The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #63710   Message #1037511
Posted By: freightdawg
17-Oct-03 - 06:38 PM
Thread Name: Acoustic vs. Electric
Subject: RE: Acoustic vs. Electric
Thank you Nicole, Ron, and GuestMartin: this is what I was hoping for.

First, some humble apologies. Yes, I have been thinking in the most provincial of terms - I have in my mind Pete Seeger, Woodie Guthrie, PP&M, et. al. and mostly on the yankee side of the pond. Sorry about my ugly Americanism.

Second, yes Ron and Nicole, I would have to include the dance forms you listed as "folk", in the sense that they represent music "by" the people not only "for" the people. My circle keeps expanding.

And GuestMartin, funny you should mention the Beatles, because they were one group who I had in mind when I mentioned the 60's and 70's. Their music is an example of a drift from pop to folk, but it is precisely because of the lyrics and not the lead and often overbearing guitar riffs common in modern pop/rock music. Many Beatles' lyrics work just fine sung accapella.

To pull another name out of the hat, I think Eric Clapton is widely regarded as a virtuoso on the electric guitar. I don't see his lyrics making the jump to folk in the same way as the Beatles' though. Before I shoot myself in the foot, let me say I am not aware of all of Clapton's work. His work is an example of what I would call the medium supporting the message, although his guitar playing is so strong it almost becomes a PART of the message. Eric Clapton's use of the guitar is NOT what I am opposed to. What I am opposed to is what Ron calls poor production/poor performance, where the instrument overpowers the effect of the lyrics. With an electric instrument you are limited only by the amperage of your system or its individual components. At least with acoustic instruments the audience can be saved when strings mercifully break. : )

humbly,

Freightdawg