Still no Vin Garbutt at Cambridge Folk Festival
Colin Randall
have cropped up here at some stage too. For anyone interested in
reading more on Cambridge's apparent aversion to booking Vin (18 years
have passed since he was last there), there is an update at
http://www.salutlive.com/2008/04/no-vin-situatio.html
Richard Robinson
> The debate seems to have raged everywhere else, so I imagine it must
> have cropped up here at some stage too.
Ah, philosophy.
Does the group consider that imagination is an adequate substitute for
knowledge ?
--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem
My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html
Mark Bluemel
> Colin Randall said:
>> The debate seems to have raged everywhere else, so I imagine it must
>> have cropped up here at some stage too.
>
> Ah, philosophy.
>
> Does the group consider that imagination is an adequate substitute for
> knowledge ?
Hmm. I read that post as being a bit like "The debate seems to have
raged everywhere else, so lets see if we can get it raging here".
Richard Robinson
Yes, so did I. But I preferred to pick up on the bit that interested me.
Peter Thomas
<rich...@privacy.net> writes
>Colin Randall said:
>> The debate seems to have raged everywhere else, so I imagine it must
>> have cropped up here at some stage too.
>
>Ah, philosophy.
>
>Does the group consider that imagination is an adequate substitute for
>knowledge ?
>
Nicely put, Richard.
Debate? Not even a discussion as far as I'm concerned.
Cambridge, I understand, clashes with Sidmouth, so I don't do Cambridge.
I had difficulty in making out what Mr Garbutt was saying the only time
I heard him. Therefore the man's non-booking at Cambridge is a matter of
sublime indifference to me.
Mr Randall, of course, is bereft of his platform in what was once the
Torygraph [1]. New owners and all that. He now of course has his
web-site. Promoting this seems to be the only rationale for his posts
here.
[1] We find that a Telegraph for my wife and a Grauniad for myself
seems to provide more-or-less adequate news and sport coverage plus
sufficient puzzles.
--
Peter Thomas
JimL
wrote:
> In message <47f4aefd$0$713$bed64...@news.gradwell.net>, Richard Robinson
> <richa...@privacy.net> writes
I would be quite willing to get up on my hind legs and join in, if I
knew that Vin cared.
I suspect he couldn't give a monkey's.
Jim
The Yorkshire Polymoth
Jacey Bedford
<b1ef94bf-0712-4ffc...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Colin Randall <colinr...@gmail.com> writes
Eddie Barcan never ceases to amaze me by the number of great acts he
doesn't book for Cambridge... not that I'm bitter you understand. The
last time I was there, so was Vin!
:-)
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
posting via usenet and not googlegroups, ourdebate
or any other forum that reprints usenet posts as
though they were the forum's own
Richard Robinson
>> >Colin Randall said:
>> >> The debate seems to have raged everywhere else, so I imagine it must
>> >> have cropped up here at some stage too.
>
> that Vin cared. I suspect he couldn't give a monkey's.
If he needs advertising by artificial 'debate' stirred up by someone who
appears to regard a lack of imagination as a strong argument, he's in
trouble.
Peter - did you say this is some kind of journalist ? Aren't they supposed
to find out or something, rather than falling back on wishful thinking ?
(Poor naive little innocent, me)
Colin Randall
Yes, I have posted here about my site on a few occasions; I have even
been posted about. I regularly include links to this group from my
site. But I have no apology to make for trying to draw the attention
of people who may share my musical interests to articles that I write.
Whether the articles have any merit is for others to decide, and I
accept that the verdict is mixed.
Promoting my website? Strictly speaking, I suppose, yes. But Salut!
Live shows little sign of ever being much more than an interesting
hobby, and I'd be a liar if I said it regularly attracted visitors in
large numbers. One clarification: while the Telegraph, as is
reasonably well known, certainly fired me, they very much wanted me to
continue writing about folk music for them and it was my decision to
stop doing so.
Jacey Bedford
<34decedc-50ff-45bf...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
JimL <jmla...@gmail.com> writes
Exactly. If every festival could book every artist every year, wouldn't
it be nice? But since they can't you take the ones that can and don't
sweat the ones that can't.
Jacey Bedford
<1f7ca7fd-ccde-4780...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Colin Randall <colinr...@gmail.com> writes
>One clarification: while the Telegraph, as is
>reasonably well known, certainly fired me, they very much wanted me to
>continue writing about folk music for them and it was my decision to
>stop doing so.
Which is a pity
:-)
It's hard enough to get folk into national newspapers and over the years
Colin has been responsible for helping to keep the music that we all
love visible to the wider world.
Not sure what folks are carping about re his website. It's there. If you
want to read it and join in, do so. If not... hey, it's a free world.
Peter Thomas
<1f7ca7fd-ccde-4780...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Colin Randall <colinr...@gmail.com> writes
...
>One clarification: while the Telegraph, as is
>reasonably well known, certainly fired me, they very much wanted me to
>continue writing about folk music for them and it was my decision to
>stop doing so.
Read your stuff in that paper for as long as I can remember. Rather
unkind of them to insist on you giving up the day job, I must say. Been
reading elsewhere of the goings-on and of Bill Deedes in particular.
The Torygraph is not what it was in my view, but what is these days?
Reverting to Salut Live, an 'interesting hobby' can be much more of a
motivation than the Daily Grind....
--
Peter Thomas
Steve Mansfield
> motivation than the Daily Grind....
And, late to this particular thread though I may be, I for one am always
interested to see the updates posted here whether the subject of that
particular Salut! update interests me or not; I've never been to Cambridge
and am fairly ambivalent about Vin Garbutt, for example, so I passed on that
one.
Keep posting them Colin, and anyone who doesn't want to read them can always
ignore them.
--
Steve Mansfield
Manchester, England
http://www.lesession.co.uk
Richard Robinson
>> Reverting to Salut Live, an 'interesting hobby' can be much more of a
>> motivation than the Daily Grind....
>
> And, late to this particular thread though I may be, I for one am always
> interested to see the updates posted here whether the subject of that
> particular Salut! update interests me or not; I've never been to Cambridge
> and am fairly ambivalent about Vin Garbutt, for example, so I passed on that
> one.
>
> Keep posting them Colin, and anyone who doesn't want to read them can always
> ignore them.
Agreed.
But, this one did aggravate me. If someone wants u.m.f to be debating a
particular topic, surely the way to do it is to start a debate ? Like, say
something debateable ? Tell us your own opinions, for discussion ?
Suggesting that we should be debating something or other because everybody
else is, without claiming any involvement or opinions oneself, looks like
poking the animals through the bars.
Stephen Kellett
<rich...@privacy.net> writes
>Suggesting that we should be debating something or other because everybody
>else is, without claiming any involvement or opinions oneself, looks like
>poking the animals through the bars.
Indeed. Until that posting I was unaware that there was/is a debate
about this topic. I'm still unaware of what the debate is, having so
much interest in it that I can't even be bothered to Google to see if
the debate exists at all.
Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/software.html
Computer Consultancy, Software Development
Windows C++, Java, Assembler, Performance Analysis, Troubleshooting
Reg Office: 24 Windmill Walk, Sutton, Ely, Cambs CB6 2NH.
Dominic Cronin
<colinr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, I have posted here about my site on a few occasions; I have even
>been posted about. I regularly include links to this group from my
>site. But I have no apology to make for trying to draw the attention
>of people who may share my musical interests to articles that I write.
>Whether the articles have any merit is for others to decide, and I
>accept that the verdict is mixed.
>Promoting my website? Strictly speaking, I suppose, yes.
Drawing attention to a folk-related web site is perfectly on-topic and
within the bounds of the charter, which says:
<<Advertising
Advertising is forbidden, with these exceptions:
Performers, specialist companies, instrument makers, small independent
labels etc may post details of events, tours, folk club listings, WWW
sites dedicated to folk/roots music, specialist music outlets,
festivals, musical instruments and other services where these are
relevant to the group.
The subject line of such posts should begin "ANNOUNCE: ". Such
announcements may be reposted at weekly intervals but should not
exceed a total of 3 postings for any individual enterprise. >>
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.music.folk.html
To be honest, I'm not sure if "ANNOUNCE" would satisfy the pedant in
me [1], but that aside, I think the position is very clear: there is a
limit on postings which are specifically advertisements, but such
promotion is definitely allowed. Beyond that; I'm sure that linking to
a page or article that is relevant to a discussion here would also be
quite acceptable.
I'm not sure. Was the accusation that you had engineered a discussion
in order to link to your site? Are you guilty of that? If so, I'm sure
it isn't necessary.
[1] I do however defer on this matter to the author of this wording,
whose credentials as a pedant are well established. ;-)
--
Dominic Cronin
Amsterdam
Jack Campin - bogus address
> about this topic. I'm still unaware of what the debate is,
> having so much interest in it that I can't even be bothered
> to Google to see if the debate exists at all.
Me too. A debate about why a singer I've no intention of ever
listening to doesn't get bookings at a festival I'm never going
to go to isn't something I feel a great urge to participate in.
(I seem to remember salutlive has had interesting stuff on it in
the past, though).
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
Colin Randall
In case duplication appears, this is a slightly amended copy of
something I tried but failed to post earlier.
Your criticism may be fair, Richard.
I thought most people involved or interested in folk knew of the
debate on whether the reason for Vin's exclusion from Cambridge was
that he'd sung an anti-abortion song on his last visit and, if so,
whether this exclusion could be justified.
Vin takes one view, Cambridge another. And the festival continues to
overlook him, which seems (to me) odd given his stature. I looked as
closely as I could at a subject that I and many others regard as
thought-provoking. I obtained strong input from both sides. And of
course I expressed my own opinions: broadly speaking against Vin on
abortion, absolutely in favour of his right to differ, disappointed by
his absence from one of the music's grand stages and not wholly
convinced by Cambridge's stated position.
As a member of this group - not surprising given a 40-year history of
participation, one way or another, in folk - I have been encouraged to
believe that it is acceptable to post links to items at Salut! Live.
When I do so, it is partly in the hope of increasing awareness of the
site, which is not a source of income (much as I'd love that to
change), and partly because if such people as Martin Simpson, Kate
Rusby, Rachel Unthank, Flossie Malavialle, Simon Nicol and Marie
Little are willing to spend time answering my questions, I owe it to
them to ensure that their efforts are not wasted.
A lot of people get sniffy about artists they happen not to like, but
does anyone who has taken the trouble to visit my site seriously
suggest that it does not cover relevant ground?
On my Vin G posting here, I now think my memory was at fault. The
discussion has taken place in other places (the BBC Folk on Two forum,
Mudcat & elsewhere) but not, it seems, here. So it was as if I had
written a postscript without a preceding letter. I am too thick-
skinned to be troubled by the bash-the-hack stuff but apologise if,
inadvertently, I made misplaced use of the forum.
Dick Gaughan
<0cb33764-65c5-4c40...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
on Sun, 6 Apr 2008 04:33:42 -0700 (PDT), Colin Randall
<colinr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I thought most people involved or interested in folk knew of the
>debate on whether the reason for Vin's exclusion from Cambridge was
>that he'd sung an anti-abortion song on his last visit and, if so,
>whether this exclusion could be justified.
Goes with the territory. Those of us who sing songs which are
going to put people's noses out of joint, from whichever side of
whatever argument, have long ago learned to accept the inevitable.
I've never heard Vin complain about that.
And is it all just gossip or is there any actual evidence that
this is in fact the reason for Cambridge not booking him? There
are a lot of us veterans they don't book, including me, but I'd
kind of assumed that was more to do with vintage and media profile
than viewpoint.
>As a member of this group -
A Usenet group doesn't have members - only writers. And
occasionally, readers :)
>not surprising given a 40-year history of
>participation, one way or another, in folk - I have been encouraged to
>believe that it is acceptable to post links to items at Salut! Live.
It is well within both wording and intent of the Charter to post
links to items which might be of interest to readers of the group.
An item on Vin Garbutt certainly falls within that so personally
I'd regard that post as being perfectly on-topic. Others might
disagree, and on a Usenet group they have every right to do so.
--
DG
Peter Thomas
<0cb33764-65c5-4c40...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>debate on whether the reason for Vin's exclusion
>
weeks. Danced at local village hall ceilidh yesterday. Sang in
community choir on Monday, heard Dave Gibb at Horsham last Sunday,
chorused, drunk beer and chatted, get to the occasional pub session.
Heard no mention whatsoever of Garbutt nor Cambridge. Still less his
absence therefrom. The Surrey hills do not resound with this.
Did I but dwell in the milieu of the 'professional' performer,
corporate record label or the print media, I guess I might have hard of
it. Or indeed the electronic media mentioned my Mr Randall below. Not in
this real rather than virtual bit of the grass-roots, though.
Worth re-opening the discussion on whether it's still folk once it moves
to the commercial arena? ? ? ?
>On my Vin G posting here, I now think my memory was at fault. The
>discussion has taken place in other places (the BBC Folk on Two forum,
>Mudcat & elsewhere) but not, it seems, here. So it was as if I had
>written a postscript without a preceding letter. I am too thick-
>skinned to be troubled by the bash-the-hack stuff but apologise if,
>inadvertently, I made misplaced use of the forum.
Thanks, Colin.
I admire the stamina of those who keep up with Mudcat, etc. This posting
is taking me ten minutes when I'm not at Horsham because of likely ice
on the back-roads later. I have time, just, for u.m.f, the eceilidh
list, and, less often, venue and artiste sites and the MBS list, but
that's it.
About to go and have another try at getting my mind and fingers round
DADGAD, good-bye for now.
--
Peter Thomas
Richard Robinson
> On 4 Apr, 22:24, Richard Robinson <richa...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> > And, late to this particular thread though I may be, I for one am always
>> > interested to see the updates posted here whether the subject of that
>> > particular Salut! update interests me or not; I've never been to Cambridge
>> > and am fairly ambivalent about Vin Garbutt, for example, so I passed on that
>> > one.
>>
>> But, this one did aggravate me. If someone wants u.m.f to be debating a
>> particular topic, surely the way to do it is to start a debate ? Like, say
>> something debateable ? Tell us your own opinions, for discussion ?
>>
>> Suggesting that we should be debating something or other because everybody
>> else is, without claiming any involvement or opinions oneself, looks like
>> poking the animals through the bars.
>
> debate on whether the reason for Vin's exclusion from Cambridge was
> that he'd sung an anti-abortion song on his last visit and, if so,
> whether this exclusion could be justified.
I do remeber hearing something about some people disagreed with some song
he'd written on the subject. Must be, my god, nigh-on 20 years ago ? I've
not heard the song, myself, so I don't have any opinion on it.
> As a member of this group - not surprising given a 40-year history of
> participation, one way or another, in folk - I have been encouraged to
> believe that it is acceptable to post links to items at Salut! Live.
The point has already been made, that if that's what you think you're doing,
make it clear ? ...
> On my Vin G posting here, I now think my memory was at fault. The
> discussion has taken place in other places (the BBC Folk on Two forum,
> Mudcat & elsewhere) but not, it seems, here. So it was as if I had
> written a postscript without a preceding letter.
... yes, exactly, I think that was the source of the crosspurposes.
I couldn't remember if it had or not, I spent a few minutes asking the
public news archives, by way of checking your assumption.
Richard Robinson
>
> I admire the stamina of those who keep up with Mudcat, etc. This posting
> is taking me ten minutes when I'm not at Horsham because of likely ice
> on the back-roads later. I have time, just, for u.m.f, the eceilidh
> list, and, less often, venue and artiste sites and the MBS list, but
> that's it.
Eeh, you was lucky ...
Getting somewhat tenuous, on the theme of dropping mentions of websites, I
got an email this afternoon, someone's got a site they'd like me to link
to. Which I will, with pleasure. Right up my street.
http://www.folktunefinder.com/
Does what it says on the tin.
Colin Irvine
squeezed out the following:
>Peter Thomas said:
>>
>> I admire the stamina of those who keep up with Mudcat, etc. This posting
>> is taking me ten minutes when I'm not at Horsham because of likely ice
>> on the back-roads later. I have time, just, for u.m.f, the eceilidh
>> list, and, less often, venue and artiste sites and the MBS list, but
>> that's it.
>
>Eeh, you was lucky ...
>
>Getting somewhat tenuous, on the theme of dropping mentions of websites, I
>got an email this afternoon, someone's got a site they'd like me to link
>to. Which I will, with pleasure. Right up my street.
>
>http://www.folktunefinder.com/
>
>Does what it says on the tin.
It certainly does. I've had a tune running through my head for a
while, and it found it instantly. No need to get the key right either.
That's a great find - thanks very much!
Which reminds me - what happened to the thought that some of us might
help do some transcribing - or did I miss it?
--
Colin Irvine
http://www.colinandpat.co.uk
Peter Thomas
<rich...@privacy.net> writes
........
>Getting somewhat tenuous, on the theme of dropping mentions of websites, I
>got an email this afternoon, someone's got a site they'd like me to link
>to. Which I will, with pleasure. Right up my street.
>
>http://www.folktunefinder.com/
>
>Does what it says on the tin.
>
with :
RondeVI & Salterelle from, most aptly,
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/music/Info/RRTuneBk/Medieval/Medieval.abc
Scotch Mist Strathspey, D; Shepherd's Hey Shepherd's Hey (Dow's
Undagnified Mix); Miss Euphemia Lowes Jig; Swamplake Breakdown, The;
Greensleeves -- or Kick my A---;
The Dungiven;
2x Quick Step Fusileers. 1 from
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/Music/Aird-v1.abc
and more.
A true Serendipity Engine. Gorgeous.
--
Peter Thomas
Richard Robinson
>...
>
> A true Serendipity Engine. Gorgeous.
It's some kind of dissertation project, with seemingly some Very Clever
Stuff[tm] behind it.
<turns green> And resources. He talks about having the use of a 15-machine
cluster to do his indexing & precompiling on (I'm slightly bothered by the
concept of a dual-core apple, but maybe that's just me). Whereas, Leeds
University imposed disk-quotas a few months back, and I had to delete
important stuff to regain write-access. (It's not gone - it _is_ important -
it's just had to be shifted into the new livetunebook space, elsewhere,
which I pay for). Sign of the times, beginning of the end, I fear. Which is
why I've been building a replacement ...
Richard Robinson
>>
>>Does what it says on the tin.
>
> It certainly does. I've had a tune running through my head for a
> while, and it found it instantly. No need to get the key right either.
> That's a great find - thanks very much!
>
> Which reminds me - what happened to the thought that some of us might
> help do some transcribing - or did I miss it?
( this was in connection with http:livetunebook.qualmograph.org.uk )
Oh yeah. It's all over, there's no more transcribing to be done, at all,
ever, you really missed your chance there ... Er, that's a "no, it didn't
really happen yet".
Any individual with stuff to transcribe, it'll work for that, but
permissions are only binary - each tune has a single owner, which is the
only person who can write to it, everyone else is read-only - unless it's
"private", in which it's invisible except to that owner. Both of these ideas
need to include a middleground before collaborations would be possible, and
various practicalities have led me to shelve thinking about this until
later. People are giving me reasons why they need this kind of functionality
(and thinking of ways to use it all that I hadn't imagined), so I need to
get onto it when I can - it's working its way to the top of the list.
Basically, I'm finding it all a %^&* of a lot of work for one person to cope
with, it's all slower than I'd like.
But, in the meantime, people are feeding it, stuff's appearing there, it's
looking useful anyway.
Steve Mansfield
>> while, and it found it instantly. No need to get the key right either.
>> That's a great find - thanks very much!
That's great, I've added it to the FAQ.
Richard Robinson
>>>>http://www.folktunefinder.com/
>>>>
>>>>Does what it says on the tin.
>>>
>>> It certainly does. I've had a tune running through my head for a
>>> while, and it found it instantly. No need to get the key right either.
>>> That's a great find - thanks very much!
>
> That's great, I've added it to the FAQ.
Before we even had time to think of the question. *grin*.
Colin Irvine
squeezed out the following:
>Colin Irvine said:
>> On 07 Apr 2008 00:38:34 GMT, Richard Robinson <rich...@privacy.net>
>>>
>>>http://www.folktunefinder.com/
>>>
>>>Does what it says on the tin.
>>
>> It certainly does. I've had a tune running through my head for a
>> while, and it found it instantly. No need to get the key right either.
>> That's a great find - thanks very much!
>>
>> Which reminds me - what happened to the thought that some of us might
>> help do some transcribing - or did I miss it?
>
>( this was in connection with http:livetunebook.qualmograph.org.uk )
>
>Oh yeah. It's all over, there's no more transcribing to be done, at all,
>ever, you really missed your chance there ... Er, that's a "no, it didn't
>really happen yet".
<g> Well I for one missed that link, so thank you.
Richard Robinson
>>>
>>> Which reminds me - what happened to the thought that some of us might
>>> help do some transcribing - or did I miss it?
>>
>>( this was in connection with http:livetunebook.qualmograph.org.uk )
>>
>>Oh yeah. It's all over, there's no more transcribing to be done, at all,
>>ever, you really missed your chance there ... Er, that's a "no, it didn't
>>really happen yet".
>
><g> Well I for one missed that link, so thank you.
Ah. Yes. I may perhaps be spending too much time thinking about it :-)