 sj |
||
|
||
Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Bill D Date: 04 Jan 01 - 10:44 PM Bert...I really enjoyed some of your own songs...and I truly noticed how many of the 'trad' songs you have been adding...and you are doing well with them. I suspect we have both profited from trading remarks and ideas...(The cuckoos nest did my heart good!) |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 04 Jan 01 - 08:19 PM Luke, It's been said by many before us: The old songs are not good because they are old. They are old because they are good. Art |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Luke Date: 04 Jan 01 - 09:25 AM I love this thread. It reads like the map of my life in a way. I grew up with singing, learning from my dad and brothers. In the 60's learned about folk music from my brother. He brought the banjo into the house and the rest of the family shuddered. My oldest brother Myke said things like "if your a real singer, you don't need that thing to lean on", and "when you walk in the door with that thing it's the first thing people will see and not just you and your voice". He was protecting a tradition. I don't have an academic overview like some here. I was amazed while living in Bloomington In. all those years to run into many folklore students. They had a wide scope of interests. Some were writing their disertations on fiddling, some on stories collected about west coast mullusks, some on just old fashioned lies told in one region of the country pertaining to sheep. It was obvious to me that what I was doing didn't figure into anything that they might have called folk. This sort of left me in mid-air having to define myself. I did play an annual folklorist's convention once. They were interested in the resergance of the macaronic songs we had in our repertoire. Hell I thought we were just singing in 2 languages at once. A common thing for a fellow trying to get by in the music biz. Forked-tongue comes allready installed at birth in my family. What I'm saying I guess is the average street player (me) must do what he must to survive. I love traditional music, food, stories, and am always ready to hear and play and sup at the table of tradition when it meets my standards of edibility. (very broad). When given money to sing and play I do so. When given money to write I do that. I feel unworthy in both cases but still I must eat. Maybe someday a folklorist will have an interest in music and songs made for survival. There is a certain servicability in the vessel of traditional music. It builds strong songs that can carry very heavy loads for long distances. Made for me. Art for president, Luke |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: John P Date: 04 Jan 01 - 07:57 AM My own tastes run towards traditional folk music, both for listening and for playing. And for when I writed music, for that matter. My personal definition of folk music does not include most contemporary songwriting, but I am realistic enough to know that the word has come to include some part of that genre. One thing I have noticed is that if you give a singer/songwirter a budget, she all too ofteh turns into either a pop band or a country-pop band. I have a hard time telling the difference between a singer/songwriter with an acoustic guitar being backed up by electric bass, drums, and synthesizer and, say, Jethro Tull or the Beatles using an acoustic guitar. Or Nirvana Unplugged, for that matter. Are these bands all folk bands? Or do they become folk bands when they use an acoustic guitar? On the other hand, if you play traditional folk music in a cross-genre setting like a rock band, a jazz band, or a classical string quartet, it remains traditional folk music. You don't even need any acoustic instruments. The nature of the music itself doesn't change. By the way, I am not bashing singer/songwriters here, I am just commenting on my own takes on the words we use. Everyone should play whatever music they are called to play, and a good song is a good song wherever it comes from. John |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 04 Jan 01 - 02:23 AM It's now not the 3rd of January--2001- any more. Our Audubon Society clock just did it's Northern Mockingbird imitation which means that it's 1:00 AM and not Carol's and my 34th anniversary any longer. We spent the time today thinking about love and change and all the great beauteous and heavy stuff that's happened for and to us in those fleeting moments we call years and decades. And the notes of the mockingbird seemed to me to be just about the perfect symbol for the topic of this good thread---and a grand way to end our perfact day. Mockingbirds grab the songs just like we do---and then they regurgiresurrect (Nice word, huh? I made it up recently for a poem.) the music for any who might be passing by to hear and maybe take it for their own. I suspect that's what we all have more or less been striving to do all along. I'm gonna save this thread on a floppy I think. Onward -- and now to get some sleep. Art and Carol Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: blt Date: 03 Jan 01 - 10:16 PM I have no idea why my post above highlighted itself. I was trying to add space between paragraphs using the html guide from the FAQ and obviously I didn't understand what I was doing. |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Bert Date: 03 Jan 01 - 01:04 PM Well Bill D., I've changed a little. Seeing as you have listened politely to me singing my own songs and have encouraged me to sing others as well. I now find myself learning and singing more traditional songs. Thanks, Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Bill D Date: 03 Jan 01 - 12:30 PM gee, it was fun re-reading this....and I'm glad to see I still agree with me! and I miss Jack (who is called Jack) |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Bert Date: 03 Jan 01 - 11:29 AM Erica, a hearty welcome to Mudcat from us folky-singer/songwriters. Bert |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: GUEST,EricaSmith Date: 03 Jan 01 - 10:25 AM hey, As a performer new to Mudcat who does trad material and also writes, I read this thread with much interest. As far as I can tell the only proof is in the moment -- when a song is being delivered, if people buy it or not. When I hauled my arse into the downtown clubs of NYC and sang trad stuff, I expected to be tossed out, but wasn't -- not at all! My theory is, in general people like what's good . . . It's a shame that clubs can be so cliqueish about who they book based on trad or singer-songwriter. I've also noticed this at folk conferences such as NERFA. . . a kind of competitiveness of who's cool, who's blah blah blah. This bores me -- it's social rather than music-related. My resolution is to gun the engines and do my thing without worrying about it too much, and try to exist peacefully in both worlds. All signs good so far. erica
|
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: GUEST,EricaSmith Date: 03 Jan 01 - 10:25 AM hey, As a performer new to Mudcat who does trad material and also writes, I read this thread with much interest. As far as I can tell the only proof is in the moment -- when a song is being delivered, if people buy it or not. When I hauled my arse into the downtown clubs of NYC and sang trad stuff, I expected to be tossed out, but wasn't -- not at all! My theory is, in general people like what's good . . . It's a shame that clubs can be so cliqueish about who they book based on trad or singer-songwriter. I've also noticed this at folk conferences such as NERFA. . . a kind of competitiveness of who's cool, who's blah blah blah. This bores me -- it's social rather than music-related. My resolution is to gun the engines and do my thing without worrying about it too much, and try to exist peacefully in both worlds. All signs good so far. erica
|
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Amergin Date: 03 Jan 01 - 03:17 AM Long time no see, TTR..... |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 03 Jan 01 - 02:36 AM Folksongs last a good long while Nostalgic lessons' tearful smile Folksongs live with history Blistery and Mystery
Singer-Songwriters got the rope
Just trying I, to folksongs make |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: blt Date: 03 Jan 01 - 01:17 AM These threads are tricky--I read all of this one twice and went back to read the one in defense of singer/songwriters before noticing that most of this thread dates from July 1999. My perspective, having thought of my own self as a folksinger and a songwriter for many years, is the folk process is only visible from a distance. The more detailed and rigid I get about the songs, the melody, the notes, the steps, the further I am from understanding. This discussion appears to have some of that myopia. One example of this is my recent experience with open mikes in New England (I now live in Oregon, but I spent the last two years in New Hampshire). Open mikes can be many things--frustrating, rough, poorly organized, incredibly spontaneous, chauvinistic, boring, rich, clique-ish, eclectic--but, after many nights on the open mike trail, I have to say that they are generative in the true sense of the folk process. And it is this constant creativity, like a kind of upwelling, that becomes folksong. These threads do the exact same thing, only through narrative. We are involved in the folk process constantly, whether we like it or not. It's not a commercial product, like a capo or a set of strings, no one owns the rights--folk music, folk song, the folk process--all are much bigger than I am. For me as a songwriter, I have chosen to be in the upwelling--indeed, the upwelling has really chosen me for I don't seem to be able to write anything except using traditional forms, and as a singer, I find traditional music has profound meaning to me. I also am drawn to contemporary songs, but they are almost always the ones that have a traditional chording or melody to them. blt |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Mark Clark Date: 02 Jan 01 - 09:02 PM I'm still on holiday---back to the grind tomorrow---and finally taking some time to read some of these great posts. What Art, Barry and Jack said is truly inspiring. Thank you all. I haven't heard Jack sing but I've heard Art and Barry and I'm pretty sure that if they liked a song, I'd like it too; I know I would if they'd sing it. I'd say that folk singers are primarily about the music and singer/songwriters are primarily about a career. But that's already been said. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: GUEST,kendall Date: 02 Jan 01 - 08:16 PM Thanks for bringing up Grant Rogers, Art. I have his album, and, Sandy, I can speak from an unbiased opinion.. I'm some glad you recorded Grant! |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: RWilhelm Date: 02 Jan 01 - 07:59 PM I think it is interesting that the term "folk" has become so synonymous with singer/songwriters that trade magazines and radio stations now use the term "Americana" for roots-based performers who are not so introspective. In the meantime Joni Mitchel has said that she always considered her music caberet rather than folk. A number of her sensitive sisters have also stopped calling themselves folk. Of course folk music of non-english-speaking cultures is now "world music." Maybe everyone will abandon folk and the word can mean traditional again. |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: GUEST Date: 02 Jan 01 - 06:49 PM Are labels really this important?? |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Legal Eagle Date: 16 Jul 99 - 06:05 PM If you don't preserve the truth it disappears. Remember the lines from "The Old Man's gone" about the death of Hugill -"There's no-one left to teach it right/Farewell to the master of them all/But he left his life in printed lines/Now the old man's gone" |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: JR Date: 16 Jul 99 - 04:43 PM The songs I write are by, for, and about folks.. so I think I'm going to keep calling them that. |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Bryant Date: 16 Jul 99 - 04:33 PM Me too. I need to adopt some sort of musical patriarch. My dad's a great guy but he was born in Germany and is overly fond of polka and Wagner. : ) Bryant |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: MAG (inactive) Date: 16 Jul 99 - 03:30 PM I fondly remember Hogeye Music, which was a haven when the Chicago club music thing got more and more ritualized. Their slogan, which Art probably wrote, was"50 years behind the times." and a breath of fresh air. Art can parent me any time. -- MA |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Bill D Date: 16 Jul 99 - 01:36 PM they will only truly learn it on their own....but IF they learn it, they will remember that you said it, and they may gain a better perspective and understanding than if they had to do it ALL on their own...my son is only now figuring out that I was right about some of the lecture I gave him years ago...( and I do try not to rub it in!) |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Jack (who is called Jack) Date: 16 Jul 99 - 11:22 AM Art, I have finally realized you archetype, and I sympathize. You are the universal parent trying in vain to teach his children things that they will only learn on their own.
|
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Art Thieme Date: 16 Jul 99 - 11:06 AM Bryant, You are correct of course. And Don't get me wrong, your path and attitude are one of the many ways to get here from there. I did it the same way you did in several respects. I went from listening to Bob Atcher on the WLS Barn Dance radio show in Chicago to appreciating the more trad songs of Carl T. Sprague, Mac McClintock, Glenn Ohrlin, Gail Gardner and today, Bob Bovee & Gail Heil & Skip Gorman. We all have unique paths we've walked to make a similar journey. Here at Mudcat I'm just trying to keep bad "truth" from being accepted by too many of the searching young ones. The Freight Hoppers old time band lived in North Carolina where they had good input from the get-go. Might be why they got pretty good so very young. My mission has always been to tell it right (just my point of view) both to shorten the trip and to correct what I see as bad info. My road was closer to yours than you might think though. Someone once said, "You can take all the sincerity in show business, stuff it into a fleas navel, and still have enough room left over for 3 carroway seeds and an agent's heart." I always stayed away from the "biz" & "glitzy" side of this business (which it wasfor me) just so I wouldn't need to say "NO" so much. Was just a different mindset. Some of it may be the differences between the 60s and the 90s but that's too simplistic. Might be more accurate to see that some of us resist change bacause we know or knew what seemed to be a more satisfying way to view it once upon a time. As Dylan once said,
"You're right from your side and I'm right from mine, Art |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Bryant Date: 15 Jul 99 - 04:54 PM I'm wondering, Art, if I explained how I came to be interested in traditional folk music you'd see why I'm wary of reserving the term "folk" exclusively in an academic, purist way. Around the time I got my first acoustic guitar (at 20) I started listening to the sort of stuff that's marketed as "classic rock" -- Led Zeppelin and the Stones and what not. And what I found was that I was really strongly drawn to the mellower acoustic stuff that some of those bands were doing. Before long I was listening to Crosby, Stills, & Nash, the Grateful Dead, Bob Dylan -- all of which I thought of (in some loose sense) as "folk" style music largely because it was sort of marketed in that kind of vein. As years went by and I learned to play this sort of music I became interested in what music influenced these musicians I admired so much. If I liked Jerry Garcia and Bob Dylan and Jimmy Page and Eric Clapton, wouldn't it be worth checking out what they were listening to when they were learning to play? So I looked into it and then the names started popping up. Like Clapton (or maybe Page) calling Robert Johnson the greatest bluesman ever. Bob Dylan's great respect for Woody Guthrie. Jerry Garcia talking about learning Mississippi John Hurt songs. Who were these guys? What did they sound like? Well, a few visits to my record store and . . . well, you know. :) My point is that if these 60's musicians hadn't had their names associated with the term "folk" even if only for commercial reasons, I don't really know if I'd have found this whole new (to me) world of music. And maybe that's a crass way in. It might have been more noble in some sense to have come to traditional music because I wanted to learn the history of this country through hearing it from the "folk" who shaped it. But whatever, I'm hearing it now. I respect your desire to maintain the integrity of traditional music. But if using the term "folk" leads someone who likes the sound of an acoustic guitar and a two part harmony down the path I came, the integrity will be preserved, not compromised. Bryant. |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: MAG (inactive) Date: 13 Jul 99 - 09:04 PM art, You woulda loved Dwayne of Black Bear Guitars in Yakima this weekend'; he makes all kinda instruments out of spam cans. He says he loves spam. there's the spamitar, spamolin, etc. -- MA |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Art Thieme Date: 13 Jul 99 - 08:49 PM Has absolutely nothing to do with over-simplification. It's a direct result of too much inclusion---POOR EDUCATION as to what the rules were/are in the first place. That happens because it's in the monetary interests of so many to falsify the facts in order to maximize the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!I prefer walls (as I said) so nobody dumps shit/misinformation on me while I'm sleeping. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Bryant Date: 13 Jul 99 - 07:29 PM Exactly, Jack (who IS called Jack). Over-simplification and narrowing of the definition cause far more damage to the body of traditional music than any over-broad definition ever could. Ask the hypothetical person-on-the-street what they think of "folk music" and one likely response is "Oh, you mean like campfire songs . . . 'May the Circle be Unbroken' and 'Down in the Valley." and another is "Oh, protest music . . . Bob Dylan and Donovan (or something)" That's the result of a overly narrow definition. Both of those little nitches are folk music of a sort, but by no means exhaust all the incredible variety. So I'd rather see Jewel and Shawn Colvin marketed as "folk-singers" than cultivate some kind of hyper-exclusivity that would lead people who haven't been exposed to think that "folk music" is some kind of archaic, long-dead form. B. |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Jack (who is called Jack) Date: 13 Jul 99 - 07:02 PM Bill D. I don't like it either. But there it is. I like your cooking analogy, except I think deviations from strict traditional forms have to be evaluated carefully, for preservation takes two forms. There is the formal historical preservation by which you maintain a thing exactly as it was, like an orchestra trying to perform an old classical piece with the same instruments it was originally played on. The idea being to recreate it as the composer originally concieved. This is the idea behind museums too. Yet preservation also occurs when elements of a tradition are used appropriately to create something new and valuable but still of the essential flavor as the original. Part of the rationale of maintianing the old traditions in their pure form is to provide the inspiration and motivation for new creation. What irks are those case where a tradition is not expanded but narrowed. Italian cooking is a great example. You say Italian and people think of Pizza, Pasta and Tomato sauce. But Italian cusine is an amazing branch of the culinary arts. Italy is a seafaring, maritime country. The seafood cooking tradion alone is amazing. But if you prepared a classic tuna with peppercorns and red wine dish, most people wouldn't recognize it as Italian cooking. This is a case where the deviation from the full tradition has been one of watering down or oversimplification, and that never assists in the preservation process. |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Bill D Date: 13 Jul 99 - 05:53 PM well, that sure makes some of my points!..i.e., ya' gotta WAIT till the 'community' has messed with it awhile before it fits!! |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Richard Bridge Date: 13 Jul 99 - 02:16 PM I found the definition! Now all we need is a new one to cover what we really think we are doing! In the same way that Tony Blair has hijacked the Labour party and almost wholly divorced it from its socialist roots (Hmm, interesting, do roots marry and if so how do you divorce them?) and relabelled it "New Labour", I propose "New Folk", partly for the analogy with politics, partly for the analogy with "New Country" (which in the same way that the Lord Privy Seal is neither a Lord a privy or a seal, is neither new nor country, but I still hate it anyway) to include true folk music as defined below, re-arrangements of true folk music with non-traditional instruments (viz. Steeleye Span, and with or without distortion pedals as used by Fariport on "Alison Grimes"), modern acoustic music, semi-plugged same; and semi-plugged versions of established pop songs. Oh yes, that definition. Folk Song In 1954 the International Folk Music Council adopted this definition:- "Folk music is the product of a musical tradition that. has been evolved through the process of oral transmission. The factors that shape the tradition are: (i) Continuity which links the present with the past; (ii) Variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or group; and (iii) Selection by the community, which determines the form or forms in which the music survives. The term can be applied to music that has been evolved from the rudimentary beginnings by a community uninfluenced by popular music and art music, and it can likewise be applied to the music which has originated with an individual composer and has subsequently been absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community. The term does not cover composed popular music that his been taken over ready-made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the refashioning-and recreation of the music by the community that gives its folk character."
|
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Bert Date: 13 Jul 99 - 10:09 AM I think we need a new name for the stuff we sing and having looked at the Mudcat Photo album have decided that it should be "Fuzzy Folk" |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Bill D Date: 12 Jul 99 - 09:14 PM again, Jack, you are pretty much right on the money...but that does not mean I like it..*wry grin* you can put cilantro and goat cheese with horseradish on Tacos, too, and you 'may' be able to sell a few, but some will complain it you advertise it as 'traditional Mexican cooking'...however, look what has happened to pizza and French cooking the last 40 years..(pineapple & shrimp on PIZZA?) |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Jack (who is called Jack) Date: 12 Jul 99 - 03:44 PM oops...hit the return key too soon. This is a continuation of my post above. I left off commenting on the two poles of opinion on this matter without being able to throw in my own two cents. I tend to think both sides are wrong in their own way. On one hand, singer-songwriters are typically not creating or performing folk music and probably shouldn't be called folk. This is the scientist/academic truth-seeker in me talking. The part that believes in proper defenitions, rigor, formality and all that stuff. On the other hand, while I'll concede some damage being done by the improper cross reference, I don't see the damage as all that great. Musicology still stands, still occupies its poorly funded and relatively obscure postion in academia, generally unknown to the public at large. Its not undergoing any kind of revolution to accomadate the public's misunderstanding. Nobody's writing texbooks on american folk music that include chapters on Jewel. Nobody's proposing appending American Songbag to include Joni Mitchell and Gordon Lightfoot songs. Furthermore, even though musicologists have a formal use for the term folk, it doesn't have a lot of utility as a discriminator between different musical styles, at least for the purpose of common use. Blues, Irish fiddle tunes, Tamburiza bands, Reggae, Australian Digideroo (sic), call and response work songs, a lot of gospel quartet singing, Cajun Dance music, certain kinds of polka, Mountain ballads from virginia, Native American Flute, camp songs and jump rope chants, ad infinitum ad nauseum, all fall under the 'folk' umbrella (And this isn't even adressing the issue of newly created hybrid musics, e.g. Zydeco, that sprout directly from a pure folk form). The term 'Folk', by covering too much, actually defines very little. Adding singer-songwriters to the mix is just adding one more nick to the blade of an already dull knife. I also think that 'the Horse is already out of the barn' on this issue, and that this debate is moot. Language is a common invention cooperatively owned by all those who speak it. It yeilds to the pressures imposed on it by them over time. There comes a time when the effect of those pressures become sufficiently large and permanent as to be recongnized as a new standard. That is why I give little credence to the comments that try to reduce this arguement to a choice between proper usage and linguistic anarchy, with anybody being able to call anything by any term they want. This is a straw man arguement. First of all you can use any words you want at any time, the question is not only what you mean and what words you use, but what is heard and understood by others. Second, acknowledging that the language has evolved in a particulary way is not making a choice between formal use and anarchy. Speaking alegorically, you can redraw a property line to account for a land shift that occured during an earthquake without declaring all property lines everywhere invalid and open to individual interpretation. In the present case, as much as it offends my sense of formality, I have to acknowlege that the inclusion of singer-songwriters under the term folk has achieved permanent widespread usage sufficient to be considered a permanent shift in the language.
|
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: MAG (inactive) Date: 12 Jul 99 - 01:33 PM I guess Jack-Jack was speechless after the last exchange; actually I hit the mic accidentally when the whole stage tilted backwards ... -- MA |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Jack (who is called Jack) Date: 12 Jul 99 - 01:04 PM |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: The Shambles Date: 12 Jul 99 - 04:13 AM MAG. I think things are getting a little violent around here. I mean, I know this thread is Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters, but why did you have to hit the microphone? What did it ever do to you and did it hit you back? There is no need to escalate these things. What next, I ask myself? |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: MAG (inactive) Date: 12 Jul 99 - 12:26 AM Oops; got Liza Carthy mixed up with her mother Norma Waterson, back there. Sorry, Liza. They ARE all great. I just got back from one day at the Yakima Festival where there was "Worldharp," "Original folk," "jazz-pop," and a buncha other names I forget. It was like Art's satire. Fortunately, there was enough good stuff that I didn't gag. Mudjack did a great sing-along set, and I hit the open mike. --MA |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Obloquy67 Date: 11 Jul 99 - 07:47 PM Just picked up this thread- Firstly I want to mention that in some music textbooks, the primary division (in biology terms if you will, the "Kingdoms") in the taxonomic tree of music is between "Classical" and "Folk". The orders and species branch from the tree from those two points. Clearly from this definition, folk is everything from rock and roll to country to R&B. But that's not really what we're talking about here- Secondly, I think that definitions of style or format (as opposed to genre) are more determined by their audience than anything else. As much as we might dislike labelling music, the process serves a purpose to the listener (usually to a greater degree than the performer). Music as an industry has forced the point. What's the difference, really, between Lee Ann Rimes, Tori Amos and Janet Jackson? Their audience, certainly more than their instrumentation or vocal style or songwriting. So my last point is, I guess, that if you're having trouble deciding whether or not you want to be known as a folksinger or a singer/songwriter, just decide whether or not you want your audience to sing along. |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Obloquy67 Date: 11 Jul 99 - 07:47 PM Just picked up this thread- Firstly I want to mention that in some music textbooks, the primary division (in biology terms if you will, the "Kingdoms") in the taxonomic tree of music is between "Classical" and "Folk". The orders and species branch from the tree from those two points. Clearly from this definition, folk is everything from rock and roll to country to R&B. But that's not really what we're talking about here- Secondly, I think that definitions of style or format (as opposed to genre) are more determined by their audience than anything else. As much as we might dislike labelling music, the process serves a purpose to the listener (usually to a greater degree than the performer). Music as an industry has forced the point. What's the difference, really, between Lee Ann Rimes, Tori Amos and Janet Jackson? Their audience, certainly more than their instrumentation or vocal style or songwriting. So my last point is, I guess, that if you're having trouble deciding whether or not you want to be known as a folksinger or a singer/songwriter, just decide whether or not you want your audience to sing along. |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Night Owl Date: 10 Jul 99 - 09:35 PM PaulG....sure settles it for me!!!THANKS. |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: John of the Hill Date: 10 Jul 99 - 09:10 PM I've begun to call the music I most listen to and play Folkstream. It is distinct from mainstream media driven music, it draws on many tributaries from both the tradition and contemporary practitioners, and with good stewardship it will endure long after any of us now enjoying it. To paraphrase Justice Stewart on pornography:I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material...but I know it when I hear it. John |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Paul G. Date: 10 Jul 99 - 06:50 PM Okay -- can't resist any longer -----getting weaker---here's my 1/2 cent...I consider myself to be a folk-writer/song-singer. So there. That should settle it. ;-) Paul
|
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Jul 99 - 06:39 PM I didn't invent the definition. I have lost the piece of paper which bore the definition. I know the definition may be difficult to apply. The definition does not make one sort of music superior to another. The definition may perhaps not be truly relevant to the topic of this thread. However, to the best of my recollection the definiton is this. Folk music is music handed down and modified by the oral tradition. Thus very elderly songs modified by the oral tradition but which were first published in writing are not folk. This means the Cuddy Wren and Greensleeves are neither folk. It also means any song published by a living writer whose identity is knwo is not folk. I still like some of them (and many assume they are folk - perhaps Fiddlers' Green, or the Mingulay boat song - but they aint. |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: MAG (inactive) Date: 10 Jul 99 - 12:45 PM Hello Liza Carthy! I love your mother's CD, and your daughter's CD, and of course all of your CDs. harmony singing is my favorite thing in the entire world. I saw/heard you & Co. at Holstein's (Chicago) a very long time ago, and have been a fan ever since. What a joy that you are here. -- Mary Ann |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Art Thieme Date: 10 Jul 99 - 10:21 AM Much of what I say is tongue-in-cheek and intended to make a point of some kind or other. That "Mantovani lite" is a redundancy was my complete intention. It's the spelling of "light" as "lite" (as in beer on other commercials) and making a value judgment on the music created by Mantovani, the man himself, that was intended as a humorous way of poking fun at his Saccharine offerings even though some of them are rather pretty---(not to mention the dumbness/tongue-in-cheekness of that entire posting---that was my intention. Yes, I feel some here are "wrong" and some are "RITE". ***SMILE*** But I'm enough of a Buddhist to see that "what is" is whatever the Supreme Court of public opinion says it "is" at any given moment. In the case of "our music", WE are the final word as to "what is the truth". In religions, they all think that they "KNOW" what the right way of seeing things is. In politics it's the same. Economics too. The truth is a variable thing determined by self-interest, money, dogmas, who wins the wars and who loses--all of it. Why should we, as humans, be any different. I, personally, tend to yell loudest when it's my ox that's getting gored. I do strive to be more fair and open minded. But then I'll ere on the side of being open-minded---start goose-stepping in the name of openmindedness. Might even form a huge organization to push openmindedness on everyone else---the OPENMINDEDNESS COALITION for want of a better word. Might be best to ere on the side of inclusion---but that'd probably be WRONG! ;-) **MORE SMILES** Art I.E. this thread! Thanks to you all for the great bidet (b-day)party in another thread. Love, Art |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Jeri Date: 10 Jul 99 - 08:18 AM We get so caught up in arguments about labels we forget the music. I believe in the end, all this labeling and judging can interfere with the tradition more than it can support it. The labels are useful for finding recordings and explaining to people what kind of music you like, but even those functions are becoming less dependable. Now the names become more important than what they name, and people try to make the music fit the category, not the other way around. There is music we like, and music we don't like. Individuals keep the music they like alive, and societies/cultures do the same. |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: CarlZen Date: 10 Jul 99 - 03:42 AM Art - Isn't "Mantovani Lite" a redundancy? |
|
Subject: RE: Folkies vs Singer/Songwriters From: Bonedaddy Date: 10 Jul 99 - 03:22 AM I should shut up now, but Dan my brother, you said a mouthful. In regards to this thread, I think we've finally reached the point where it's not the answere, but the question that has become unclear. Since we don't know what s/s songs will be around in 200 years, and which songs we presently call folk will be long gone, I really believe we're beating a dead horse. Now don't get me wrong, I understand the ire of paying 30 bucks to get into a boxing match and finding out it's Karate. It's clear that some sort of classification is needed to differentiate between traditional and contemporary folk, but maybe before you go you should call the box-office or check out the bio of the performers. I think maybe calling anyone an elitest or nazi precludes that we're all entitled to our opinions and preferences, but Im sure no offence is meant here. I learned many decades ago that my music is not going to thrill everyone who hears me, but my creator has been kind to me and a lot of people play my songs. This is allways going to be a tough subject since the answere is going to be SOMEONES opinion. I play a lot of FOLK festivals, but hear very little traditional folk. Maybe that's not too bad a way of looking at it....Traditonal and contemporary...or not. Personally, I know everything except what everything is....Peace, :-)> BD |
| Share Thread: |