Folk vs Folk

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 05:23 AM

and I said I wasn't re-entering the debate!

Apologies to everyone else for the way Jim and I are monopolising this thread - I know I'm never going to get my view across to him, but some of the points he raises do require rebuttal or clarification if we're ever going to move towards a resolution on this (which I do believe we, as a group, must).

"General ignorance or deliberate misinterpretation" are terms that do not apply to the current use of the word 'folk' to describe a larder, rather than only one tin in it. They could perhaps have been applied at the time when the change was happening. But now the change has taken place, and the use of the word 'folk' by the majority of the English speaking world is, de facto, by force majeure, correct.

Because that's just how language works.

It is exactly the same as the way the most common meaning of the word 'gay' has changed. Or 'RnB' to use a more pertinent example.

Language means what the person using it means - NOT what it says in the dictionary.

Lexicographers play catch-up as the word meanings shift through common use. Some are quicker to re-define than others, and if you go look in the 21st century's most interactive equivalent of a dictionary - Wikipedia, you will see the 'larder' definition of the word 'folk' - not the 'tin' one. People who use the word like this are wrong in our terms, but completely right in theirs - and to accuse them of "general ignorance or deliberate misinterpretation" is technically, linguistically wrong, unhelpful and actually rather rude and inflammatory.

Jim, you are fighting a rearguard action in a battle that was lost 50 years ag.

Furthermore you are encouraging something which I believe from your other posts you actually don't want to encourage - helping to hide traditional music away. By failing to put up a sign that passers-by will understand, we are limiting our ability to promote and celebrate traditional music.

This phrase is telling: "Anyway, the 'folk' pool includes so few people, and the question arises so infrequently outside of that 'little circle of friends' (and enemies, if I am to take the title of this thread seriously) that it really is not an issue. It is not as if your 64 million people are banging on the door looking for a definition."

This is where you and I differ. We both want the world to be able to recognise the difference between proper 54 folk and the other tins in the wiki larder. There are umpteen reasons why this is important, which I think we agree on.

But you seem only interested in the existing 'little circle.' I believe the entire world should be part of this. I'm a pragmatist and an optimist. I believe in achieving things, and I want the UK (let's start with something relatively easy) to start to re-connect with its musical roots, I want purveyors of both wiki-folk and 54-folk to be more successful, I want the community activities around folk music to flourish, and I want to try to clear up the current mess over copyright - and some other stuff too.

And ALL of this requires that we have a different words for the tin of 54 folk and the larder door.

And if you want to communicate, you HAVE to use words as the OTHER guy understands them.

I'm not going to make ANY progress with iTunes, or HMV, or the gazillions of nu/wyrd/rock/shoegaze/retro/new-age-folk artists, or even Mike Harding if I tell them they are misusing the word folk, and must come up with a new word. (Luckily, PRS does not use 'folk' - I don't know about other bodies around the world).

I am going to make no progress whatsoever, even if I chain myself to the top of Big Ben and play a concertina with my knees.

But if our 'little pool' begins to use - in common parlance - the word 'trad' when they want to refer to the 54 definition, we have an achievable objective - specially as about 90% of that pool are already doing exactly that.

Though while there are still a few people pulling in the opposite direction, and making a big noise about it (which pisses off the people at the margins - the very people we want next to reach) - that task is made harder then it needs to be.

I don't want there to BE an outside world.

Just a world.

Do you see?

Tom

PS You might have noticed that, even though you keep mentioning it, I try to avoid mentioning my own music into these discussions - because it's the bigger debate that's important and I'm, unhelpfully bang in the middle of that difficult margin territory I referred to above round the edge of your 'little pool' (which is why I'm so tuned to the reactions of the other people I meet there).

However, for the record as there's no reason why you should know, I do sing and play a lot of trad (specially when working with Tom Napper), and my own songs are more closely connected with the tradition than many contemporary songwriters. I frequently make new songs from old, I borrow melodies and bits of melody, and words and phrases from traditional sources, and I almost exclusively write about real events in much the same way that the old ballad writers did. But I draw a BIG line between what I do and the tradition. I always explain what is trad and what isn't and why it matters - and while people are kind enough to suggest that some of my songs may, in time, enter the tradition I actually believe that is impossible, because the tradition that made the works that we call trad no longer exists. My songs may enter A tradition - which is cool, but not the same thing. So if anything I'm stricter about all this than most. It is only the LABLE I want to change, and that is for sound 'corporate' reasons.

I spent 25 years as a writer/producer/director and communications consultant (ok, spin doctor), working in, and with, TV, radio, and web providers involved with entertainment, marketing, advertising, training, HR and even government. I'm not coming to this in blue-eyed innocence.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:10 AM

Tom.
Now, after a wonderful afternoon of singing, where most people in the room appeared to be in no doubt what they meant fy folk song - where was I!
"but for me 'folk' won't work any more, because too many people think it means something else."
Sorry Tom, we can't seem to get past this stumbling block.
General ignorance or deliberate misinterpretation is no reason to abandon a definition which perfectly explains the meaning of a word. Anyway, the 'folk' pool includes so few people, and the question arises so infrequently outside of that 'little circle of friends' (and enemies, if I am to take the title of this thread seriously) that it really is not an issue. It is not as if your 64 million people are banging on the door looking for a definition.
If people really want to know, they will look in a dictionary - if we adopt your solution, will they be any wiser for having done that - a little like starting up a dry-ice machine in a London pea-souper I would have thought!
Thank you for your 'gay' analogy - it's perfect for what I'm talking about. Of course there are numerous meanings to some words and gay has come to mean homosexual (you might also add the one derived from Middle English which means dissolute or licentious). Nobody would I hope, suggest that all definitions of 'gay' refer to the same thing, nor would suggest that all homosexuals have or show a "merry, lively mood". While some of my gay friends fit this description, others I have met were right miserable bastards.
Your proposal for the inclusion of your music under 'folk' merges the existing definition with your non-definition, (nobody, yourself included, has produced one single defining feature of your music, apart from the fact that it wasn't sung by horses!) suggesting that it is all the same thing.
Even the term used by some dictionaries (incorrectly), 'modern folksong' - "those which have been created in the folk style", doesn't work as a general catch-all because, while some writers are writing in this manner, many 'modern' folksongs have as little to do with the real thing as Brecht, Schubert or Gilbert and Sullivan.
What you are proposing is not a re-definition, but an abandoning of the existing one because it has become meaningless and undefinable, which to me is cultural vandalism.
The fact that your music lacks, even defies definition, means that it has become a large and extremely anti-social cuckoo in the nest.
It has also led to the practice of others dumping their particular product, 'Music-Hall', Parlour Ballad, early pop-song et al into the 'folk' slot and has led to the present state of the clubs.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:28 AM

Well you see Jim I was not involved in folk music, by any definition, between about 77 and 95. In 77, when I decided to buy a plexiglass gibson and die my hair blue, people had been calling the likes of Cat Stevens and Al Stewart 'folk' for a long decade - since Dylan et al, or maybe their agents, had first blurred the word.

I only re-entered the scene properly in about 2000, at which point I noticed the records on the shelves labelled 'folk' in HMV, what Mike Harding played on 'Folk on Two,' what people were singing in 'folk' clubs, and what was being reviewed in 'folk' magazines. Hmm, I thought - the line's shifted even further west than it was in 77.

And it's moved even further since then.

I'm 100% behind the 54 definition - it describes something of enormous cultural importance (though I wish they'd added a clause to remind people that the oral tradition should always be seen in context with the written and, later, recorded systems). I want to UN-blur the line. So people are able easily to spot the 'trad ABV' in any modern interpretation, and so find their way back to the well.

Like you, I want to a unique label to go on this tin - but for me 'folk' won't work any more, because too many people think it means something else.

I'm trying to do the same thing as you, and for the very same reason. But I'm hacking my way out of a territory where David Grey and Robert Plant actually ARE 'folksingers.'

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 07:43 AM

Tom,
It actually began to have an adverse effect in the late through the 80s, when it brought the clubs crashing - not that long ago.
More later (I'm afraid) - off to a singing session.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 05:48 AM

I would not be debating here if I didn't care.

I hope you meant: "The misuse of the term CAME exclusively from within the folk music fraternity - deliberately and cynically so in most cases; any misconception outside arises from that fact."

Yes, and it happened long ago, or that list would be much much shorter.

Now we have a fait accompli - unfortunately.

"Then you have no case; your argument flies in the face of logic"

I'm not making an argument for this use being correct, because it's plainly not - it's wrong. I'm saying it's current - and if we want to be understood we have to work with that currency.

We still need to separate the 54 - even more so than in 54. But the word 'folk' is lost to us. if we maintain the definition intact, then we ARE doing EXACTLY what we both want to avoid. Coralling Mark Knopfler into the oral tradition!

It is to prevent this that I want to use a different word, which is still largely understood as something close to the 54.

You have never answered my analogy of the word 'Gay.'

Would you reserve this exclusively for "having or showing a merry, lively mood"?

Do you see any parallel?

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 05:15 AM

Tom,
Are you really suggesting that 64m people have the wrong idea about folk music - or even care? The misuse of the term come exclusively from within the folk music fraternity - deliberately and cynically so in most cases; any misconception outside arises from that fact.
"I don't think these IS a common feature"
Then you have no case; your argument flies in the face of logic.
"don't know how it happened - I wasn't there,"Yes you were/are, and very much a part of it; it continues to happen and it continues to damage - you appear to be prepared to condone that.
You have not addressed one of the problems caused by the misuse of the term. You don't strike me as someone who would shrug and say "tough titty", but that is how it is beginning to come across.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 04:39 AM

"what is the common feature which makes them 'folk'?'

Jim I have not the faintest, foggiest, fuzziest notion. I don't think these IS a common feature - just a vague consensus in the English speaking world that this sort of music is now called 'folk.'

And it's not MY list - it's the iTunes list - the world's leading download site, and therefore as good a snapshot of where we are on 02 06 08 as we'll get.

We can take it from this list that the fans of all those artists, in fact most people who have heard of them (apart from those of us who DO know what the word really means, of course!) would be comfortable using 'folk' to describe them.

As I've said many times (though you choose to ignore these parts of my posts), I don't know how it happened - I wasn't there, and I would NOT have condoned it if I'd seen it happening, because it's wrong, it's stupid, and it gives those of us who are trying to promote and develop both 54 folk AND WIki folk a massive headache.

But it HAS happened. A long time ago, now.

So now we have a choice:

Your way: Re-educate 64 million people who we can't reach and aren't interested anyway.

My way: Use the word 'trad' when referring to the 54 for now, and try to find something better asap.

Nothing to do with refining the 54.

I'm all washed out on this.

Anyone else got any ideas?

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 04:38 AM

This is like wandering into an Alice in Wonderland world. Traditional Folk music, handed down, unaccompanied, local, continues to exist on record and has a body of literature. It will lie low until people who want to go out for the evening prefer it to Streets of London. It still goes on in homes, round the odd pub fire that hasn't become a surf and turf eaterie and so on. 'Folk Clubs' were an artificial construct of the folk revival where young people could flirt to the sound of Scarborough Fair by someone who sounded vaguely like Art Garfunkel with the flu. They have never, to my knowledge, been a substitute for an authentic folk tradition.

I still say you can't hurt the music.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 04:21 AM

"But when talking to the wider world I must use terms that THEY understand. This is not misusing a word, it is choosing language that your interlocutor will understand. It's called communication."
If you are using the term incorrectly, for whatever reason, you are peddling misinformation.
I repeat, no matter how many times people refer to geneology it will continue to be wrong and by accepting it you are being patronising.
Going through your list (some of which I am familiar with, most I am not) what is the common feature which makes them 'folk'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,TB
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 04:08 AM

Sorry - important correction:

"Your comment above suggests that I'm condoning and contributing to this erosion."

should be

"Your comment above suggests that I'm condoning and contributing to this INVASION."

Guilty to the former, NOT guilty to the latter.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:58 AM

Jim my objection was not about the link or otherwise between financial backing and size of audience. I was referring to this; "Tom Bliss has admitted that the music he describes as 'folk' in no way fits the long-established and accepted definition, but follows this up with the somewhat feeble argument that he is justified in using the term because of its constant misuse."

I'm painfully aware of the dichotomy of definitions, and am supremely careful what I say in this matter. I've explained many times that I don't call my own music folk without some distancing or qualifying device. And when speaking to those in the know I use the terms 'folk and 'trad' as they are 'correctly' defined. But when talking to the wider world I must use terms that THEY understand. This is not misusing a word, it is choosing language that your interlocutor will understand. It's called communication.

There is no need to make any new definition, just accept that the common use of one of the words used in that definition has altered, and adjust our language accordingly.

You still - and I now accept will until you die - see the erosion/mutation of the meaning of word 'folk' as an invasion of the 54 definition. It is not. Your comment above suggests that I'm condoning and contributing to this erosion. I am not. I am using a word in the way it is understood by a huge majority in the 21st century, while remaining as passionate about celebrating the thing defined in 1954 as you are. We can only celebrate the 54 by making a definitive separation, so people can understand how it came to be, and thus why it is special, and therefore how we can use and enjoy it. But to do that we must use words as they understand them, and try to do so in ways that will open doors, not close them.

Tom

Jim, you mind is made up on this, but if anyone else still has doubts, here are the artists and tracks listed under 'Folk' on iTunes this morning. THIS is my starting point and the reason I struggle to find, and promote, a consensus.

Amy MacDonald        Mr Rock & Roll
Amy MacDonald        This Is The Life
Amy MacDonald        Poison Prince
Amy MacDonald        Run
Amy MacDonald        L.A.
Beirut        Nantes
Billy Bragg        A New England
Brandi Carlile        The Story
Buffy Sainte-Marie        The Big Ones Get Away
Cara Dillon & John Smith        If I Prove False
Cary Brothers        Blue Eyes
Damien Rice        Volcano
Damien Rice        The Blower's Daughter
Damien Rice        Cannonball
David Gray        Please Forgive Me
David Gray        Babylon
David Gray        This Year's Love
David Gray        Sail Away
David Gray        Say Hello, Wave Goodbye
Devendra Banhart        Little Yellow Spider
Don McLean        Vincent (Starry, Starry Night)
Donovan        Catch the Wind
The Dubliners        Seven Drunken Nights
The Dubliners        The Fields of Athenry
The Dubliners        The Wild Rover
The Dubliners        Whiskey In the Jar
Fionn Regan        Be Good or Be Gone
Gordon Lightfoot        If You Could Read My Mind
Harry J. All Stars        Liquidator
Isobel Campbell & Mark Lanegan        Come On Over (Turn Me On)
Janis Ian        At Seventeen
Joan Baez        The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down
Joanna Newsom        This Side of the Blue
John Denver        Rocky Mountain High
John Denver        Sunshine On My Shoulders
John Martyn        May You Never
Johnny Flynn        The Box
Johnny Flynn        The Ghost of O'Donahue
José González        Heartbeats
Judy Collins        Send in the Clowns
Judy Collins        Amazing Grace
Kate Rusby        Village Green Preservation Society
Kate Rusby        You Belong to Me
Kate Rusby        Underneath the Stars
Kate Rusby        Who Knows Where the Time Goes?
Kate Walsh        Your Song
Laura Marling        Ghosts
Leo Kottke        Vaseline Machine Gun
Leonard Cohen        Suzanne
Leonard Cohen        Hallelujah
Leonard Cohen        Dance Me to the End of Love
Lucky Jim        You're Lovely to Me
Mark Knopfler        Sailing to Philadelphia
Matthews Southern Comfort        Woodstock
Mikis Theodorakis        Horos Tou Zorba (I) / Zorba's Dance
Nick Drake        Northern Sky
Nick Drake        River Man
Noah and the Whale        2 Bodies 1 Heart
Pentangle        Light Flight
Peter, Paul And Mary        Leaving on a Jet Plane
Peter, Paul And Mary        Puff, the Magic Dragon
The Pipes & Drums of The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards        Highland Cathedral
The Pipes & Drums of The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards        Last of the Mohicans
Ralph McTell        Streets of London
Ray LaMontagne        Crazy (Single Version)
Ray LaMontagne        Trouble
Ray LaMontagne        Shelter
Ray LaMontagne        Hold You In My Arms
Robert Plant & Alison Krauss        Killing the Blues
Robert Plant & Alison Krauss        Gone, Gone, Gone (Done Moved On)
Robert Plant & Alison Krauss        Please Read the Letter
Sarah McLachlan        Full of Grace
Sharon Shannon        Galway Girl (With Mundy)
Sharon Shannon        Galway Girl (With Mundy) [Live Version]
Simon & Garfunkel        The Sound of Silence
Simon & Garfunkel        Homeward Bound
Simon & Garfunkel        Scarborough Fair/Canticle
Simon & Garfunkel        The 59th Street Bridge Song (Feelin' Groovy)
Simon & Garfunkel        A Hazy Shade of Winter
Simon & Garfunkel        Cecilia
Simon & Garfunkel        America
Simon & Garfunkel        April Come She Will
Simone White        The Beep Beep Song
Simone White        The Beep Beep Song
Soko        I'll Kill Her
Steeleye Span        Gaudete
Steve Earle & Sharon Shannon        Galway Girl
Tom Baxter        Better
Tom Baxter        Miracle
The Town Pants        Galway Girl
Vashti Bunyan        Diamond Day
The Weepies        World Spins Madly On
The Wurzels        I Am a Cider Drinker
The Wurzels        The Combine Harvester (Brand New Key)

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:29 AM

Tom
I do not automatically link talent and dedication with large audiences and financial backers - I took that to be what you were saying. If I have misunderstood you I apologise - it was not intentional.
For me, this thread has to be about definition, otherwise why should people involved in music be in competition with each other, as the thread title implies.
The suggestion that there are two distinct streams of 'folk', self penned and orally transmitted (simplification - sorry), is a nonsense, and will continue to be so until those involved in the former can produce a tangible reason for its inclusion in the term. That, to me, is an uncomplicated fact.
I believe that in the past, the parasitic nature of the former in attaching itself to the term has done enormous damage to the survival of the latter as a performance art. People simply stopped going to 'folk' clubs when they found that they could sit through a whole evening without hearing a folk song. I was one of those people.
In terms of how the music is viewed outside the folk scene; until we take ourselves seriously and be clear of what our aims are, folk music will continue to be the butt of media humour, fail to get air space, and continue to be overlooked when it comes to getting grants for peformance, archiving and research. Ask John Adams how difficult it is to keep C# House going on a shoestring budget.
We've discussed in the past the mixing of copyrighted and public domain material, which is now beginning to have an adverse effect on the very healthy Irish scene.
If we don't get our act together folk music will only continue to exist on library shelves.
That, for me, is the real meaning of 'Folk vs Folk'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 06:07 PM

Tom Bliss

seek to present hard-working low-earning artists as harlots

What are you on about? Nobody has ever suggested anything of the sort as far as I have seen.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 05:28 PM

I'm not going to re-enter the debate on the 54 definition. I accept that Jim can't begin to get his head round the point I'm making, which is fair enough and probably my fault because I've failed to find a way of expressing the difference between linguistic change and legalistic change. This is a shame because there's no doubt in my mind that this shift lies at the heart of many of the challenges faced by folk music today (accepting all definitions), and I really hope to make some progress on this here, but that's life.

One thing, though, Jim, if I may? Could I ask you not to try to express what it is you think I'm saying on this? Because you've missed my point by a country mile above. If you need to remind people what I've said, could you quote (or perhaps point to) my actual words? Thanks.

And of course there are many great singers and players about apart from Christy, but I think anyone taking an objective look at his career would say he'd more than earned his share. And you say, "Among many other factors, success can depend on having a good agent, knowing the right people and simply being in the right place at the right time." Well, maybe - but the 'other factors' are soon proved paramount. To last beyond 'the right time' you need them in abundance

Mark. Apology accepted, and may I apologise too? I just get so weary of reading posts here which not only fail to recognise, or seek to minimise, or deny, the influence of 'trade' music on the stuff we all enjoy hearing and doing, but worse, seek to present hard-working low-earning artists as harlots - often in terms can can wind up making folk enthusiasts, as a tribe, seem mean-spirited, 'hsibbons' (that's snobbish inverted, by the way), and frankly just ill-informed about what it takes - and means - to be 'successful.'

When I read you post I thought of The Demon Barbers last summer, doing a brilliant show at Cropredy before how many thousands, then jumping in the van to drive all the way to Dartmoor, to leap into a tiny stage and do another flawless performance that same night. They've worked damn hard to get to that level. They've taken big risks but compromised nothing, and they've brought many new lambs to the fold. Their success is 100% deserved - and i think that goes for the vast majority of the bigger names around today.

Maybe there's a handful of people who do fit your category, but I think we can safely ignore them, and I hope we will.

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 04:40 PM

As I said, doesn't fall within my definition or the established one, so it's a bit of a red herring to this discussion.
'As DS said, you can't hurt the music.'
Sorry - another bloody stupid statement.
Of course you can hurt the music - the influx of the 'make-it-up-as-you-go-alongs have decimated the clubs to the extent that the chance of hearing good folk-songs well sung has been severely lessened nowadays.
The present Irish success story has been floated on the basis of respect for and understanding of the music.
Doesn't it occur to you that the fact that a thread entitled 'Folk vs Folk' is taken seriously indicates that something is distinctly rotten in this particular State of Denmark.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Marc Bernier
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 04:39 PM

Good answer Don. Thank you. And thank you for your part in keeping alive the tradition. My initial comment again was a Quote of an insult I once through at someone I was angry with. I don't think I'm necessarily happy I repeated it a second time. In reality I'm no where near that narrow minded. I sing anything that makes me feel good or sometimes sad, any where folks want to listen, and some call it folk.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 03:41 PM

I certainly haven't made them up and the people who stated them seemed to do so with some authority. It would be a cheap shot to imply a folk Taliban but the list of interdictions make that organisation sound like a liberal drinking club. I suspect the intolerant nature of the exceptions are because folk people feel it under threat or that it isn't being properly recognised, neither of which are the case. As DS said, you can't hurt the music.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 03:30 PM

Glueman,
Sorry, we crossed postings.
Don't know where your list of don't came from but none of them are covered in the definition, and certainly never mentioned by me.
We don't accept any definition if it doesn't make sense - nor do we reject an existing and established definition because it is personally inconvenient.
As I understand it, the established definition was drawn up by people working in the subject; basically by those who supplied us with the raw material in the first place.
A fair stab at an analysis was made by Sharp in 'English Folk Songs; Some Conclusions' and followed up by Bert Lloyd's 'Folk Song in England'. There are several hundred other books on the subject which can be taken into consideration.
Be glad to hear any specific problems you have with the definition as it stands, or any of the written work on the subjects.
My own personal experience of thirty years collecting leads me to believe that they got it more or less right - with some minor quibbles.
Do you a deal; Ill show you mine if you show me yours - research, that is!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 02:57 PM

Congratulations Gene:

"Jim Carroll you have no understanding of semantics or of the ideological components inherent in the use of language."
Sorry, meant to say it may be true that my understanding of semantics is somewhat lacking, but not quite enough for me to suggest that it is necessary to know who defined a word before I accept that definition.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 02:56 PM

So folk was not defined by people but given entire in a Moses/Tablets deal? And if it was set down by people they had to have a) the authority to do so b) a full understanding of the past and future potential of the form and it's modes of adoption c) a comprehension of national and international perspectives on that form and its roots.

In the last month I've heard folk isn't folk if it's on stage, harmonised, polyphonic, electric, sung through a mic, written by a known person, written in the recent past, sung by anyone attractive, performed by anyone young, performed by anyone who has a formal degree in the subject, performed with any notion of professionalism up to and including strict tempos or note specificity, sung in an accent not particular to the singer and song, etc, etc, etc. Why am I beginning to see Rambling Syd Rumpo? I don't like introspective young people singing American Pie either but that still leaves a lot of room for inclusion.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Gene Burton
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 02:37 PM

100

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 02:33 PM

All of what you say may well be true.
Simple solution - define what you mean by 'folk song'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,wigwambam
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 02:11 PM

Jim Carroll you have no understanding of semantics or of the ideological components inherent in the use of language.

You come up with some quite startling bilge.

'Misuse is ignorance, deliberate misuse is wilful ignorance.'

Deliberate misuse can often be propaganda which I suspect is what youre iup to on this site.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 02:04 PM

I think it does matter, Jim. A definition defines, but like history written by the winners, "whose" definition informs the acceptability of the definition, for better or for worse. I think we are witnessing the tyres of some of the old definitions being kicked.
(just give me the metaphor, I'll mix it in).

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 01:35 PM

"but it's who sets the definition that matters."
Utter bloody nonsense - what does it matter who defines anything, from folk music to Brussels sprouts. What matters is whether it defines the subject adequately, which it does absolutely.
The definition of the word 'folk' has been in existence and internationally recognised for over a century and a half; it has been applied to music and internationally recognised for over half a century.
If somebody asked me what folk music was I would point to that definition, then to the hundreds of books on the subject (many of them bearing the word 'folk' in their titles), then to the recorded examples - where would you lot point them to?
Tom Bliss has admitted that the music he describes as 'folk' in no way fits the long-established and accepted definition, but follows this up with the somewhat feeble argument that he is justified in using the term because of its constant misuse.
Sorry folks, folk will remain folk as defined until smebody gets off their arse and redefines it.
Misuse is ignorance, deliberate misuse is wilful ignorance.
Despite constant mis-usage genealogy will remain never be an 'ology'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 31 May 08 - 04:58 PM

Agreed.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Def Shepard
Date: 31 May 08 - 04:54 PM

exactly, wigwambam
the music itself is above any definition. I believe it was Dave Swarbrick who said "You can't hurt the music" and I'll add by saying put all the definitions you want on the music,you can define until the cows come home , but you can't hurt the music.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,wigwambam
Date: 31 May 08 - 04:42 PM

'A definition isn't imposed - it defines.'

but it's who sets the definition that matters.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 31 May 08 - 04:20 PM

Quite so DS. To take Jim's point a definition needs a definer, and folk appears highly resistent to packaging and labels - which may be its defining characteristic! Not to mention the thing that gives it longeivity.
Anyway, I've yet to see a definition from a credible source that covers all the bases but the search is a fascinating one.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Def Shepard
Date: 31 May 08 - 04:01 PM

JC said "If it is wrong or inadequate, simple - give us an alternative one - won't hold my breath though.

I don't believe that giving "us" (who's us?) a new definition was glueman's intention, he merely said that he found the endless definitions usful.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 May 08 - 03:50 PM

Referring to Marc Bernier's post above (30 May 08 - 09:08 a.m.), I'm afraid he is the victim of some kind of stereotyped thinking.

On a balmy summer evening in 1963, I sang several folk songs and ballads to a crowd of some 6,000 people (police crowd estimate) gathered on the large lawn/amphitheater in front of the Horiuchi mural at the Seattle Center on the occasion of one of the Wednesday evening Seattle Center Hootenannies. Most of the songs I sang that evening I had been singing for several years, but whether or not my renditions were "beautiful" I will leave for others to say. I was accompanying myself on a classical guitar, hand made in Madrid, that I had paid something like $350 for (I would probably have to pay ten times that for the same guitar now). I was not singing complex vocal arrangements since I was singing solos, and the only polyphony involved was that I usually work out accompaniments in which, instead of merely strumming, I play specific strings or combinations of strings intended to harmonize with the melody.

I was one of about a dozen performers that evening, some performing solo, some in groups. As to having large amounts of money behind us, I believe we did have the resources of—what was it? The Seattle Parks Department? I'm not sure. They were trying to provide attractions for the general public to encourage them to make use of the relatively new facilities at the Seattle Center (a legacy from the Seattle World's Fair the previous year), and we were asked to perform because we were all fairly well-known singers of folk songs in the area. As to being paid vast quantities of money (on the order of, say, the Rolling Stones), if I remember correctly, we were each paid $25 per performance.

I believe that if anyone in that audience became interested enough in folk music to want to learn to sing and play folk songs (and although we weren't paid a great deal for these performances, I usually gained a guitar student or two almost every time I did one), then we were not just "making money," we were helping to keep alive the folk tradition.

Folk songs do not need to be confined to the kitchen, the fo'c'sle, the front porch of a cabin in the Ozarks, or sung at the rump of a mule while plowing the south forty for then to still be folk songs.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 08 - 03:45 PM

"At the very least they reveal folk won't be proscribed by any group or individual who seek to impose a definition."
A definition isn't imposed - it defines.
If it is wrong or inadequate, simple - give us an alternative one - won't hold my breath though.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Def Shepard
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:48 PM

glueman said, At the very least they reveal folk won't be proscribed by any group or individual who seek to impose a definition.

Not for want of trying, as I've seen and heard many times in my life

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:41 PM

Can I say I think these endless definitions of what folk music is are quite useful? At the very least they reveal folk won't be proscribed by any group or individual who seek to impose a definition, which is off itself an extremely folkish response to authority. Even authority which claims it is a grass roots one abandons all credibility. Which is all very heartwarming.
As you were.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:33 PM

Isn't all music 'music for folk' in the loosest definition of the term?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,aeola2
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:04 PM

I'm not in favour of '' folk music'' but rather '' music for folk''. However I will place some of the comments in my prosopgraphy.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Marc Bernier
Date: 31 May 08 - 07:11 AM

Tom; I know who I was trying to insult when I initially made the comment, probably ten years ago now. It worked. My apologies if I got you going with my post, but I started my post explaining it was an insult. I'm not going to give anymore details on a public forum because That would dig up issues that are not necessarily current. However at the time my comment was not very far of base, though it was meant to offend.

Cheers

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 08 - 06:30 AM

Sorry,
Finger slipped; should read Tom
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 08 - 06:29 AM

om,
Sorry 'sme again.
Your earlier statement implies that 'success' depends on talent, which is patently not the case.
There really are too many imponderables to support such an idea.
In Ireland at present undoubtedly the most popular performer is Christie Moore who can command a 6,000 audience, yet, off the top of my head I can name you dozens of performers who are far more talented, hard working, tenacious, sacrificing, passionate and loving about the music.
Among many other factors, success can depend on having a good agent, knowing the right people and simply being in the right place at the right time.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 31 May 08 - 12:59 AM

I'm sorry, but you don't get a a lot of money behind you if you're not good enough (and you probably are if you 'spend a year rehearsing a beautiful and complicated vocal arrangement complete with poly-phonics'). Saying it's just about money merely comes over like sour grapes and does none of us any favours.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Marc Bernier
Date: 30 May 08 - 09:10 PM

"Getting to the point where you can play to 6,000 people takes a MASSIVE amount of talent,"

Or someone with alot of money behind you.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 May 08 - 07:20 PM

Don, was it Carl Sandburg who first called himself in concert a "Folksinger"? (Circa 1920's when "American Songbag"..my bible came out).   Yeah, that German guy did call it "volkslied" didn't he?

Frank

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 May 08 - 07:16 PM

Jassplayer, I think a real "worksong" is one in which you can transport a string bass over your head and play "Big Noise From Winetka" with drumsticks at the same time.

Or you could pull it along with it containing Joe Venuti cement.

"They" didn't call him "slow-drag" Pavageaux for nothing.

You know, the proverbial "they".

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego
Date: 30 May 08 - 06:53 PM

It may not be scholarly,
It may not be totally accurate,
It may not be politically correct,
And it may not please many; but, I'll say what my old pappy once said: "I'll know it when I hear it."

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 30 May 08 - 06:42 PM

"To take a 150 year old song or chanty, spend a year rehearsing a beautiful and complicated vocal arrangement complete with poly-phonics, and present it in a concert hall for 6,000 people while playing $5,000 hand made guitars, is not really keeping alive any folk tradition. It's just making money, not unlike the Rolling Stones."

It may not be about keeping alive any tradition, but it's not just about making money.

It's about making music - which is a wonderful, joyous thing to do - on your own, with 5 friends, in a small theatre, in a stadium - wherever.

There is nothing wrong with performance art, and artists are entitled to whatever they can earn.

Getting to the point where you can play to 6,000 people takes a MASSIVE amount of talent, hard work, tenacity, sacrifice, effort, passion and love.

6,000 people will not come unless you're bloody good.

It depresses me utterly to see posts like this.

Big acts do no damage to the tradition at all. They have nothing to do with it.

But petty sniping certainly does, because it makes people who love folk music look like...

(supply own word)

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Deckman
Date: 30 May 08 - 09:29 AM

After reading Don Firth's (and others) adroit posting, I was going to add something brilliant, but my tongue got twisted up in my eye teeth and I couldn't see what I was saying! Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 30 May 08 - 09:23 AM

Some great treatments of old songs there Sedayne, I could listen to that stuff weaving its magic all day. Horrible when words fall into the pit, as they've done on more than one occassion here, a complete bastard. I agree with Marc's point too but maybe less strongly, re-cycling doesn't have to end with Sting, Paul Simon or (is there a pit deep enough?) the Swingle Singers.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Marc Bernier
Date: 30 May 08 - 09:08 AM

Oh, this has been such an enjoyable read. Thank you. However for my own 2 cents, I once managed to offend the group of people I was trying to with the following statement. A folk tradition ceases to be when you remove it from the kitchen, or Fo'c'sle, and put it on stage. It the becomes performance art. To take a 150 year old song or chanty, spend a year rehearsing a beautiful and complicated vocal arrangement complete with poly-phonics, and present it in a concert hall for 6,000 people while playing $5,000 hand made guitars, is not really keeping alive any folk tradition. It's just making money, not unlike the Rolling Stones.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 May 08 - 08:23 AM

Sorry there, Glueman - just lost my entire reply! It was a good one too. All that remains is the link to The Max Hunter Folk Song Collection & a quote from Mark E. Smith, or rather a non-quote as without the rest of it wouldn't make any sense.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 30 May 08 - 07:44 AM

You touch on some important points. If folk is your link to permanence, lineage, the transcendent it's fulfiling a vital role. Where I part with many is that, like creationists who see only dragons in the fossil record, I fail to see any historical strata as being more 'real' than now. I can hear echoes back in folk but they're my soundings.

Fantasy is much under appreciated in this country. Peter Woodcock in his book 'This Enchanted Isle' maps British visionaries against the onslaught of (for example) CIA funded Abstract Expressionism which sought to quell the Commie undertones of romanticism with its shamanistic belief in barbed nature and I'd argue we're still under the thrall of tattooed nation 'realism' in TV and film which is no mirror to England I'd recognise or acknowledge. It's a top down hegemony that only looks like it's bottom up folk work.

The important thing is that the Imagined Village contains imagination and it isn't a wobbly line of spurious deduction and cod proofs. I trust my imagination to feed back what's 'right' without pecking orders or informed mediation.