The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #136607   Message #3124231
Posted By: Jim Carroll
29-Mar-11 - 01:46 PM
Thread Name: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition?
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition?
"For example, in my definition...."
Can we do that? We can certainly have opinions on what should be included, but for the sake of communication we agree to a documented dictionary defintion, otherwise we enter the world of "I believe potatoes are really fruit".
Not disagreeing with your point SS, in fact I too believe American Jazz should fall under the 'folk' umbrella, but once we make a UDI with the language we end up not talking to each other, which seems to be the position the club scene has reached at present - with the inevitable consequences.
I believe the definition is in much need of updating, and I really thought that this might happen when Dave Harker wrote 'Fakelore' until I read it and found that he'd thrown the baby out with the bathwater, with the bath!
The rest of your points - inclusivity, participation, concert, good/bad... etc... are really not anything to do with how we define the music, rather than we do with it and how we approach it on a personal level - I detest dates, but it doesn't stop them from being dates.
And bickering is only one of the less attractive ways of reaching an understanding.
Jim Carroll