 sj |
||
|
||
Folk vs Folk
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jack Blandiver Date: 30 May 08 - 06:53 AM Folk is a place I go to sometimes for any number of reasons, but ultimately I go there to forget about me and the world which I inhabit, though there is nothing wrong with the world I inhabit, just that it's a very different to the folk world, which is, ironically perhaps, my own imagined village. Folk is home; folk is family, belonging, community; folk is where I came from , but it's not what I am, or where I am, or even who I am, but it's an essential part of all these things. Folk is a continuity of a process, at least perceived, wherein at least the notion of The Tradition becomes possible, wherein we might glimpse something wondrous & truly sublime and become part of that experience however so briefly. Folk empowers that notion, which, to me, is essential to the well-being of my human soul. Folk is the past within us, some of us at any rate, within me certainly, which informs my beggarly place in the overall scheme of things - woolly jumpers, dreary monologues, hands-off proprietorial nonsense and all. Folk is big enough, and small enough, for it all. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: glueman Date: 29 May 08 - 03:27 PM Instinctively I'm drawn to period music because it reveals things, often between the lines, about the people who made it. Folk music is worth preserving for those reasons, though it's not uniformly 'good' and I stand behind the judgement of modern sensibilities in being able to tell the difference. I can see why an Alfred Wallis maritime painting, an authentically naive but informed work attracts high price tags and can appreciate folk music that comes from a similar well spring, unsullied by the influence of more diffused minds. Like say, architecture, it has to be recognised that music is not a pure phenomenon but a palimpsest of tastes. Once those tastes are added to the original intention is occluded, we accept them as an artifact that arrived with us at a moment in time like we might take a strata of subsoil that contains C19th stuff knowing deeper earth may contain medieval, anglo-saxon, roman or prehistoric pieces. It's important to recognise that what we seek to preserve is also an act of taste, of connouiseurship and like despised Victorian buildings in the sixties, taste is fleeting. So is the answer to preserve everything? Probably, but in the knowledge that doing so will only tell us about taxonomy. I don't believe Tam Lin was under threat because Sandy Denny performed it through a mic with an electric band, if anything it spread the song to another audience who may have been moved to discover more about the song or folklore generally. There are enough collectors about to set in stone, or whatever virtual rock Wikipedia consists of, traditional songs and the songs themselves are robust enough to weather whatever interpretations a contemporary player may lend them. Imo, we're more likely to kill folk with kindness, to put newcomers off by presenting it purely as a historical re-enactment, than we are to let the song's robustness be tempered by new attitudes. On Santa's last point, you may exhibit peculiarly liberal attitudes to folk music but rest assured many do see it as a hotline to some musical mother lode and believe it was a common currency rather than a fascinating branch line of popular culture. On Sedayne's point it's unfortunate that folk trades on its anachronistic qualities, much as I might appreciate them, because like patriotism it can be a quirk that negates further discussion, and there are a fair few on Mudcat who'd like to keep it between the boys (though not you Sedayne from what I've read) or want to restrict it, and debate of it, to accolytes and an agreeable elite. In the end folk's unique selling point will preserve it despite the woolly jumpers, dreary monologues and hands-off proprietorial nonsense. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jack Blandiver Date: 29 May 08 - 11:55 AM I'm with Santa on that one. This from my own Myspace blog, if I please: We lovers of traditional song are not so much the keepers of a tradition, rather the volunteer curators of a museum, entrusted with the preservation of a few precious, priceless and irreplaceable artefacts: hand-crafted tools we no longer know the names of (let alone what they were actually used for) ; hideous masks of woven cornstalks (which are invariably assumed to be pagan) ; and hoary cases of singular taxidermy wherein beasts long extinct are depicted in a natural habitat long since vanished. Not only is such a museum a beacon for the naturally curious, it's a treasure in and of itself, an anachronism in age of instant (and invariable soulless) gratification, and as such under constant threat by those who want to see it revamped; cleaned up with computerised displays and interactive exhibits and brought into line with the rest of commodified cultural presently on offer. But not only is this museum is our collective Pit-Rivers, it is a museum which, in itself, is just as much an artefact of a long-vanished era as the objects it contains. It is delicate, and crumbling, but those who truly love it wouldn't have it any other way - and quite rightly so. A tad polemical I admit, but it is something I am rather passionate about. For the rest it have a look at: The Lieg, The Lief, and the Traditional Folk Song. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Santa Date: 29 May 08 - 11:46 AM I don't think I know anyone who believes songs rose unbidden from the ooze. (Booze, maybe.) So your first premise is lost. That they were altered and improved by anonymous contributors en-route to the current day, perhaps some will admit to that, although the "Folk Process" seems to be used in about the same circumstances as the "Folk Police", with only slightly better credibility. I entirely agree that knowing the authorship would not add anything to the quality of a song, in musical terms. It may however have some effect on the historic value of the words. Nah, I can appreciate the stuff without knowing how common it was, or wasn't, so your last premise falls flat too. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: glueman Date: 29 May 08 - 08:31 AM There's a dose of self-delusion at the heart of folk music, namely that certain songs rose from the ooze, an aggregate of human consciousness and language which is an index of their value, whereas other pieces are merely the work of professionals handy with a catchy tune and a pithy lyric. Once that chunk of dubious objectivity is seen for what it is, that Anon is no better than Nina, that money or lack of wherewithal don't inscribe themselves into a tune beyond the listeners own recognition baggage, the important aspects of Folk music Pop or Bob to the surface. If every unattributed tune were suddenly named in a wizardly bit of academic research, like Jesus's bones being found in the desert, the space they occupy would be no less important for nailing their authorship. If an appreciation of Folk lies in wilful ignorance of the facts - that folk was probably always a specialist not a common taste - better that something else fills the gap. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jack Blandiver Date: 29 May 08 - 08:18 AM How could I have overlooked Ron in the Best Folk Song Writer thread? Just sorted it anyway! |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Santa Date: 29 May 08 - 07:54 AM Then I apologise for extending it, but I think you've raised the point of the music "permeating the culture". I rather doubt it ever did. Were the songs more widespread, why did collectors have to go to some much trouble to find them, and why are so few examples known of many? I don't believe singing, or music, has ever "permeated the culture" beyond hymns in church (or their equivalent!), national anthems and marches, plus something to entertain the crowd at events such as weddings. Obviously it is tempting for singers and musicians to feel that their enthusiasm has (or had!) great widespread support, but it seems much more likely to have been a genre activity. A "good thing" yes, absorbing for those involved, entertaining for those just passing. But a minority interest. The songs would pass on withing the genre, and those in other minority interests just wouldn't notice it. You'd be amazed (or perhaps not) how many aircraft modellers never stick their head in a model railway show! As a resident Fylde folkie, it has been my good fortune (OK, small bragging rights!) to be aware of Ron's collection, and the work done by Ross and Ron together. What is delightful is to see this work achieve a wider audience, and what the responses have been. Time to take another look, perhaps, so thanks for the reminder. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 May 08 - 06:09 PM The two concepts of folk on the back stoop on folk on the concert stage have crossed over to make the distinction fuzzy Even fuzzier actually; the distinction was between folkies and actual folk (i.e. wider humanity) who couldn't give a toss about folk music in any shape or form. Therefore, if folk is such a minority interest, representing the interests of what remains an specialised elite, how can it justifiably be called folk music? As has been said elsewhere, you can go for a lot of years in the real world without meeting another folkie... I'm not saying any of this matters, it was just a notion for a spoof thread which has long outlived it's usefulness. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: GUEST Date: 28 May 08 - 05:14 PM This question sounds like Clinton's parsing of what "is, is". (Or whatever reference to Monica's offering) The two concepts of folk on the back stoop on folk on the concert stage have crossed over to make the distinction fuzzy. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 May 08 - 01:59 PM If he was an isolated case, Santa, then I'd be more inclined to agree, but the same thing is coming up again & again - and Jimmy was in no way church or temperance orientated! I don't doubt the songs existed, I just question that they (and so-called folk songs in general) permeated the culture to the extent we've been led / misled to believe, very often by those with a particular political agenda, such as Bert Lloyd, who as it has been shown, wasn't above falsifying his findings. Interesting you mention Cyril Tawney's navy songs; have you seen Ross Campbell's PermaThread: Mechant Navy Songs which gathers together the songs Ron Baxter collected when he was in the merchant Navy. Makes for fascinating reading! |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Santa Date: 28 May 08 - 12:24 PM Sedayne: I think you are at risk of reading too much into your contact who didn't recognise certain songs. Johnny Handle was a miner, as was Jack Elliot, and they clearly did know those songs. There would be many miners with no interest or knowledge of "folk" songs. Those whose life was centred on the church, for example. Temperance followers would not know songs which were sung in drinking centres. So some people know the old songs, many don't. I'm sure that was every bit as true when this old hat was the latest fashion. Cyril Tawney has something similar to say about songs in the navy. Where, when, and how they were sung. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jack Blandiver Date: 28 May 08 - 09:20 AM I'd just like to confess that for the purposes of this thread I was GUEST, The Observer; fully intending a light-hearted parody of the other GUEST, The Observer threads but unwittingly realising something with substance! If I'd been more observant I'd have noticed that in genuine GUEST, The Observer threads it's v rather than vs, but otherwise a good thread all in all. So then, to what extent, if any, is Folk Music the music of an actual Folk other than folkie Folk, whose actuality is compromised by their adoption of objectivist methodology entirely at odds with the subjectivist criteria of actual Folk, thusly perceived? Well, as is becoming clear from this & other threads, not to any great extent at all really! Does this matter? Not to me it doesn't, although I'm still losing sleep over as to how long I can go on calling it Folk Music! |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: maire-aine Date: 14 May 08 - 12:12 PM How much folk can a folk musician folk, if a folk musician could folk folk? |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 14 May 08 - 12:04 PM "If you can name the author/composer of the song, it ain't folk." Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong etc., etc. I know Jim Carroll got there first - but I had to say it as well! The statement above (the one in quotes) is just plain wrong!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: M.Ted Date: 14 May 08 - 10:12 AM The "ineluctable" business is a frequently noted quote from the beginning of the third chapter of Joyce's "Ulysses"--the full phrase is "The ineluctable modality of the visible", and it is relevant here because the protagonist is reflecting on what is real and what is only appearance--which is the issue that is of concern to the first poster in this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Folknacious Date: 14 May 08 - 09:48 AM Ob? Surely that should be N# |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 14 May 08 - 09:06 AM (H)um..?.."Spencer the Rover" (E. trad.), Jassplayer?! |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jassplayer Date: 14 May 08 - 08:59 AM I'd like to be a rural peasant, but I can't afford the property taxes or the commute. Do the inane things I hum to myself while trying to ignore ill-mannered drivers count as "work songs?" |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jack Blandiver Date: 14 May 08 - 08:58 AM These old cigar-box fiddles turn up in junk shops all the time North-East junk shops that is; I wonder, has anyone else seen them in other parts of the country? |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jassplayer Date: 14 May 08 - 08:54 AM |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jack Blandiver Date: 14 May 08 - 08:51 AM Makes perfect sense to me, although I'm not so sure about its capacity to speak to the mass consciousness, nor yet its historical relevance and integrity, but otherwise... These old cigar-box fiddles turn up in junk shops all the time, single string, long necks, very often fretted, at least marked, obviously played la gamba style. As for a revival, I'd have to find three other like-minded souls to participate! |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: mattkeen Date: 14 May 08 - 08:31 AM QUOTE: Guest, freda people "Folk Music comprises that which is felt, perceived and held together by a tradition, dogma or identifiable pattern, recognised as evoking understanding, raising awareness or challeging preconceptions of a social, perceptual or historic nature through musical method. While it may be deemed subjective by some, its capacity to speak to the mass consciousness demonstrates that it is in fact an objective medium which has demonstrated its own historical relevance and integrity." Oh thats nice a snappy then |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 14 May 08 - 08:25 AM I'd like to hear something from that cigar-box-fiddle genre, Sedayne - it may be a good one for the likes of yourself to resurrect...I never said that what we now term "English traditional folk music" was the only genre I've ever enjoyed. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jack Blandiver Date: 14 May 08 - 07:52 AM Some fifteen years or so back, I was fortunate to meet with a octogenarian singer and ex-miner who'd lived all his life in the Durham Coalfield. He was highly entertaining on various subjects, and told me all about the cigar-box fiddles they used to make & play in 4 part harmony. However, when I asked him about Folk Songs, he didn't know what I was talking about. I sang him snatches of The Collier's Rant and The Blackleg Miner but he'd never heard of them, nor of anything like them, which gave me significant pause for thought. Of course this is just one person, but one steeped in over 80 years of mining history & culture, active socially and politically throughout, so when one hears of Ewan McColl & Bert Lloyd giving concerts of folk songs in the WMC at Tow Law to the baffled locals, one begins to suspect that all is not as it first appears! To quote WalkaboutsVerse on the Chords in Folk thread: Traditions exist due to folks being impressed by how their forebears did things, a notion which would at least have the appearance of plausibility about it. However the caveat must be that traditions only exist in the imaginations of the impressed, and that their forebears (or more likely not their forebears at all...) had no concept of tradition as we understand it today, much less The Tradition. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: GUEST,freda people Date: 14 May 08 - 04:42 AM Folk Music comprises that which is felt, perceived and held together by a tradition, dogma or identifiable pattern, recognised as evoking understanding, raising awareness or challeging preconceptions of a social, perceptual or historic nature through musical method. While it may be deemed subjective by some, its capacity to speak to the mass consciousness demonstrates that it is in fact an objective medium which has demonstrated its own historical relevance and integrity. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jack Blandiver Date: 14 May 08 - 04:30 AM An Bunnan Bui (The Yellow Bittern) (Cathal Bui Mac Giolla Gunna b 1680) is a great favourite too, I believe, although it sees to exist in various versions! My favourite was that sung by Paddy Tunney, which I recall goes something like: Was the break of day but no bittern's horn filled the waking morn with its hollow boom For I found him prone by the bare flag blown by the lough shore lone where he met his doom His legs were sunk in the slime and slunk; a hostage held in the fangs of frost O you of knowledge lament his going; for want of liquor his life was lost O yellow bird it's my bitter grief I'd as lee or lief that my race was run No hunger's tooth but a parching drouth that has sapped your youth after all your fun Far worse to me than the sack of Troy that my darling boy with the frost was slain O no want nor woe did his wings bestow as he drank the flow of a brown bog drain Ah degrading vile was the way ye died o my bittern beauteous of glowing sheen Was at dawn of day that your pipe ye'd play as content ye lay on your hillock green O my great fatigue and my sorrow sore that your tail is higher than heart or head And the tipplers say as they pass your way: had he drunk his fill he would not be dead O bittern bright it's my thousand woes that the rooks and crows are all pleasure bound With the rats and mice as they cross the ice to indulge in vice at your funeral mound Had word reached me of your awful plight on the ice I'd smite and the water free You'd have all the lake your thirst to slake and we'd hold no wake for the Bunnan Bui O it's not the blackbird that I'm bewailing or thrush assailing the blossom bray But my bittern yellow that hearty fellow who has my hue and my wilful ways By the loughshore bank he forever drank and his sorrow sank in the rolling wave Come sun or rain every drop I'll drain for the cellar's empty beyond the grave |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 May 08 - 03:36 AM "If you can name the author/composer of the song, it ain't folk." Not really - many written songs, particularly by local poets here in Ireland, were taken up and adapted locally, so passing into the tradition. Two examples local to here spring to mind - Nora Daly (Miltown Malbay Fair) and Farewell To Miltown Malbay, both by Tomás Hayes (1866-1935). You can't throw a stone here without hitting someone singing A Stór Mo Chroi, which was written by Brian O'Higgins (Brian Na Banban) (1882-1949) Then you can start on the Irish Language repertoire, which is full of songs with known authors. Sorry Peace - back to the drawing board. What's wrong with the 1954 definition anyway? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Joe_F Date: 13 May 08 - 08:50 PM According to an article I once read, the belief that buttered toast always falls butter side down is an exaggeration. The probability is never 100%, but depends on the value of the surface beneath. Experiments with a toast-flipping machine showed that even with a Persian rug you could only get the probability up to 89%. Efforts to obtain a Gutenberg Bible to better that record were unsuccessful. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Tootler Date: 13 May 08 - 07:02 PM I think that the situation is covered by Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle; in that the observation of "Observer" making observations about folk music is notablely unreliable, as the negative energy that Observer introduces into what would normally be a neutral subject, tends to make the observation of observer's actual position unreliable. This disregards whatever charge "Observer" hopes to get out of the deal. I think what you really mean was summed up by those eminent physicists, Michael Flanders and Donald Swann "Work is heat and heat is work and all the heat in the universe is gonna cooooool down. Yeh, that's entropy man!" |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jeri Date: 13 May 08 - 06:34 PM An Ob delivers baby. I think the whole word is 'obstatician', but maybe that's just the guy who counts the babies and records what accessories they have. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: glueman Date: 13 May 08 - 06:33 PM Maybe the OP is luring us into Scrabble hell with a Mauritanian anal flute known only to adepts and Giles Brandreth? |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Herga Kitty Date: 13 May 08 - 06:29 PM Peace - depends on how you say it. An ob, or a nob? Kitty |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Peace Date: 13 May 08 - 06:23 PM OK. Someone has to ask. I love Observer's threads. BUT, will someone please tell me what an Ob is? |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: glueman Date: 13 May 08 - 06:07 PM Kitty, I was going to say meat and drink but that raised a tankard - figuratively and metaphorically - and a hearty post-modern ploughboy came unbidden into view. But let's not give Derrida, a Frenchman, the last word (though I belive Bretons are almost Cornish these days). We'll settle for marge. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: beardedbruce Date: 13 May 08 - 06:05 PM (Unless you tie it on the back of a cat ( butter side up) before you drop the cat) Then the cat and bread spin wildly and disappear. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Art Thieme Date: 13 May 08 - 06:04 PM And that bread always falls butter side down. Watch where you step; it's a slippery slope we descend! ---------------------Art |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Herga Kitty Date: 13 May 08 - 05:59 PM Glueman - don't you mean bread and marge? I think it's probably folk even (especially?) if no-one's listening, though God knows what Bishop Berkeley would make of it... Kitty |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: glueman Date: 13 May 08 - 05:54 PM The inescapable truth is that an authentic folk sensibility would not recognise themselves as such. That would be left to taxonomists, rule makers and the rest of the folk revival machinery. Self consciousness is the antithesis of folk, but bread and butter to the revival scene. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice Date: 13 May 08 - 05:40 PM "Tell your parents not to muddy the water. They may have to drink it soon" ....and our parents said this to their parents, and......well you get the idea, I hope... Charlotte R |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Skivee Date: 13 May 08 - 05:37 PM I think that the situation is covered by Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle; in that the observation of "Observer" making observations about folk music is notablely unreliable, as the negative energy that Observer introduces into what would normally be a neutral subject, tends to make the observation of observer's actual position unreliable. This disregards whatever charge "Observer" hopes to get out of the deal. Or to quote a venerable bit of folk or folkie advice,"Tell your parents not to muddy the water. They may have to drink it soon" |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Peace Date: 13 May 08 - 05:33 PM "inéluctâbilis" WELL! If my buddy Don had said THAT to begin with I'd be in the loop. He was treating the situation with floccinoccinihilipilification. Nothing could be more ineluctabilis, he said perniciously and with moderationality. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Jeri Date: 13 May 08 - 05:20 PM INeluctable: –adjective incapable of being evaded; inescapable: an ineluctable destiny. [Origin: 1615–25; < L inéluctābilis, equiv. to in- in-3 + éluctā(rī) to force a way out or over, surmount (é- e- + luctārī to wrestle) + -bilis -ble] Therefore, 'eluctable means it can be evaded, is escapable, and you can get out or over it. Or to translate what wordfella said (The extent is mitigated in large part by the ineluctable modality of the observer's preconceptions. It's obvious, isn't it?), you don't know because you don't know what the flip the observer's thinkin'. Maybe. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice Date: 13 May 08 - 05:02 PM 'To what extent, if any, is Folk Music the music of an actual Folk other than folkie Folk, whose actuality is compromised by their adoption of objectivist methodology entirely at odds with the subjectivist criteria of actual Folk, thusly perceived' if you can't dazzle'em with brilliance, baffle'em with BS, eh observer? *LOL* Charlotte R |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Art Thieme Date: 13 May 08 - 04:57 PM One is probably dumb, and absolutely wrong. The other is, most assuredly, correct!! ;-) Due to the vagueness inherent in the semantics, we will never see either clearly. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Melissa Date: 13 May 08 - 04:42 PM When I was very young, I spent a good deal of time with very old people who sang/taught me songs they had learned when they were very young (from people who were old at the time) Being interested and mannerly made me an excellent child for them to give their gifts to. Our area had active pockets of Music at the time. Now, I spend quite a bit of time with various clusters of music in the area where I am the old-timer. I sing older songs and play in a style that would probably fit seamlessly into gatherings of a hundred years ago. The part about being our local Old Timer is that I'm usually the youngest musician within our clumps. I would seem to be Don's opposite. I do not consider myself a 'folk singer' or 'folkie' and I have never been called either by anyone who knows me. It's not a term we seem to use in this backward, rural, small-farming area. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Don Firth Date: 13 May 08 - 02:32 PM Where's Billy Goat Gruff when you need him? Okay, I'd like to try to get serious for a moment. Why bother, Firth? Well, it's kind of a slow day here at the skunk works. Well, okay then, if you really feel you have to. Let me see if I can cut through the crap here: Wilhelm Gottfried von Herder, as far as anyone knows, was the first man to use the word(s) "folk song" (volkslied). By the word "volk" (folk), von Herder was referring to "the rural peasant class." I think there are a lot of When at university in the early 1950s, I became interested in "folk music." The songs sung and recorded by such singers as Burl Ives, Susan Reed, Richard Dyer-Bennet, and Cynthia Gooding. Later, Pete Seeger, Jean Ritchie, Leadbelly, Cisco Houston, and a large variety of other such singers. I learned songs from their records and from song collections like those of the Lomaxes, Carl Sandburg, Cecil Sharp, and many others. After gaining a bit of skill both as a singer and as a guitarist, and with a fairly large repertoire of songs, people started hiring me and paying me money to sing. Most gratifying and enjoyable. As a communications short-cut, most people referred to me as a "folk singer." Indeed, I referred to myself as a "folk singer." Meaning that I am a singer who sings folk songs. I am a singer-guitarist who sings a variety of songs, most of which are traditional/historical songs and ballads. Am I a "folk singer?" Certainly not in the sense that von Herder meant. Is there a "rural peasant class" anymore? Well, when you think of the scarcity of small family farms these days, replaced by huge corporate farms, and the fact the most farming these days is done, not with a hand plow drawn by a couple of horses or mules, but by machines that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, huge feed-lots owned and run by large food companies; ax-wielding loggers of yesteryear replaced by Weyerhauser employees with chain-saws; sails, save for recreation, have been replaced by diesel engines—well, you get the picture. It's a little hard to believe that "the rural peasant class" that von Herder referred to still exists. This, in my opinion, is the reason there is so much quibbling over the word "folk." It's a word that has lost much of its meaning because it has been cut loose from its roots in the real world. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Peace Date: 13 May 08 - 01:57 PM "Eluctable?" Ding dang, Don. I had to go look that up only to find out I can't because it ain't. |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice Date: 13 May 08 - 01:51 PM too much cappuccino, either that or I'm thoroughly bored to death. Me thinks this so-called observer is too chicken to reveal him/herself, though I have a couple of ideas. Say goodnight Dick! Charlotte R |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: DonMeixner Date: 13 May 08 - 01:30 PM Eluctable? |
|
Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk From: Peace Date: 13 May 08 - 11:28 AM Tough times call for tough decisions. |
| Share Thread: |