Folkus suibhneastrayus

Thing is, if Folkies want to abide by the 1954 Definition, if they find it helpful to do so, then that makes sense as long as they remain aware that all music can be defined similarly, bar none. Whilst this does not make all music Folk Music, it does mean that all music (and all human action, creative or otherwise) is rooted in what went before it (ad infitum) and is the consequence of cultural process, adaptation, change and continuity. A song - any song - is sung as a unique event in space and time, mutable according to a myriad factors which are themselves dependent on the occasion and the history of the community to which the singer belongs. That said, the impression I get from Sharps seminal encounter is that John England was singing his Seeds of Love alone as he went about his business; viridis digitus.

Folk might be seen a long running Fad integral to the 20th Century Zeitgeist. Whilst it speaks of Change, it is a reactive consequence to the modern era of Hyper Change, a seeking for the comforts of an imaginary unchanging past, bucolic, cultural, personal, traditional, and always perceived as beneficial to the believer. Maybe this is why Folk engenders the AOR / MOR safety zones and Mudcatters still fear rap music which is fair enough - we are mostly talking of an ageing demographic here: I myself will be fifty in August this year and can still count myself amongst the youngest in the room (and on the forum).

One can't become a Folkie without taking on a small amount (at least) of the academic mantle. Who doesn't love the enduring & erudite posts of the late Malcolm Douglas? Or else revel in the nitty gritty of hand-on research occaisionally detailed by the likes of Brian Peters and Jim Carroll et al? I know I do. As a lover & singer of Traditional Folk Song I'm seduced into the exploration of Source and Provenance espite being aware the shortcomings of Folk as a methodology. Thus I might question the usefulness of the 1954 Definition as a tool, and be wary of it as an article of a very particular (and at times very orthodox) faith, which is, I suppose, only natural too.

The very nature of the Folk Revival is, ironically, compounded by its own Folklore as objectvity remains as elusive as ever it was, much less any clear idea as to nature of the beast itself. Part science, part religion, part ritual cult, where the beautifully ironic inclusivity of The Horse Definition is routinely sneered by those who feel they are somehow In the Know. In its place we have the 1954 Definition, which basically tells us the samething as The Horse Definition, although to the Faithful, it's telling them just how different their music is from other musics. All music is different; all music is the same; all music is Traditional; all music is Human; all Humans are Folks; all human music is the consequence of community...

These days, with respect of What is Folk? then we can draw a few lines in the sand and feel quite safe therein, although nothing exists in isolation. It never did either as a look at the repertoirs of the Traditional Singers will reveal.

[Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn2UTXDIDCA]

My own feeling is that anything sung by Folkies is, by default, Folk Music, especially if done so in the name of Folk in a Designated Folk Context. This is the stuff of Folklore - places, rites, rituals and occasions. Like - what happens on Cooper's Hill the rest of the year? And those bars and hotel lounges that are stuffed to Folk Overflow during festival time - what becomes of them? Folk is thus both Mutuable and Repetitious; it is the concensus of a community who by their very impermanance are perhaps forced into a more ordered conservatism than most (though I would argue that they're not alone in this). Maybe this is why a recording of the Spinners doing Whip Jamboree from 1964 sounds little different from how you might hear it done (with gusto) in any one of a thousand Folk Clubs today. Tradition? or ritual? Either way, you'll find me at the bar.

This then, is the essense of Folkus suibhneastrayus, it is that of the Godless Theologian who nevertheless believes unreservedly in Human Divinity and the Kiplingesque dictum of The People, Lord, Thy People in respect of an all inclusive music (bar none) which might never be defined to the satisfaction of all BUT we all know it when we hear it which I suppose is the main thing.