Snail:
"But Cecil Sharp can speak on behalf of Norfolk fishermen, Maud Karpeles on behalf of Gower farm labourers?"
The 1954 definition, from which most dictionary definitions are derived, was arrived at by the pooling of knowledge and experience of those working in the field. It reached far beyond the people present and took into consideration the work of people like Kidson, Broadwood, Vaughan Williams, Butterworth... (the articulators) all of whom had presumably gathered information from their informants. This would have been the case in the other countries represented. It was not an attempt to define the individual communities – fishing, mining etc.; rather it was an attempt to make sense of a world-wide phenomenon based on the information gathered by those working in the field.
If these people were not qualified to make an assessment – who would you suggest was more suited to the job? – or was anybody qualified? Was the job worth doing at all? If they got it wrong, where?
""Folk" had been in use for a long time before 1954...... exclusive use of the word that causes problems."
The relevant definition of folk as applied to music, tales, superstitions, art..... according to my dictionaries anyway is "occurring in, originating among, belonging to the common people. For full discussion of the term in this context, see Funk and Wagnall's 'Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend', under song, music, lore, customs tales dance....etc.
If that is correct – how does it fit in with your new re/non definition; if it isn't - why?
Howard:
"I think you must have been unlucky with the folk clubs you went to."
As I said, I finally stopped going to clubs when I came away not having heard a folk song, or anything that resembles one. Everything I learn about today's scene, including from discussions like these, convinces me that not only haven't things improved in this respect, but have, if anything, got worse – if that were possible. Not to say that there aren't clubs putting on the real stuff, just that my neighbour's hens have more teeth.....! That is why the clubs declined. In my experience the best of the clubs survived on the talents of their residents. Good guests were an added bonus.   
"the folk revival would still have embraced Bob Dylan, Ralph McTell etc"
You might well be right about Dylan – as he was thirty years ago. Eventually he dropped any connection with folk and his music drew more on pop – McTell never used, or pretended to use folk forms.
"you are wrong when you say that the idea of "folk" has not changed."
The persistent mantra that 'people' (what people?) have a different idea of folk music (I think Tom Bliss quoted the figure of 64 million) will never make it true unless you produce your examples. When I was working in the UK I would make a point of talking about my interest to the people I worked with (they often heard me singing at work). If I told people that it was 'traditional' you could almost see their eyes glaze over; if I said it was 'folk' there would be some recognition. (whoops – I appear to be repeating exactly what you said yourself – "If I told them "traditional music" I would have to explain what I meant.") I am not claiming that there was a complete understanding, but at least I had a toe-hold into a conversation. Now apparently, I am expected to abandon even that toe-hold in favour of...... what? If there is a 'broader meaning' what is it, and why should I accept it if is proposers are incapable of articulating it.
If anybody is really interested in the subject I can take any of 100 or so books off my shelf to help them understand, or I could give them the Caedmon, 'Folk Songs of Britain' series, or 'The Voice of The People' (wonderful name that!) both with examples and, clear explanatory notes. What could you give them; what does the word 'folk' signify in your definition?
When push comes to shove, why is all this important?
For a very basic start – when I buy something I want to know what I am getting – at a club or on an album; your non definition does not supply that information.
On a more mundane note – financing our habit!
Here in Ireland the music is on a roll at present (not so much the song – but even that is infinitely better that it appears to be in the UK).
In twenty years we have moved from it being the despised 'diddly-di' music to it being recognised as a significantly important art form. It can be viewed half a dozen times a week on television, both in session and concert form and in serious documentary programmes. We are at present in the middle of a series dealing with regional musical styles. There have been documentaries on performers such as Joe Heaney, Seamus Ennis, Luke Kelly, Pecker Dunn, Maggie Barry, Sarah Makem, Sarah Ann O'Neill..... and numerous others. Radio stations devote large chunks of their programming to playing and discussing the music most nights of the week. At the moment we are in the middle of being interviewed for a series of three radio programmes on the Travellers we recorded in London for the Irish equivalent of Classic FM.
Ireland has two magnificent archives, one at the Folklore Department, the other, The Irish Traditional Music Archive, in the centre of Dublin, which was originally opened by the then President of Ireland, then re-opened when it moved by the current Arts Minister. The latter is recognised as probably the best in Europe, and is of world class. Local archives are beginning to spring up all over the country – we have just purchased premises here in Miltown Malbay to house an archive, library and visitors centre devoted to Clare music, song and lore. The town continues to host an annual week-long school, now in its 34th year, dedicated to local piper, Willie Clancy and teaching all the traditional instruments. Young musicians who we remember as pupils in past years are now taking classes themselves, guaranteeing that the music will continue to be played by at least the next two generations.......
None of this is by any means perfect, but compared to what is happening in the UK, we've all died and gone to a very rich musical heaven!
This has been done by a handful of dedicated individuals who know exactly what they mean, are very clear about their objectives and have dedicated huge chunks of their time and energy into achieving those objectives. It certainly has not been achieved by people whingeing about 57 verse ballads, boring folk songs, fingers-in-ears, purists, folk-police, or any other epithets that seem to take up so much of many U.K. folkies time and energy.
Finally – (t. b. t. g.) – on a personal note.
As I said earlier, the term folk was chosen originally to denote material that "originating among, belonged to the common people".
I was once told by my teacher that all I needed to know when I left school was to "tot up my wages at the end of each week to make sure they were correct". I have gone through life being told that 'ordinary' people like me are incapable of producing great art.
My involvement with MacColl, and to a lesser degree, my contact with Lloyd not only provided me with wonderful entertainment and aroused my curiosity enough to prod me into finding out about this 'folk' stuff. It also gave me a great buzz when I realised that it was 'ordinary' people like me who gave us all the magnificent songs, music and stories – folk music says it all in a couple of words.
Sorry to have gone on at such great length – it's a big subject and I appear to be incapable of writing short letters.
Off to Youghal tomorrow for a couple of days, so we can all recuperate from my verbosity.
Jim Carroll