Scholarship has moved on a lot since the publication of 'Folk Song in England', and even more from 1954. I'm with Philip Bohlman on this: the dynamic nature of folk music belies the stasis of definition. The International Folk Music Council thrashed around for a number of years arguing about definitions before coming up with the provisional 1954 one, which sprang from the essentially conservative voices prevalent at the time and was soon added to with various caveats. The council itself eventually gave up on using the term 'folk' in its own name, becoming the International Council for Traditional Music in 1981. It's surely a mistake to look for a definition cast in stone: what is folk music is constantly negotiated and redefined not only by scholars but by those who are performing it. We know it by certain 'markers' (and no, I don't just mean modal tunes as the picture we have of their importance is skewed by the Victorian and Edwardian collectors seeking to note or publish mainly modal tunes from singers), and it's formed in a dialectic with other forms of music. I think you need to look at context as well as content, and away from the universal definitions to the particular: individual singers and localities. It's a many-faceted jewel not a slab of stone. Sue
|