The idea that the early days in Greenwich Village was uncontrolled was written
by someone who wasn't there. Pete had some influence of course, but much of
Washington Square was populated by all kinds of folk performers who came from different interests such as Woody or Leadbelly or folk pop groups. The so-called newcomers were not much different than the general folk enthusiasts and many of them were not scruffy and some emulated the Weavers and the K.T. Two important figures not included in this journalists appraisal were Israel (Izzy) Young and equally important, Irwin Silber, the first managing editor of Sing Out! magazine.

Dylan took the show biz persona of Woody, never learning to play the harmonica as well as Woody and had a different intent, that of being a star, which Woody never had. Woody was also a political activist (Socialist) which neither Dylan, or Jack Elliott was. There was a snide attitude on the part of journalists in those days that thought that folkies were either communists or "scruffy" but there were all kinds of enthusiasts in those days, not limited to the condescending labels given by the press or the writer of this article.

1967 was not the year that the folk movement resonated in Greenwich Village. That would have been more like 1954-1963 or so.

The notion that there are "purists" in folk music is false because no aspect of folk music is pure. There were those, myself included, that thought the overt commerciality of music was bogus and that had nothing to do with "purity".

Al Grossman, Dylan's manager was a entrepreneurial businessman who had studied economics at U. of Chicago and saw that he could make a lot of money on the folk "boom" which he did. He had a legendary wrestling match with Alan Lomax at one of the Newport Festivals over Dylan's use of the Paul Butterfield Blues band as a backup.

Ochs might have been branded as a "journalist" rather than folksinger by Dylan,
but Dylan was no "folksinger". He was a singer/songwriter who wanted to cash in on the current folk "boom" and aspired more toward Elvis than Woody.

The idea that "Court and Spark" is related to folk music is silly. Joni Mitchell, an obvious talent as a songwriter was far too musically sophisticated to be in the folk realm although she may be humbled by the appearance of Esperanza Spalding who actually did what Joni sought out to do, jazz and contemporary songwriting.

As for nervous laughter at "What a Friend We Have In Congress", I don't buy that and nobody's laughing now.

There is a wide difference between Seeger in the Sixties and today at least politically because he finally recognized that Stalin was not the hero of the left that he was earlier during naive times. Pete even thinks that Gorbachev is just an apparatchik. Pete has done a 180 regarding Soviet Republic. Pete's even quoting the bible, these days.

Pete was in fact, contrary to what this journalist has said, attempting a musical revolution and for the most part, I think he succeeded in many ways. If it wasn't for Pete and Alan Lomax, there never would have been a Dylan or a plethora of singer/songwriters cashing in.

As to the idea of "restlessness", this is a Seeger hallmark. It was his restlessness that kept him at it in the face of repressive political elements, not being content to be anyone's "star" but at the forefront of a cultural revolution in music.

I think that the contrast between Ochs, (not with us anymore) and Seeger, (very much alive and in the hearts of many of his acolytes, myself included) shows the motivation for each of their performing reasons.

Pete was responsible for promoting Leadbelly, Woody Guthrie, Sonny Terry, Odetta and so many others and refused, (ala Woody) to give in to the demands of the music industry (which is rightfully suffering now) and to blaze a trail for those of us who really care about content in our songs and the preservation of the folk process.