From: weelittledrummer - PM
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 10:46 PM

"Moreover, I think that's why the folk revival stalled. They kicked out all the people of talent and they clung on to the conformists. You can give these people all the BBC2 sessions in the world - they will still not be able to come up with a memorable piece of music that impacts in the way Street of London, Blowing in the Wind or All Around My Hat did."

I agree with you in general, but I think "the folk revival", for lack of a better term, stalled for other reasons. One thing that really gets up my nose is when one says "I play folksongs" and the response is "Oh, Bob Dylan". No, not blooming Bob Dylan!

So-called folk music is just a category of popular music and it always was. In fact, I'm pretty sure that some folk songs and ballads derive from courtly songs, i.e., so-called "serious music". On the other hand, many of these probably derive from songs sung among "the folk", whoever they were. The closer one looks at it, the less sense these distinctions make.

It is also absurd to associate folk music particularly with the guitar. When these songs were really widespread among the folk (of course, most collecting only started when it was beginning to disappear), the guitar was not the typical instrument for playing folk music in most places. Of course, I'm over-simplifying a very complicated subject.

Of course, I speak as a guitar player and I will sing any song I choose with guitar accompaniment, whether it's authentic or not.

I don't get out much, so I don't know whether the folk scene is full of people opining about what folk is or not. However, I think much ink has been spilt on this subject, not least on Mudcat, and I'd be rather surprised if people didn't talk about it, too. After all, there's no one who can give an ultimate answer to what is folk and what's not*, so people can keep arguing about it forever and never come to a conclusion.

* Except me of course.