Hi Scoville,

Thank you for your insights.

I don't think its about a decision to allow a song to be a folk song. It just is.

I think there is a qualitative difference in the genuine human emotion that you get from a folk song and a Victorian or 50's pop song in that the latter is more contrived to reach a specific audience and will tailor the emotion to serve that end.

I think that the folk songs that prevailed did so for a reason. Many did not have to be rediscovered because of their essential durability. I doubt whether you could rediscover a Victorian song and claim it to be a folk song without its undergoing adaptation in almost a Darwinian sense. Hence "I Will Twine Midst The Ringlets" by Maude Irving becomes simplified and has a wider appeal through A.P. Carter because the song speaks to a sub-culture of the rural South and at one time although it wasn't greatly played on the radio, you could travel through the Southern US in the Fifties and everyone would know it and request it if you could play it. I called it the unofficial national anthem of the South.

When we get into the discussion of content, then we are in murky waters. Style is apparent but content is open for interpretation. There are many songs that claim a "content" which others might find empty or devoid of it.

Although there are many jazz-oriented or Broadway show songs that don't find their way to the radio, these would not be folk. They may not be in today's market but their exemption from this doesn't mean they are folk songs.

The human condition as a characteristic of folk music is not to say that it doesn't exist in other forms of song expression. I don't agree that the new stuff has the same quality that the folk music has, but it can be good and often addresses the human condition. The difference is that it doesn't have the distilling process of time to make it accessible as does folk music.

Many people are writing songs that they believe are important as social commentary or emotional insights. I don't think many audiences think or care about what is folk because it doesn't seem to concern them. The songs that some write to day have a legitimacy about them because a minority of them are well-written and do convey genuine human emotion. Legitimacy, however, is not necessarilly a province of folk music. A song can be legitimate without being a folk song. Writing stuff that needs to be said doesn't make it a folk song.

Folk-rock, country and most "whatevers" are record company terms used to market music to specific groups of people. I agree that you don't have to be dead fifty years to be legitimate but I do believe that time must elapse before we determine that a song becomes a folk song. The durability of the song is part of the definition of the survival of a folk song. Thus, Stephen Foster's "Angelina Baker" becomes "Angeline the Baker" and a prominent fiddle tune. It goes through the necessary permutations (variants) and distilling process that keeps it alive.

I believe that this is important because the folk song tells us a great deal about the society from which it emanates. There is an anthropological, sociological or ethno-musicological aspect to all of this and if you have listened to folk music for a long time as well as other forms of music, the difference makes itself extremely clear. It just plain sounds different. It is a stylistic and cultural difference and sometimes has little to do with content.

There is a prevalent myth that folk songs must contain social topcial commentary. I don't think that is true. Some do, some don't. Also, it must be stated that those who claim that they know what folk music is are new to the field and have not studied it long or carefully enough.

The big problem I have with folk song academicians is that they are only versed in the folk music and are not aware of the other forms of musical expression such as pop or art or even the craft of songwriting. Their view is limited. They don't have the musical perspective.

Outside of this you have the new singer-songwriter who must defend their position as an artist because it's one of the hardest ways to become accepted. Writing your own songs requires a certain sophistication (even if the song is simple) that comes from experience and a certain kind of education (not necessarilly schooled).

The quality of songwriting as an art in my opinion has degenerated. This is a subjective appraisal but when you look at the output of the writers from the era of the musical theater such as Rodgers, Hart, Berlin, Porter, Gershwin et. al. or from the Eliabethan art songs of Dowland and Campion, the standards for the quality of songwriting today are lower. One reason for this is that not enough time has gone by to determine which songs of all of them written today will stand the test of time and will be shown to have the artistry of the past "masters"

The folk song though prevails. I don't agree that a Barbara Allen is comparable to a 50's pop song because they are "oranges and apples". Barbara Allen is a folk song. The 50's marketable song is not (not to denegrate the 50's pop song, I love lots of them).

The distinction is important because it's not just about the performer who decides what he/she wants the audience to hear. It's about preserving the best elements of a historical and sociological culture and appreciating them in that context.

Frank Hamilton