd that they closed their eyes to perform - open while
> talking, very engagingly, to the audience, but when singing and playing,
> closed.
>
> It felt "distancing" and unengaging to me. Any comment from the floor?
>
I will do that sometimes. It depends on the song. Sometimes closed eyes
are better than
looking at people. Many instrumentalists also close their eyes, not all
the time. John Renbourn always has a big smile and closed eyes if I try
to photograph him!
David
Phil Myers
"Mark Bluemel" <mark_b...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:b3bjnj$1kilhs$1...@ID-126583.news.dfncis.de...
> I went to see a noted performer at a local folk club a little while ago.
>
> I found it odd that they closed their eyes to perform - open while
> talking, very engagingly, to the audience, but when singing and playing,
> closed.
>
> It felt "distancing" and unengaging to me. Any comment from the floor?
>
> Mark
>
> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck ...
> It probably needs a little longer in the microwave
> Mark Bluemel
> http://www.bluemel.org.uk
>
>
You better sit at the back and not look too closley when Vin Garbutt is on
then.
But PLEASE go to his performances anyway because you will be THOROUGHLY
entertained.
Phil.
Dick Gaughan
23:03:04 -0000, "Mark Bluemel" <mark_b...@pobox.com> wrote:
>I found it odd that they closed their eyes to perform - open while
>talking, very engagingly, to the audience, but when singing and playing,
>closed.
I do it sometimes. I could tell you why but then I'd have to kill
you.
Most of the time I'm simply looking down at and concentrating on
what my fingers are doing (it's usually as much of a mystery to me
as to the audience) which can look as if I have my eyes closed. So
if you're *really* daft enough to want to see what my eyes are
doing, sit at the front to my left :)
When I reach a bit where I know what I'm going to play for the
next few bars, I normally look up at the audience. Damn, I've just
given away a trade secret.
>It felt "distancing" and unengaging to me. Any comment from the floor?
But I would respectfully suggest that anyone watching what a
musician's eyes are doing while they're playing is suffering from
a mild confusion about technique!
--
DG
Marjorie Clarke
"Mark Bluemel" <mark_b...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:b3bjnj$1kilhs$1...@ID-126583.news.dfncis.de...
>
> I found it odd that they closed their eyes to perform - open while
> talking, very engagingly, to the audience, but when singing and playing,
> closed.
>
> It felt "distancing" and unengaging to me. Any comment from the floor?
I was at a workshop with Martyn Wyndham-Read lately, and he's the same.
Talks most engagingly and directly, but says himself that when he sings he
fixes his eyes on a spot on the floor a few feet in front of him. Which he
does, unfailingly.
I agree, I prefer it when a singer makes eye contact. If the eyes are
closed, the message that can come across is that the singer is too
self-absorbed and wrapped up in the sound of their own voice, and not as
concerned with communication as they might be. The antithesis of this is
Norma Waterson, whose infectious delight in communication is utterly
engaging.
I know (because I've tried both ways) that it's easier to concentrate with
eyes closed or averted, especially if you're accompanying yourself, but IMO
it makes for a better performance and bond with the audience if the singer
makes eye contact. And if you can manage to do it and actually see people's
reaction, it can be very rewarding. Or, on a bad day, I suppose, very
salutory....
--
Marjorie Clarke
Mark Bluemel
"Dick Gaughan" <di...@dickalba.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cngj5vs9i7ahvdobi...@4ax.com...
> ... I would respectfully suggest that anyone watching what a
> musician's eyes are doing while they're playing is suffering from
> a mild confusion about technique!
Hmmm... It depends what we mean by technique.
I may or may not be terribly interested in the performer's instrumental
technique - trying to work out how they use that guitar tuning or
whatever - in which case I may watch their hands. Even with a good view,
I haven't the slightest idea how Martin Simpson does what he does :-)
I may be interested in their vocal technique, so I could watch their
mouth, throat and even perhaps diaphragm (if the guitar isn't in the
way)... Can anyone explain how Chris Wood sings so well with his mouth
barely open?
However, I may be interested in how they "perform" in a more nebulous,
general sense - presentation, engaging the audience, etc. - in which
case I would want to look at body language, eye contact and so on.
Some performers (I could name two reasonably well-known example
off-hand, but it would be invidious) have really "uncomfortable" body
language from my perspective - hunched, awkward movement being a major
part of it. Others don't do eye-contact. Like Marjorie, I enjoy most
those who seem comfortable in their role and who seem to be enjoying
making contact with their audience - James Fagan and Nancy Kerr
immediately spring to mind as being pretty near epitomising this.
Mark
Dick Gaughan
18:34:45 -0000, "Mark Bluemel" <mark_b...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Even with a good view,
>I haven't the slightest idea how Martin Simpson does what he does :-)
I've played with him many times and I haven't the slightest idea
how he does what he does, either :)
Your points are well made, Mark, and in general I agree with you.
I think my only disagreement would be that it's not really
possible to set up templates or create rules about things like
this. MacColl invariably sang with his eyes shut and was a
riveting performer, and I can think of several others. I would
argue that building communication and commanding attention rest on
many factors; the performer's eyes being open or closed is only
one.
I would, however, strongly advise an inexperienced performer to
keep their eyes open, if only for reasons of survival :)
--
DG
Arthur Marshall
repeating something everyone else has said) that there is a difference
between traditional and contemporary performing. Contemporary certainly
depends on eye contact (usually faked as you can't see the audience
behind lights anyway), as it is really a segment of "popular" music
rather than a true folk process and thus is performance based.
Traditional music is not supposed to be a performance to an audience,
but a rendition of music which involves those attending. As such, there
should be no need for eye contact as the punters are as much a part of
the "performance" as whoever is singing the song/playing the tune.
Someone once said the folk music died when it was put on a stage (it
might have been Clare but I can't remember) and is the main reason why,
I think, the whole scene has decayed with the introduction of PA systems
in clubs and audiences gravitating from small club/pub type venues into
concert hall/festival surroundings. It just doesn't work as music in
that particular format.
To cut the argument short, I suppose, in contemporary music the singer
tends to be the focus, in traditional music it is the song, and many of
those singing the stuff try to be as anonymous as possible. It is a
shared music, not owned. Too many audiences come to watch and stay apart
and clap politely rather than becoming a part of it all.
--
Arthur Marshall - Caller for Traditional Dances
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/barndancer/
nb Lord Byron's Maggot
Mark Bluemel
> In <b3doce$1l6m66$1...@ID-126583.news.dfncis.de> on Mon, 24 Feb 2003
> 18:34:45 -0000, "Mark Bluemel" <mark_b...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >Even with a good view,
> >I haven't the slightest idea how Martin Simpson does what he does :-)
>
> I've played with him many times and I haven't the slightest idea
> how he does what he does, either :)
I'm glad I'm not alone. There were a little group of us counting his
fingers and disagreeing on the total... :-)
> Your points are well made, Mark, and in general I agree with you.
> I think my only disagreement would be that it's not really
> possible to set up templates or create rules about things like
> this. MacColl invariably sang with his eyes shut and was a
> riveting performer, and I can think of several others. I would
> argue that building communication and commanding attention rest on
> many factors; the performer's eyes being open or closed is only
> one.
OK. I can buy into that.
Thanks Dick.
Mark
Dick Gaughan
GMT, Arthur Marshall <art...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>To cut the argument short, I suppose, in contemporary music the singer
>tends to be the focus, in traditional music it is the song, and many of
>those singing the stuff try to be as anonymous as possible.
Only bad singers. Then again, to be fair, perhaps it's a common
element within your tradition. Sure as hell never has been in
mine. Within the traditions I was brought up in, I can cite,
starting with the singers I was privileged to know and learn from:
Jeannie Robertson, Jimmy McBeath, Davy Stewart, Norman Kennedy,
Paddy Tunney, Joe Heaney, Willie Scott, Belle Stewart and her
daughters, Betsy Whyte, shit, the list is endless and I haven't
even paused to think. None of them paid even lip service to trying
"to be as anonymous as possible" - when they sang a song, they
sang it with everything they had and that included a high degree
of performance artistry.
This idea of the "traditional singer" as being some kind of
automatic transmission device who doesn't intrude anything of
themselves into the process of transmission seems to have
originated in England. Haven't the faintest idea why. The whole
notion is laughable in Scots or Irish tradition. Even the
Americans have more confidence in and respect for their traditions
than that.
>Too many audiences come to watch and stay apart
>and clap politely rather than becoming a part of it all.
That would be the fault of unskilled performers. See above.
--
DG
bogus address
Marjorie "Mirrorshades" Clarke writes:
> "Walleye Mark" Bluemel wrote:
>> I went to see a noted performer at a local folk club a little while ago.
>> I found it odd that they closed their eyes to perform
I prefer it if they can sing well. Wish I'd heard Asik Veysel or Blind
Lemon Jefferson when they were alive.
> If the eyes are closed, the message that can come across is that the
> singer is too self-absorbed and wrapped up in the sound of their own
> voice, and not as concerned with communication as they might be.
Not sure what Blind Lemon might been wrapped up in (except maybe hunger)
but Veysel was mainly absorbed in God and still managed to communicate
pretty darn well with his fellow humans despite total blindness.
> The antithesis of this is Norma Waterson, whose infectious delight in
> communication is utterly engaging.
The one who really astounded me was Frankie Armstrong. When I saw her
she was still totally blind (she's got it fixed somehow?) but I had
absolutely no idea until I was talking to her after the show and, after
about five minutes, did something only a sighted person could have
responded to (I forget what) and realized something wasn't quite right.
How on earth did she pull off such an effective imitation of eye contact
with people she couldn't see at all?
========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files, and my CD-ROM "Embro, Embro".
Jacey Bedford
Rockcliffe <chrisro...@scripto99.demon.co.uk> writes
>Mark Bluemel23/2/03 11:03 PM
>
>> I went to see a noted performer at a local folk club a little while ago.
>> I found it odd that they closed their eyes to perform - open while
>> talking, very engagingly, to the audience, but when singing and playing,
>> closed.
>> It felt "distancing" and unengaging to me. Any comment from the floor?
If you want to get across to your audience - and especially if you are
working without PA, a good trick for developing voice projection is to
look at the spot you want your voice to hit. So if you want your voice
to travel to the far side of the room - target it with your eyes. OK, I
don't mean stare fixedly at the exit sign above the door - but at least
look in that direction often enough to have the distance your voice has
to travel lodged in your brain.
The 'eyes closed' approach targets the inside of your eyelids and unless
you are closing them for a brief moment - for effect - you are going to
cut your audience off.
I always take off my glasses. Then I can keep my eyes open and all I see
is a warm fuzzy glow.
:-)
It's always nice to make eye contact with your audience. Keep it brief
- don't stare them down - but make them feel included.
Eyes closed, head down, hands in pockets or clutching a pint give all
the wrong body language signals and can make your audience
uncomfortable.
With one or two notable exceptions, the eyes closed approach is not
usually the best,
Jacey
(Speaking of singers only and not folks who have an instrument to
concentrate on at the same time...)
--
Jacey Bedford
"You know that it's past your bed time if your nose hits
the space bar when you think you're just checking for typos."
Ignore the spam blocker: type <artisan at artisan hyphen harmony dot com> to
reply
ban...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Ja...@artisan-harmony.com (Jacey Bedford) wrote:
> I always take off my glasses. Then I can keep my eyes open and all
> I see is a warm fuzzy glow.
> :-)
>
That's cheating!! :-)
And also a cheat only available to the shortsighted. If you're
longsighted like me, taking the bins off makes the far off faces even
more starkly clear!
Marjorie Clarke
"bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:10...@purr.demon.co.uk...
>
> Marjorie "Mirrorshades" Clarke writes:
Oooh, nice one! Must try that some day. Then I could do what I liked with my
eyes.
> > "Walleye Mark" Bluemel wrote:
> >> I went to see a noted performer at a local folk club a little while
ago.
> >> I found it odd that they closed their eyes to perform
> > I agree, I prefer it when a singer makes eye contact.
>
> I prefer it if they can sing well. Wish I'd heard Asik Veysel or Blind
> Lemon Jefferson when they were alive.
Well, yes, but it doesn't have to be either/or. If you're lucky you might
get eye contact *and* good singing. (Obviously not in those instances). And
in the worst-case scenario you get neither :-(
> The one who really astounded me was Frankie Armstrong. When I saw her
> she was still totally blind (she's got it fixed somehow?) but I had
> absolutely no idea until I was talking to her after the show and, after
> about five minutes, did something only a sighted person could have
> responded to (I forget what) and realized something wasn't quite right.
>
> How on earth did she pull off such an effective imitation of eye contact
> with people she couldn't see at all?
When was this, I wonder? I saw her about a year and a half ago, and got the
impression (which could of course be totally misleading) that her sight was
minimal but not totally absent. She needed people to help her around
unfamiliar rooms etc and show her where to stand to face us, and then when
she started to speak or sing to us, she managed to make us forget that there
was any visual impairment at all. Quite astonishing.
--
Marjorie Clarke
Dominic Cronin
<art...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Traditional music is not supposed to be a performance to an audience,
>but a rendition of music which involves those attending. As such, there
>should be no need for eye contact as the punters are as much a part of
>the "performance" as whoever is singing the song/playing the tune.
I think you are confusing traditional music in general with "singing
in the bath" and while this is indeed a bona fide traditional art, you
can't really draw general conclusions from this very specialist genre.
Singing is first and foremost a form of communication. All the
singing traditions I have come across reflect this, and I should
think that most traditional singing competitions will have judges'
marks allocated for presentation skills and audience contact.
Of course, there is a viewpoint that suggests that, for example,
Morris dancing does not *really*, *essentially*, *in itself* suffer if
members of the public don't like to watch fat, out-of-breath old
blokes lummocking about. It's about making the crops grow or some such
bollocks innit?
Jazz music is another good example. After all, the main point isn't
that it actually *sounds* any good. As long as the cognoscenti can nod
out-of-time in a sufficiently visible way to indicate that *they*
understand what's going on...
Then again, masturbation probably counts as sex in some peoples'
book...
--
Dominic Cronin
Amsterdam
Molly
2003, ban...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
Try putting on Jacey's glasses, then - that should get you both sorted
out at the one time.
--
Molly
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person
who doesn't get it.
Molly
Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Dominic Cronin <dom...@ReplaceThisBitWithMySurname.co
.uk> wrote:
>Then again, masturbation probably counts as sex in some peoples'
>book...
Not in somebody else's book, I hope. There'd be some explaining to do.
I'll get me coat...
Anahata
>
>> I agree, I prefer it when a singer makes eye contact.
>
> I prefer it if they can sing well.
Excellent point, in danger of being overlooked!
--
Anahata
ana...@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
Anahata
> This idea of the "traditional singer" as being some kind of
> automatic transmission device who doesn't intrude anything of
> themselves into the process of transmission seems to have
> originated in England.
I think that's the reaction of some hard line traditionalists to the
wide spread of interpretation styles in England, the root
problem being that in England most of us have heard more "revival"
singers than "real" traditional ones. Hence the fear of it all getting
diluted in derivative musical styles such as folk rock.
I've had this discussion with English singers, including one who had
just had a revelatory experience in a workshop at Sidmouth - understanding
the importance of the song rather than the performance. The singers you
mentioned may have put a terrific performance effort into their
singing, but you'll probably agree that the purpose of that effort was
to "sell" the song to the audience, not to sell their performance.
There's a difference in attitude, in respect for the song. My friend
seems to have found this discovery quite a shock - maybe others in a
similar position have been vocal about it.
Ian Anderson
> I think (coming into this thread rather late so I hope I'm not just
> repeating something everyone else has said) that there is a difference
> between traditional and contemporary performing. Contemporary
(SNIP)
For some reason this got me wondering - does anybody under a
certain age use "contemporary" as a name for a musical genre any
more? Especially since the music it generally describes is anything
but - usually being time-trapped somewhere around the late 1960s.
I guess "modern jazz" has the same problem, generally being tied
to the stuff from the 1950s. And "new wave" bands were 25 years
ago. Do any of the younger performers around the folk scene use it
unthinkingly (unless they have parents with dusty shelves still full
of vinyl from the mid 60s to the mid 70s)? Seems to me that the
likes of Eliza Carthy doing traditional music these days sounds a lot
more 'contemporary' than what folkies call 'contemporary', if you
see what I mean. Maybe I mean timeless, which so-called
'contemporary folk' of 3 or 4 decades back clearly wasn't.
Sorry, it has been a long long day at the Mac-face. The brain gets
trivialised at this time of night. Perhaps I'd better go back to
worrying about George Bush. Or bed.
--
Ian Anderson
fRoots magazine
fro...@frootsmag.com
http://www.frootsmag.com
remove anti-junkmail .donot to reply
Stephen Harvey
make eye contact with people- hoping to see the same sort of reaction
that I had when I first heard the song. the danger of course is when you
see a reaction that is completely the opposite of what you'd hoped for.
Worse yet, if you're singing a serious song and your eyes light upon a
face contorted by laughter. Puts you right off, as you glance down to
see if you're properly zipped up, or have the sudden realisation that
you're not going to be the next Martin Carthy after all. Steve H.
Mark Bluemel
>
> Marjorie "Mirrorshades" Clarke writes:
> > "Walleye Mark" Bluemel wrote:
> >> I went to see a noted performer at a local folk club a little while
ago.
> >> I found it odd that they closed their eyes to perform
> > I agree, I prefer it when a singer makes eye contact.
>
> I prefer it if they can sing well.
That opens a whole other can of worms...
What definition of "sing well"? I know some people think that, for
example, John Jones of the Oysters went downhill when he learnt to "sing
properly"...
Mark
Molly-not-dancing
> > she was still totally blind (she's got it fixed somehow?) but I had
> > absolutely no idea until I was talking to her after the show and, after
> > about five minutes, did something only a sighted person could have
> > responded to (I forget what) and realized something wasn't quite right.
> >
> > How on earth did she pull off such an effective imitation of eye contact
> > with people she couldn't see at all?
>
> When was this, I wonder? I saw her about a year and a half ago, and got the
> impression (which could of course be totally misleading) that her sight was
> minimal but not totally absent. She needed people to help her around
> unfamiliar rooms etc and show her where to stand to face us, and then when
> she started to speak or sing to us, she managed to make us forget that there
> was any visual impairment at all. Quite astonishing.
Yes, it always amazed me how so much can come out of a person's eyes
when there's so little going in. I don't think it was an imitation,
just a natural focussing on the person she's talking to - after all
her sight was not always poor. By the way, you're probably unaware
that Frankie had a cataract operation around 1990/91, which improved
her sight somewhat.
Molly-not-dancing
Dick Gaughan
2003 22:23:59 +0000, Anahata <ana...@treewind.co.uk> wrote:
>The singers you
>mentioned may have put a terrific performance effort into their
>singing, but you'll probably agree that the purpose of that effort was
>to "sell" the song to the audience, not to sell their performance.
Of course I agree. Style without content is tinsel. I hate quoting
myself even once, but I'll quote myself twice :)
"... every song has two texts, the literal text of the words as
written and the emotional subtext of the singer's personal
experience and understanding ..."
"People who argue that it is enough in singing traditional song to
simply declaim the lyric without any involvement of the singer's
personal experience are talking drivel. They are treating a
repository of human experience with contempt and the approach they
advocate is appropriate to stamp-collecting, not singing. Learning
the words is not the job, it is merely the beginning of the
preparation to do the job. The people who wrote those songs wrote
them from personal experience, they have been kept alive because
they say something of eternal relevence to the universality of
human experience and it is the job of the singer, more than
anything else, to put in the work necessary to study, understand
and translate that experience so as to communicate it to the
listener. Otherwise, we might as well just hand the members of the
audience a printed copy of the lyric and we can all go home."
--
DG
Kevin Sheils
<di...@dickalba.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In <slrnb5nr7a...@schubert.treewind.co.uk> on Tue, 25 Feb
>2003 22:23:59 +0000, Anahata <ana...@treewind.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The singers you
>>mentioned may have put a terrific performance effort into their
>>singing, but you'll probably agree that the purpose of that effort was
>>to "sell" the song to the audience, not to sell their performance.
>
>Of course I agree. Style without content is tinsel. I hate quoting
>myself even once, but I'll quote myself twice :)
>
>"... every song has two texts, the literal text of the words as
>written and the emotional subtext of the singer's personal
>experience and understanding ..."
>
<snip>
There was a similar discussion here some time back (but everything
comes round again I guess) where I recall Dick making a similar
statement, with which I agree.
I think at the time I stated that on first getting into the music I
was attracted by the "how" of the singing and later by the "what" of
the singing, but only when you get into the "why" does it really make
sense. It's the "why" with the "what" that defines the emotional
subtext or "content" and the "how" whilst important is merely the
"style" and of less importance IMO of course.
Kevin Sheils
David G. Bell
<3E5BFE7B...@frootsmag.donot.com>
fro...@frootsmag.donot.com "Ian Anderson" wrote:
> Arthur Marshall wrote:
>
> > I think (coming into this thread rather late so I hope I'm not just
> > repeating something everyone else has said) that there is a difference
> > between traditional and contemporary performing. Contemporary
>
> (SNIP)
>
> For some reason this got me wondering - does anybody under a
> certain age use "contemporary" as a name for a musical genre any
> more? Especially since the music it generally describes is anything
> but - usually being time-trapped somewhere around the late 1960s.
> I guess "modern jazz" has the same problem, generally being tied
> to the stuff from the 1950s. And "new wave" bands were 25 years
> ago. Do any of the younger performers around the folk scene use it
> unthinkingly (unless they have parents with dusty shelves still full
> of vinyl from the mid 60s to the mid 70s)? Seems to me that the
> likes of Eliza Carthy doing traditional music these days sounds a lot
> more 'contemporary' than what folkies call 'contemporary', if you
> see what I mean. Maybe I mean timeless, which so-called
> 'contemporary folk' of 3 or 4 decades back clearly wasn't.
I've never thought about this, but in books "contemporary" does seem to
be a marketing label with little connection to the dictionary meaning of
the word.
Once saw "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" shelved as "Contemporary
Fiction" -- it was first published before my mother was born.
Pick your labels a little more carefully, next time...
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.
Marjorie Clarke
"Ian Anderson" <fro...@frootsmag.donot.com> wrote in message
news:3E5BFE7B...@frootsmag.donot.com...
> For some reason this got me wondering - does anybody under a
> certain age use "contemporary" as a name for a musical genre any
> more? Especially since the music it generally describes is anything
> but - usually being time-trapped somewhere around the late 1960s.
Nah, "contemporary" furniture and home decor was late 50s, early 60s, the
sort of stuff that's now valued as "retro".
But oddly enough I noticed, just a few hours ago, the use of "contemporary"
in relation to folk music. If you open the BBC Radio Player and go to the
"Folk and Country" genre, there's Celtic Heartbeat offering "Traditional and
contemporary folk", and Celtic Connections with "contemporary Celtic music"
(wow, two weasel words in one phrase!). So there you are - it now seems to
mean "non-traditional" (I suppose).
To me it suggests that it's music of its time (the opposite of "timeless"),
which of course means the term is valid only at the time it's used. Once the
music is out of date it's neither contemporary nor traditional - I don't
know what we'd call that.
The term may be used differently in the US, but I rather think they consider
anything from as far back as the 1960s to be traditional, or at any rate
old.
--
Marjorie Clarke
--
Marjorie Clarke
Ian Anderson
> Once the
> music is out of date it's neither contemporary nor traditional - I don't
> know what we'd call that.
Folk rock? ;-)
--
IA
Anahata
Clarke wrote:
> To me it suggests that it's music of its time (the opposite of "timeless"),
> which of course means the term is valid only at the time it's used.
That's certainly what it's supposed to mean, and I think it works with
folk music. It's anything written recently that falls into some
definition of folk.
> Once the
> music is out of date it's neither contemporary nor traditional - I don't
> know what we'd call that.
Forgotten ?
Unless it lasts for long enough to become traditional...
It's a funny thing with 'modern' though - As Ian says, "Modern Jazz" is
a dated phenomenon, and people talk about "post-modern" in connection
with all sort sof arts - surely that literally means future?
George Hawes
"Mark Bluemel" <mark_b...@pobox.com> wrote:
> "Flatulent Cumquat" bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > Marjorie "Mirrorshades" Clarke writes:
> > > "Walleye Mark" Bluemel wrote:
> > >> I went to see a noted performer at a local folk club a little while
> ago.
> > >> I found it odd that they closed their eyes to perform
> > > I agree, I prefer it when a singer makes eye contact.
> >
> > I prefer it if they can sing well.
>
> That opens a whole other can of worms...
Probably not . . .
I think you merely indicate that it's a personal rather than a purely
objective judgement . .
G.
--
George Hawes (george...@orange.net)
and Sawston Arts Festival: Next events: John Spiers & Jon Boden- 2nd March;
Ryburn Threestep - 28th March. Ask for details.
ban...@cix.compulink.co.uk
fro...@frootsmag.donot.com (Ian Anderson) wrote:
Interesting point. I know people who claim to write songs `in the
traditional idiom', that being the only way they can think of to
differentiate their work from the `look-at-the-fluff-in-my-navel'
songs of the archetypal 60s/70s snigger/snogwriter. I find a lot of
the latter quite execrable, yes a 60s singer songwriter who certainly
not of the introspective type (even when being introspective) is Bert
Jansch. So, is it about the difference between introspective and
`outrospective' songs? (there must be lots of old introspective songs
that never even made it through to becoming traditional they were that
bad).
In the end I suppose timeless is the key quality. Introspective songs
apply to the writer at the time written. They may even apply to the
mood of a group of people at that time. But the time doesn't last.
Outrospective songs apply regardless of the time. May be it comes down
to that simple thing - good songs and bad songs - I feel it comes down
to relevant songs and irrelevant songs. And the majority of
`contemporary' songs are now irrelevant.
Just to stir things up a bit, another way of looking at `contemporary'
is to think of it as coming from limp pop musicians who couldn't rock.
Watching Clifford T Ward sandwiched between the likes of The Who,
The Wailers and Rory Gallagher on the Old Grey Whistle Test Years
1973 programme last week seems like a case in point.
ban...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Interesting point. I know people who claim to write songs `in the
ban...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Interesting point. I know people who claim to write songs `in the
ban...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Interesting point. I know people who claim to write songs `in the
Pete Young
>What definition of "sing well"? I know some people think that, for
>example, John Jones of the Oysters went downhill when he learnt to "sing
>properly"...
He did? When?
Pete
--
____________________________________________________________________
Pete Young pe...@antipope.org
"Just another crouton, floating on the bouillabaisse of life"
ban...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ban...@cix.compulink.co.uk () wrote:
Sorry about that. Not sure how it happened, my PC must have been
eating radishes
Marjorie Clarke
<ban...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b3hvcg$fdt$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
>
> Interesting point. I know people who claim to write songs `in the
> traditional idiom', that being the only way they can think of to
> differentiate their work from the `look-at-the-fluff-in-my-navel'
> songs of the archetypal 60s/70s snigger/snogwriter. I find a lot of
> the latter quite execrable, yes a 60s singer songwriter who certainly
> not of the introspective type (even when being introspective) is Bert
> Jansch. So, is it about the difference between introspective and
> `outrospective' songs? (there must be lots of old introspective songs
> that never even made it through to becoming traditional they were that
> bad).
I think that last point is crucial. Traditional material has been subjected
to a selection process that (generally)favours good songs and tunes and
abandons the bad or mediocre. Modern songs and tunes have not undergone this
process, and that's why there's a lot of rubbish around. Which doesn't mean
to say there aren't some excellent modern songs too, but the ration of crap
to good stuff will be less favourable with modern stuff.
Not long ago I bought a second-hand copy of The Cruel Wars by Karl Dallas
(Wolfe 1972), which describes itself as "100 Soldiers' Songs from Agincourt
to Ulster". It has lots of good songs that are still firmly in the folk
repertoire, but many of the modern ones have trite words and nondescript
tunes, and I'd bet some of them haven't been heard since about 1973, with
good reason. OTOH the final one in the book is Hamish Henderson's "The
Flyting o Life and Daith" (1963), a very powerful re-working of a
traditional format. So this book exemplifies what I've just said above (and
what you were saying).
>
> In the end I suppose timeless is the key quality. Introspective songs
> apply to the writer at the time written. They may even apply to the
> mood of a group of people at that time. But the time doesn't last.
> Outrospective songs apply regardless of the time. May be it comes down
> to that simple thing - good songs and bad songs - I feel it comes down
> to relevant songs and irrelevant songs. And the majority of
> `contemporary' songs are now irrelevant.
A song can be very introspective and personal, and yet (if it's a good one)
express the universality of the emotions or situation it deals with (think
Joni Mitchell). Or a song can attempt to be "in the tradition" by dealing
with the lives of emigrants or miners or fishermen losing their jobs, and
can fail to hit the spot because it's written by a 21st-century teacher or
computer programmer who can't find any way of making the situation real or
universal. OTOH if it's written in the traditional style by someone like
Dave Webber or John Tams, it will put across the universal aspects a
particular situation or story that make it relevant to modern listeners. Oh,
and it will have a good tune, which many modern singer-songwriters seem to
forget to include.
So I suppose we've come to the conclusion that there are, as you say, good
songs and bad songs. Ho hum. Anyone want to disagree?
--
Marjorie Clarke
Patrick Navin
<Delurks>
Had to delurk to jump on this thread (hi all!). This is a subject close
to my heart, not just in terms of folk but in terms of the other musical
genres I listen to. Classic example of this is someone I recently played
The Be Good Tanyas' bewilderingly beautiful version of "The Lakes of
Pontchartrain" to, only to be told "that girl can't even sing!".
When it comes to voices (eyes closed or open - I'm not fussy) what I
really go for is the ability to make my spine tingle, my eyes well up or
my gut rench. It's the contact between the voice and my own emotions
that makes it, not purity or even the ability to sing in tune, not eye
contact but something else more "primal" perhaps.
Patrick
Dick Gaughan
GMT, Patrick Navin (iBook)
<patrick.G3ITS...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>Had to delurk to jump on this thread (hi all!). This is a subject close
>to my heart, not just in terms of folk but in terms of the other musical
>genres I listen to. Classic example of this is someone I recently played
>The Be Good Tanyas' bewilderingly beautiful version of "The Lakes of
>Pontchartrain" to, only to be told "that girl can't even sing!".
>When it comes to voices (eyes closed or open - I'm not fussy) what I
>really go for is the ability to make my spine tingle, my eyes well up or
>my gut rench. It's the contact between the voice and my own emotions
>that makes it, not purity or even the ability to sing in tune, not eye
>contact but something else more "primal" perhaps.
The technical term for what you're describing is "the magic" :)
Without it, the best you get is a pretty noise.
--
DG
Julian Flood
"Dick Gaughan" wrote
> "the magic" :)
A noisy pub, a mando, a song... Fields of Gold, Willy McBride, Steady Boys,
A Proper Sort Of Garden. I Wonder What's Keeping... Suddenly, silence. They
don't care about folk music, they just came for a beer and a chat, now they
listen... Magic. Suddenly you feel as if you're real after all.
JF
err.... hmmmm... err... and DG songs like... err... you know.. of
course...*
*Mountain Thyme. Both Sides. ect ect. I was teasing.
Stephen Harvey
ahead of me): i was reading, for the first time, a short story by
Thomas Hardy titled "The Fiddler of the Reels". Amongst the many lovely
descriptive passages I came upon this one which I thought spoke in
particular to both performance style and DG's "magic":
(Car'line sees Wat or 'Mop' Ollamoor, a fiddler whose music entrances
her, standing at his front door,playing his fiddle)
"To shake off the fascination she resolved to go on, although it would
be necessary to pass him as he played. On stealthily glancing ahead at
the performer,she found to her relief that his eyes were closed in
abandonment to instrumentation, and she strode on boldly. But when
closer her step grew timid, her tread convulsed itself more and more
accordantly with the time of the melody, till she very nearly danced
along. Gaining another glance at him when immediately opposite, she saw
that one of his eyes was open, quizzing her as he smiled at her
emotional state. her gait could not divest itself of its compelled
capers till she had gone a long way past the house; and Car'line was
unable to shake off the strange infatuation for hours."
cheers, Steve H
Bob Walton
di...@dickalba.demon.co.uk (Dick Gaughan) wrote:
> "People who argue that it is enough in singing traditional song to
> simply declaim the lyric without any involvement of the singer's
> <snip>
> audience a printed copy of the lyric and we can all go home."
"Oh, you know all the words, and you sung all the notes,
But you never quite learned the song, she sang.
I can tell by the sadness in your eyes,
That you never quite learned the song."
Hedgehog Song, by Mike Heron.
Bob Walton
(eMail to my first name is more likely to reach me)