Who are folk?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 05:27 PM

Who cares? It's been pulped by the Pip Radish snippy machine into something that sounds clever. Mulch for the intellect.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 05:24 PM

Can a music sponsored by an institutional state apparatus be considered folk?

Would The trees they do grow high still be a folk song if it was given out free on the NHS? Er, yes.

What was the question?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 05:15 PM

Okay here's one. In the 80s Bulgarian music was the rage for a while. Kate Bush even pinched some for a single. The music was state funded under the communist regime with some help from (more state cash) Radio Sofia.
Can a music sponsored by an institutional state apparatus be considered folk? It doesn't appear to fit the hearthfire and community peg unless a country is a community - which communism might suggest it is. So hang onto your gadulka - is open throated, sheep tending, hot milf in head dress Bulgarian folk music folk music?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 04:52 PM

Your opinion is duly noted.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 04:49 PM

You didn't get a straight answer??? I've given nothing but - you're the one with the gold medal in the point-dodging, conclusion-leaping and strawman-jousting triathlon.

Er, in my humble opinion.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 04:44 PM

"Do you want me to start quoting myself again?"

For pity's sake no. I didn't get a straight answer first time, a second evasive diatribe might be too much. I'm manifesto'd out.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Aeola
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 03:41 PM

So 'Folks' that's that then!..

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 03:19 PM

Pip, this thread is eternal. It has no beginning and no end that we can see at this time.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 03:12 PM

But nobody's been able to say what the difference was.

Do you want me to start quoting myself again? I thought I had a pretty good stab at this very question back at the top of this thread.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 02:00 PM

M Ted, thank you very much. I'm still shaking my head. One there holds 20,000 songs. Wow!

It is great to see you back. Seems you were gone for a bit, and I noticed that because I love your posts and they just weren't showing up.

Keep well.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: M.Ted
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 01:36 PM

I have an iPod-well,a couple, actually. And, Bruce, you really don't know what they are? Here ya go! iPod

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: GUEST,Ethel Fredsnimble(Miss)
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 01:30 PM

Harry Booth and his Swingin' Spoons, Armitage, the musical seal, and Ebeneezer Cuckpowder and The Electric Rabbis are not folk.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 01:24 PM

Unless someone explains to me what an iPod is, fairly soon, I will make a suggestion as to where the iPod can go. (No offense.)

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 01:19 PM

"It would be a mistake to say that the adopter/adapter communities had in become part of the traditions that they drew material from, since the songs and music, of necessity, have different meanings and functions in the new community."

Wanna borrow that iPod?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 01:09 PM

MUSIC ! MUSIC ! MUSIC ! (PUT ANOTHER NICKEL IN)
(Stephan Weiss / Bernie Baum)

Teresa Brewer & The Dixieland All Stars - 1950
The Ames Brothers - 1950
Carmen Cavallaro & His Orch.(vocals: The Cavaliers) - 1950
Freddy Martin & His Orch.(vocals: Merv Griffin) - 1950
Micket Katz & His Orch. - 1950
Hugo Winterhalter, His Orch. & Chorus - 1950
The Sensations - 1961


Put another nickel in
In the nickelodeon
All I want is lovin' you
And music! music! music!

I'd do anything for you
Anything you'd want me to
All I want is kissin' you
And music! music! music!

Closer, my dear, come closer
The nicest part of any melody
Is when you're dancing close to me

So, put another nickel in
In the nickelodeon
All I want is lovin' you
And music! music! music!

[Dixieland Piano Break]

Put another nickel in
In the nickelodeon
All I want is lovin' you
And music! music! music!

I'd do anything for you
Anything you'd want me to
All I want is kissin' you
And music! music! music!

Closer, my dear, come closer
The nicest part of any melody
Is when you're dancing close to me

So, put another nickel in
In the nickelodeon
All I want is lovin' you
And music! music! music!

SPOKEN:
"C'mon, everybody! Put some nickels in! And keep that old
nickelodeon playing!"

Dum-dee-dum dee-dah-dee-dum
Dum-dee-dum dee-dah-dee-dum
Dum-dee-dum dee-dah-dee-dum
And music! music! music!

Dum-dee-dum dee-dah-dee-dum
Dum-dee-dum dee-dah-dee-dum
Dum-dee-dum dee-dah-dee-dum
And music! music! music!

(Dixieland piano to end)


from

lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/m/musicmusicmusic.shtml

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: M.Ted
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 01:09 PM

Folk and traditional music doesn't exist on its own. Its part of the common culture of a community. The thing is, it often has value outside of that community, and can be adopted and adapted by other communities.

All people are "folk", and all of them belong to communities of one sort or another. In recent years, a lot of long standing communities have disappeared. Others have lost parts of their common culture, such as the music. Other communities still, such as song circles, folk clubs, church groups, schools, and academics, have adopted and adapted musical artifacts from these more traditional communities.

It would be a mistake to say that the adopter/adapter communities had in become part of the traditions that they drew material from, since the songs and music, of necessity, have different meanings and functions in the new community.

However, the music and songs have become a part of the common culture of the adopter/adapter group, who are then the "folk" of their own community.

The common culture of this new community may include music derived from, and inspired by the music that has been adopted/adapted, and, in this way, even "singer/songwriter" music is folk music.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 12:22 PM

I said: "To make the point the generality of posts on this board, a specialist folk board at that, are completely unconcerned with definitions and include questions about country, acoustic, blues without anyone taking offence."

I don't take offence, most people don't, the distinction is completely irrelevant except for people who think there may be a pernickety wedge to drive, a hair to split.

You said: "Come off it, glueman|: you have stated unequivocally on this thread(twice I think) that blues are not a kind of folk music".

I'm still waiting. At the crossroads. With a hellhound on my tail.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 12:14 PM

glueman: eg your post July 16 3.47 AM, when you refer to a specialist folk forum also being prepared to countenance posts on the subject of blues: ie you think blues is a separate category from folk.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 12:04 PM

But nobody's been able to say what the difference was. It sits there, this difference, like the elephant in the drawing room's great uncle, absorbing threats and insults, impervious to language, inscrutable. the great cool before thing that killed the after.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 11:37 AM

Is learning from a record significantly different in principle to learning from a braodside?

Yes. It's a canonical source. Not only that, it's a canonical source that sounds better than you - only a minority of people who buy a record will be motivated to sing the song (for other people to hear).

The only reason people didn't is because the technology wasn't around.

I don't dispute this for a moment. I'm not saying technology's evil, or that people have been corrupted by it. I'm just saying these things have happened, and they've made a difference.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 11:01 AM

"Anyone who says this... needs an iPod, and needs it really bad."

I started talking nice and the first reply was 'this one isn't worth it', so I gave it regular street/forum and I was told I was stupid now I'm formal I'm told I need an iPod. It's clear why 1954 is such slippery stuff, you can't nail the motherf*cker with language.
Maybe there's a folk dialogue which is the only way to talk about it?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 10:46 AM

"The double glazing fitters and check-out girls probably do have their own workplace folklore, family stories and oral history, WLD, but do they (any more than accountants and IT specialists) have songs - meaning verses and choruses, that they can sing without a cue card? That's why Jim Carroll has spent so much time with the travellers - their communities carried on singing songs after many others had stopped."

I'm sure the check-out girls do sing, that is, if the manager won't fire them for it, but they'll probably be discounted for singing songs they learned off the radio, or from karaoke at parties and family events.

Anyway, I know from experience that here in Israel people do sing at work, at school, for fun, etc.

Are the people waiting for their flight in the Ben-Gurion airport lounge singing and playing guitar not folk?

Are the schoolkids who sing the same three or four songs (all recorded ones too) every year on the schooltrip, the same songs their older siblings and friends sing, not folk?

What about those 20-something year olds who throw a party on the beach and sing by the bonfire, not folk?

Is learning from a record significantly different in principle to learning from a braodside? The only reason people didn't is because the technology wasn't around.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: M.Ted
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 10:08 AM

Anyone who says this: "The fear has to be that 'folk' is a post-rationalisation of music that neutralises it by guarding its temporal frontiers, in short, it separates popular music's commonality and impulses by an expedient of technological change.", needs an iPod, and needs it really bad.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 09:22 AM

Still waiting for my crimes against the blues rap to stick. Perhaps he sold his soul to Sandy Richardson at the Crossroads?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: mattkeen
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 09:06 AM

No thats cocaine

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 08:49 AM

Is that the thing kids stick in their ears?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 08:36 AM

I am a man without an iPod or any likelihood of buying one...

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 08:12 AM

What's an iPod?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 07:54 AM

Fair enough but you're talking to a man without an iPod or any likelihood of buying one.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 07:50 AM

that's some way from making the case that music somehow mobilised a view of the common condition that was transformational

All I said was that this session was good enough for Jehovah...

Seriously, I think you're reading more into 'society was different' than I meant. I'll take the 1850s for live music, the 1920s for politics and right now for technology (including recorded music).

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 07:30 AM

Was that a joke? I've just read the whole damned thread top to bottom and I make no mention of blues being folk one way or another, Hilarious Greg, fucking hilarious.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 07:26 AM

You'll have to show me where then Greg because contra-distinction of blues and folk would be against everything I believe - musically anyway.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 07:24 AM

"A society where most music that people listen to is sung and played by those people themselves is different from a society where most of it's recorded"

I don't like to quibble (seriously) because we have common ground and your distinction is a reasonable one, but society is different? It's reception of music is different certainly but the inference - and not only your's - is that society in a wider social-political sense was altered by the way music was embedded and history doesn't appear to bear that out. I feel it's a question of degree and that pre-mechanical music and post-commercial recording are only one way of cutting the cake and not an especially revealing one.
There are broadsides and there are reflections on local and national politics but that's some way from making the case that music somehow mobilised a view of the common condition that was transformational. That's not to say it didn't happen but I don't see it being abundant enough to be defining.

The fear has to be that 'folk' is a post-rationalisation of music that neutralises it by guarding its temporal frontiers, in short, it separates popular music's commonality and impulses by an expedient of technological change. It sees the widespread sale of recording as limiting some natural instinct to perform and listen, rather than say, a relief from the necessity of hearing the same thing over without marked expertise or ready adaptation, in much the way that early cinema goers perceived British film as being 'retarded' compared to the cinemas of Russia, Sweden and the US.

The principal definitions of what and who folk are don't appear to receive the same on-going enquiry as other forms because there's still a low-brow and high-brow sense that folk is simplistic and absurd which is componded by the certainty among enthusiasts that concensus has been reached on meaning when - as even this board will tell you - it really hasn't.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 07:13 AM

Come off it, glueman|: you have stated unequivocally on this thread(twice I think) that blues are not a kind of folk music.Well, in my book they are.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 06:39 AM

its proponents have decided a framework that limits the range of folk to fit an agenda; top down, middle class values examining proletarian ones, set taxonomies and categorisation, the early/mid C20th enthusiasm for neo-romanticism and arcadia and a privileging of old world music dissemination at the expense of the new

I understand what you're saying, glueman, & agree with a lot of it - I've read Stefan Szczelkun, and one of my proudest moments when I was involved in Red Pepper was getting them to print an anti-Revival feature by Steve Higginson. (Did they not like that. We got letters.)

I just think most of it's beside the point. A society where most music that people listen to is sung and played by those people themselves is different from a society where most of it's recorded, and that affects the way the music behaves (spreads, changes, is handed on). I think it's a big enough difference for it to be worth giving the music that's come to us through the mostly-played route a different label from the mostly-recorded kind, and I think 'folk' is a good label.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 06:15 AM

"I am intrigued, as I have commented before, that glueman says unequivocally that blues are not folk."

Sorry to give that impression, I was answering in context and the discussion was relativistic. It would take the most confirmed ethnophobe to deny that blues is folk, cajun likewise. Country and Western is differentiated from Country only in the ears of the recipient, not in its claim to folk values.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 06:09 AM

It is fairly clear that a popular defintion hasn't been settled. It's apparent that Dylan is a central figure in the folk revival, which is itself a common shorthand for 'folk'. He wouldn't qualify in my favoured definition though I can why he would unquestionably fit other's; I'd view some of his later electric stuff scoring more folk points than the earlier.

'Can mean' would be more useful than 'will mean' admittedly. An individual popular music radio presenter might introduce a band as folk entirely on their appearance (I once heard Dexy's Midnight Runners introduced as such) while Radio 3 tend to blur the boundaries including Bartok, RVW, Gorecki as classical/folk hybrids, at least by comparison, rather than classical romantic or modernists.
Billy Bragg would only be excluded to prove a point as his subject matter, delivery and any discernable nuance apart from the fact he a) isn't dead, and b) came to folk through the punk community, would suggest he's very much English Folk. Experience suggest English Folk enthusiast tend to see him as such.

Problematisation is inbuilt in deciding who is folk partly because it's a strategy of the left ('everything you thought is wrong') and the left have cornered strategies of analysis since the term folk became popular. The other difficulty is it's proponents have decided a framework that limits the range of folk to fit an agenda; top down, middle class values examining proletarian ones, set taxonomies and categorisation, the early/mid C20th enthusiasm for neo-romanticism and arcadia and a privileging of old world music dissemination at the expense of the new (I exclude dance and lore without prejudice).

For these reasons (and more) I feel who is folk is still up for grabs.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 05:53 AM

I am intrigued, as I have commented before, that glueman says unequivocally that blues are not folk. I have also seen similar statements from others: also, for example, that cajun is not folk. It seems extraordinarily ethno-, and class-centric, that the definition is changing so much that that the singer-songwriters of the white chattering classes have become the new folk, wheras people llike the black and cajun population of the rural USA south have their folk music summarily removed from the sacred canon (to be replaced by Seth Lakeman and his American equivalents). It's all completely beyond me.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 05:44 AM

Point of order

If you get elected to be a folkie, can you resign the position - or once its been imposed by the 1554 committee, are you stuck with it?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 04:34 AM

the one used by music companies and shops - which will mean acoustic music and singer songwriting

If folk means 'acoustic music' then the Brodsky Quartet are folkies. The whole of Basket of light is folk (including the band compositions) but hardly any of Parcel of rogues (all trad). And, of course, Seth Lakeman definitely isn't folk.

If folk means 'singer songwriting', then Dylan's a folkie; Anne Briggs wasn't a folkie to begin with but became one later on; and Bert Lloyd wasn't a folkie at all (or was he?). On the other hand, Billy Bragg's certainly a folkie, and so's Eric Clapton. Joe Strummer, Kurt Cobain and Jimi Hendrix were all folkies on this definition.

If 'folk' means 'whatever the record companies and the shops are calling folk at the moment', that's not a definition so much as a bag - and it's a bag that could get larger or smaller at any time. In a year or two the wyrd/twisted/hyphen-folk caravan is going to leave town, and the definition is going to contract again by default. Maybe fashion will swing the other way and we'll see the folk racks dedicated to traditional music played on acoustic instruments. If that happened, what would you say that the definition should include?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 03:47 AM

Incidentally, from what I understand of your work it sounds as though you've done the tradition and music history a real service. In purely academic terms - if they matter a jot to folk in any sense of the word - the work presented as a PhD would require a tentative set of conclusions, or an examination of all possible conclusions to what the music may 'be'.
The arguments on this board generally emerge because posters flit between anecdotal, academic and informal definitions of words with people claiming one context is more in keeping with 'folk' than the next. To make the point the generality of posts on this board, a specialist folk board at that, are completely unconcerned with definitions and include questions about country, acoustic, blues without anyone taking offence.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 03:31 AM

We're quibbling Jim between a definition and the definition, the one that nails it for now and ever. A dictionary, when it gets round to the matter, will include both your terms if they're shared by enough people and hold up without academic dissent and the one used by music companies and shops - which will mean acoustic music and singer songwriting. Both will fall into common use.

I appreciate we're back to the 'what' is instead of 'who' is so I won't labour the issue. People can be aware of and fully understand the 'traditional' or 1954 sense of folk without necessarily agreeing with it or seeing flaws in the definition. It's not a lack of comprehension that stops some people coming on board - which is why a repetition of 1954 ad nauseum fails to round things off - or intelligence, it's context and the framework now points towards a more inclusive sense of what folk is, backed up by recording categories, festivals line-ups, the media and the rest of the social machinery that defines these things to the satisfaction of taxonomists.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 02:38 AM

Glueman
"Trick question"
You seemed to be implying that the world now has a different definition of the term 'folk' than the dictionary one - if so, what is that definition.
As far as I can see 'folk' as related to song remains as previously defined until the existing definition is altered or replaced to take in new aspects and circumstances. A tiny handful of 'folkies' who decide to hitch their particular brand of song to the term alters nothing.
What has changed is that the communities which once made, circulated and adapted the songs defined as 'folk' no longer do so - folk song as a living entity began to decline with the introduction of mass literacy, radio and finally television. The population became recipients of their culture and entertainment rather than participants in it. Can't speak for the US, but in Britain, the process seemed to have finished sometime in the early twentieth century and somewhat later in Ireland, probably the late fifties - early sixties. The Travelling communities were the last ones to cling on to a song tradition, but that died out in the mid seventies with the introduction of portable television in the caravans. What we have on record in archives of field recordings are singers remembering a living tradition, or remembering accounts of one from family and neighbours in areas where they once happened.
Now the only people who sing and listen to folk songs regularly are cranks like us who are part of the folk song revival - outsiders who believed, and still believe that the old songs still have relevance and entertainment potential, and form a pattern on which new songs can be made and circulated.
Much of this has been shouldered out of the folk scene by an undefinable repertoire which bears no relation whatever to 'folk' as defined by the dictionaries and by the mass of literature on the subject.
If there is a new definition of folk we have overlooked, what is it, or, at the very least, put us out of our misery and tell us where we can go to find it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 07:39 PM

: "the people" are implicitly defined as all those persons who
: aren't kings or priests

Can't we admit Father Sydney McEwan, Father John MacMillan of Barra and Father Angus MacDonell of blessed memory?

And of course the Rev Sabine B-G. Being a priest gives you a lot of opportunities for song collecting.


> I wonder if Chambers et al was a folkie?

Chambers was somewhere between historian and folklorist. His book of traditional rhymes of Scotland was an impressive bit of work. He was a younger contemporary of C.K. Sharpe, and Sharpe seems to have genuinely liked him (he didn't like a lot of people).

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 06:38 PM

I'll see your Chambers and raise you the OED, which defines the noun as

people indefinitely

but also, in an obsolete usage last recorded in 1886, as

An aggregation of people in relation to a superior, e.g. God, a king or priest; the great mass as opposed to an individual

It also says that the word is found

in numerous modern combinations (formed after German precedent) with the sense

'of, pertaining to, current or existing among, the people; traditional, of the common (local) people, especially as opposed to sophisticated, cosmopolitan'

So folk music is music whose distinguishing feature is that it's "current or existing among the people" - and "the people" are implicitly defined as all those persons who aren't kings or priests.

Now we just need to define 'existing'...

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Aeola
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 06:04 PM

I wonder if Chambers et al was a folkie?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:40 PM

Re dictionaries. With a little more reflection on my part, should we not be at least using a dictionary definition as a starting point, to save a lot of the initial arguing. I know this is part of the game, but it can also be tedious. Without turning to the laughingly-named Shorter Oxford (or I'd be posting till tomorrow night) I always find Chambers a reliable source. For those who are Chambersless here are the relevant 'who?' definitions
1) people, collectively or distributively: a nation or people: the people, commons (arch.)
2) Those of one's own family, relations (coll): now generally used as a plural (either folk or folks)

It then defines the adjective 'folk' and gives all of the hyphenated words like 'folk-art'.

I presume the use of 'archaic' is referring to the word 'commons' only as in the House of Commons. Interesting that it doesn't actually state 'the common people'. It means all of us!

Pedant/peasant

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: In My Humble Opinion
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:23 PM

You mean Momma's Got A Squeeze Box is not about a melodeon player? Oh dear and here's me thing......

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:17 PM

IMHO,
Sorry about that! There was a bit of Devil's advocacy in there. I just thought I'd see what response it provoked.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:15 PM

YOUTUBE--these guys ain't folk.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:06 PM

Uh huh. It says "The Who" are rock, but I didn't want to satart thread drift or trouble.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: GUEST,In My Humble Opinion
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:05 PM

"Have you people no dictionaries??? "

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Sorry but Steve Gardham's statement bought A Christmas Carol and Scrooge to mind for some reson....

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:58 PM

Have you people no dictionaries???

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:48 PM

To be fair to stringsinger he does name performers and the title says 'who?'

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:46 PM

One of the criteria that people get sniffy about is a performer's aspiration for 'other'. It manifests itself in negativity to people who play in the tradition who perform different material as well as any sense of aspiration. Is aspiration or divergence un-folk? It strikes me as a particularly authentic facet of a genuinely folk sensibility.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: GUEST,In My Humble Opinion
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:44 PM

Sorry Stringsinger, I, for one am not falling for it, this thread concerns who are folk, not what is folk...nice try though. 4/10 for effort

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:40 PM

Plain folks is them wot lives on the prairies.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:40 PM

True.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: GUEST,In My Humble Opinion
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:39 PM

This thread is making the switch from who are folk to what is folk and it's not being very discrete about it.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:33 PM

I can't think of any sensible way on God's earth how Dolly Parton cannot be folk. If I had to think of an icon of folkiness she'd be the there.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:31 PM

Folk are generally associated with a community. This community is generally culture-based and not cobbled together like a political meeting.

Folk is generally associated with working-class or the so-called "lower classes".

The word has been bowdlerized by the likes of G.W. Bush or John McCain who do
not represent the working class in the US.

Here's a problem. When a traditional singer (such as Doc Watson) sings a popular
composed song (such as Over The Rainbow) is he/she still a "folk"?

If a fine songwriter like Jean Ritchie writes "The L and N Don't Stop Here Anymore"
is what she has written and composed a folk song and if not, does that mean she's still a folksinger?

If Woody Guthrie or Bob Dylan base their songs on traditional folk melodies (changing them around and creating variants) are they still folk singers?

If Uncle Dave Macon draws a sizeable paycheck from Grand Ol' Op'ry is he still a
folk singer?

if Richard Dyer-Bennet or Josh White sing in a smooth style, are they still folk?

Is Dolly Parton folk?

Discuss.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Aeola
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:26 PM

Oh well, perhaps we're all just folk enjoying whatever we enjoy.....

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: In My Humble Opinion
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:22 PM

One of the "glass half empty crowd, I see. Most people I've met in my life are just that, ordinary, or "just plain folks.Mind you I always try to look on the positive side.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:22 PM

To be fair, anything can sound condescending if you want to hear it that way. There's a character in one of the Lemony Snicket books who wins any argument by the simple expedient of repeating whatever the other person says in a silly voice - it's a depressingly versatile tactic.

(All together now: "Ooooh! It's a depressingly versatile tactic!")

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Aeola
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:18 PM

'we're just plain folks' but they don't really mean it! Do they?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: In My Humble Opinion
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 03:46 PM

*'plain folks'! The term has a slight condescending inference*

What infernal rubbish! I get the feeling that the utterance from Aeola has a slightly condescending feel to it......

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 03:42 PM

Aeola, haven't you ever heard people use the expression, generally in reference to themselves, as in "We're just plain folks?" I've always thought of it as a bit disingenuous, but not particularly condescending.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Aeola
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 02:10 PM

'plain folks'! The term has a slight condescending inference and detracts from the essence of 'what is folk'.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:56 PM

M-Ted have I got you correct that folk is an academic discipline?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:51 PM

"What is the thinking at the time? - please"

To insist folk was/were in the past as the conditions that gave rise to it/them had finished, Jim.
Is it a trick question, I'm happy to play?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:33 PM

Point well made, M-Ted.

I think one of the reasons these discussions flail about like an octopus having the fits and wind up ticking people off and ultimately getting nowhere is that two definitions (at least two) are being used for the word "folk."

There was a time when the word "folk" had a fairly specific meaning. The first time the words "folk song" were known to have been used, it was by German philosopher, poet, and literary critic, Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744—1803), who advocated the collecting of volkslied (folk song)—by which he meant "songs of the rural peasant class"—and that if composers wanted their music to have a national character, they should incorporated themes from volkslied into their compositions. One example of a composer who has done this is Ralph Vaughn Williams, another is Bela Bartok. And there are many others. And collectors such as Sharp, the Lomaxes, et al, have used, essentially, the von Herder definition of "folk" (volk), and subsequently "folk song," as a guideline in their song collecting.

In times past, the word "folk" had a fairly specific meaning. But despite the incredible disparity in incomes and lifestyles in modern society, we like to think of ourselves as a "classless society," and the concept of a "rural peasant class" is not something we like to give credence to.

Nevertheless—this is the reality that ethnomusicologists deal with, and as a result, there is quite a difference between what an ethnomusicologist means when he uses the word "folk" and what someone means when they use the word in the very broad and general sense, the way many "folks" here on Mudcat are using it, meaning "people in general," or "just plain folks."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:27 PM

That last sentence should read...oh never mind.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:26 PM

"Glueman doesn't really know much of anything about ethnomusicology and folklore"

You could be right. On the other hand my master's degree majored on folklore and the staff asked me to teach on it once I'd finished. My dissertation was mostly on how folklore and contemporary media - but do fire away.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:09 PM

Glueman,
"However if he holds 1954 higher than a general guide to thinking at the time"
What is the thinking at the time? - please
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: GUEST,In My Humble Opinion
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 12:17 PM

*"the arbiter(s) of what is and isn't"* And don't they just get right up your wick.....?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 12:10 PM

The great thing about singing worksongs on a chain gang and lullabies to - the baby and the guy with a whip won't hold it against you if you forget the words. Like I would.

Stuff like shanties - that's definitely a skill.

anyway it speaks for itself. Roy Harris used to do a decent gig unaccompanied. tommy dempsey also - although he could run out of steam. Its not everyone who can do it. I always felt that bob Davenport used to tense up - because he felt he was asking a lot of the audience.

I prefer accompanied songs. Its llike an aide de memoire - it reminds them what key they are in - even really good singers slip out of key without accompaniment.

the idea that there were these communities all singin like buggery - it a bit like the vision behind that ghastly welsh tv programme Land of Song in the 1950's. someone would have told them to shut up occasionally.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 11:42 AM

With due respect, it is clear that Glueman doesn't really know much of anything about ethnomusicology and folklore, which are the long established academic disciplines that he is questioning here.

The" 1954 definition", which has been tossed around here lately, was offered by these folks in 1954 to describe the parameters of their work. Today, they define their work in a somewhat different way--from here: Indiana University Ethnomusicology Institute

:Ethnomusicology is the study of music of all types and from all cultures. :Ethnomusicologists not only listen to the sounds of music within particular cultures and :events but also inquire into people's ideas and beliefs about music. They:

:Explore the role of music in human life
:Analyze relationships between music and culture
:Study music cross-culturally

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 10:23 AM

'Otherwise' relates to whether or not the oral tradition is still alive in Britain - that's a sociological (ethnological?) question about how people are living their lives out there, and I defer to Jim as somebody who's done a lot of research on it.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 10:13 AM

"Well, Jim Carroll thinks otherwise. Between a guy who dedicated large chunks of his life to looking for folksong in the wild and some guy who posts anonymously on the Internet - well, it's hard to know who to believe, isn't it?"

The implication I took was that Jim had a direct line to what was and wasn't folk. I've re-read what you said a few times and am unable to establish a different inference. (Your opportunity to put another waspish response in here Pip) I didn't bring Jim into it and value field work very highly indeed. However if he holds 1954 higher than a general guide to thinking at the time I could argue with him about definitions. All this is getting away from the original question.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 09:50 AM

Pip Radish was holding you up as the arbiter of what is and isn't folk.

No, I wasn't. I'm not even going to bother to repeat what I actually did say about Jim, as anyone who's interested can find it on this same page.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 09:34 AM

Were they speaking the same language?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: melodeonboy
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 09:07 AM

Yes; I seem to remember Andy Kershaw asking a lady from southern Africa (I can't remember which country) whether she could sing or not, and she didn't understand the question.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 08:57 AM

: I don't believe everyone made music in societies earlier than ours.

In the case of worksongs and lullabies they certainly did.

: I think the skilled performer was regarded as something rather
: special - a rare bird.

There are many cultures known to ethnomusicology where everybody sings and plays an instrument and the idea that it's a special skill is unknown, or can't even be expressed.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 08:30 AM

You can add story telling, Greg. It was certainly big when I was a child with aspects changed, characters re-named to suit events but the same stuff my mother had been told by her's, etc. I'm sure we weren't exceptional.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: greg stephens
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 08:25 AM

There are actually plenty of examples of the "unbroken tradition" in the British Isles still chugging quietly along, unmolested by the folk revival. eg the singers associated with the Lake District hunting packs, numerous dance bands etc. There are doubtless plenty of other examples, these are what spring to my mind.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 07:58 AM

Sometimes that's a wise thing to say, Glueman.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 07:46 AM

One likes to be of service/ point out the obvious/ side with the iconoclast.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 07:42 AM

It's good someone is tending to that.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 07:41 AM

For clarity, I'm happy to put together an argument for what is folk music but am on much shakier ground over what isn't and am not convinced by some of the arguments for exclusion, historically or philosophically.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 07:35 AM

"the arbiter of what is and isn't"

We have a half dozen of those around here. Mostly British people . . . .

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 07:28 AM

Sorry to be so short, my pasta was bubbling. Pip Radish was holding you up as the arbiter of what is and isn't folk. You're not, are you? I don't like to bring third parties into the discussion unasked or attribute them with things they might not believe.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 07:23 AM

All that old stuff? No? I only know you as a collector of traveller's tunes and what I read of your's on here.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 07:19 AM

Glueman"
"well, we all know what he thinks it means,"
Assume that we don't and enlighten us
Yours in anticipation
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 06:08 AM

> I don't believe everyone made music in societies earlier than ours. I think the skilled performer was regarded as something rather special - a rare bird. <

A conscientious repertoire-builder like Harry Cox probably was. But lots of people sang casually, for fun. Even I can remember a bit of that.

> I thought you'd be in America by now. bon Voyage! <

Thanks. Two days to go - I really haven't time for this!

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 06:06 AM

Oh go on. Morris is a genuine and interesting cultural phenomenon.

Yes, I agree. (I think we agree on more than you realise.)

Traditional music is not easy music. To do an unaccompanied song well is probably the toughest call of all.

I'll take that as a compliment! But I don't agree that learning a couple of verses, and struggling through till you get to the chorus where everyone joins in, is harder than bashing out three chords. People who really can't sing are few and far between - and if everyone's expected to take a turn, over time everyone will get lots of practice.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:53 AM

"(That's not a slag-off of Morris dancing, just the layers of sentimentality and medievalism and mysticism that tend to attach to it.)"

Oh go on. Morris is a genuine and interesting cultural phenomenon. Blokes with beards getting pissed in public places rhythmically is not to be dismissed. Like WTDs watercooler myths and call centre singalongs people might hopefully see them for the culture they really are and stop putting the cart before the horse and sticking labels on. Those clips have nothing to do with raising the sun or fertilising the ground but everything to do with atomised culture and fascinating they are.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:34 AM

"I don't believe everyone made music in societies earlier than ours. I think the skilled performer was regarded as something rather special - a rare bird."

Good Lord WLD, twice in a day! Spot on Sir!

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:26 AM

"- Folk music is a good name for the kind of music that gets made in society type 1. "

there are several good names for it.......They usually occur to me when some poor sod is struggling about like a cow in a bog trying to remember a traditional song. Traditional music is not easy music. To do an unaccompanied song well is probably the toughest call of all. I only wish people would realise this before trying it. Its not a soft option to learning three chords on a guitar.

I don't believe everyone made music in societies earlier than ours. I think the skilled performer was regarded as something rather special - a rare bird.

today's kids have more opportunity to play instruments than any previous generation. Never have musical instruments been so cheap. Lets hope they prove equal to the challenge.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:22 AM

(That's not a slag-off of Morris dancing, just the layers of sentimentality and medievalism and mysticism that tend to attach to it.)

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:18 AM

WLD: I just think we should give an ear to and accord similar significance to the people who are right alongside us in our communities.

OK, that's a good point. Part of the way I understand the oral tradition is that songs can enter it from any number of sources - and I'm sure there's people out there who learned "What do you want to make those eyes at me for?" the same way I learned "Fields of Athenry", from hearing it (repeatedly!) and singing along.

Also, here are those links I forgot to provide before. As I was saying,

The self-deluding Merrie England side of the folk revival - people like this or, God help us, this - irritates me hugely.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:05 AM

I've always believed folk revival is built on heady mixture of Merrie Olde England (add country of choice) and self delusion but that much of the music is quite splendid. It just doesn't bear scrutiny as authentic in the linear way it claims.
...
If you buy into the viral theory of infection eliminating indigenous musical memes (to mix a metaphor), it didn't start with Elvis's pelvis or even peculiar musical hall acts

You really are good at missing the point, glueman.

1) The self-deluding Merrie England side of the folk revival - people like this

or, God help us, this

irritates me hugely. So we've got no disagreement there.

2) Authenticity - I've actually written about how some folk songs come off old broadsides, some are 18th-century show tunes and some come out of the Victorian music hall. A huge range of material from a huge range of sources, with a massive amount of bashing-about and patching-together along the way. So again, you're arguing with somebody, but it's not me.

3) Indigenous musical memes - I like indigenous musical memes; I particularly like the way they travel all over the world, meet up with other indigenous musical memes and have lots of little memelets. Yet again, you're arguing with someone other than me (possibly WAV).

4) It didn't start with Elvis - no, the erosion of the living tradition by mass-produced music-to-listen-to had started long before that (I'd say it started with the pianola).

5) It didn't start with the music hall - as far as I'm concerned plenty of music hall songs entered the tradition, so clearly I don't think that was where the rot set in


My position's really very simple. If you'll forgive me a few more bullet-points:

- There's a difference between a society where more or less everyone makes music, and a society where more or less everyone listens to recorded music and hardly anyone makes it.

- Our ancestors, going back (say) 150 years, lived in society type 1 or something close to it. We live in society type 2 or something close to it.

- Folk music is a good name for the kind of music that gets made in society type 1.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:00 AM

I thought you'd be in America by now. bon Voyage!

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: mattkeen
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:53 AM

WLD

Spot on

Contempt for the working class culture now

Rose tinted twaddle for the working class of yester year

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:47 AM

OK, WLD, I do take your point: if we haven't bothered to enquire we shouldn't generalise. My experience of pub gigs is that the requests are for Irish standards or Elvis (which I've been known to play for them). I still think Pip has it broadly right, though.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:38 AM

My point is Brian that no one is looking to find out. When you DO gig working class pubs. You get a bit of a shock in that you will find yourself being asked for songs you never knew existed - stuff that you simply wouldn't encounter on radio, tv, or in folk clubs.

Country and western songs somehow get adopted and adapted by niche audiences. there is activity going on.

Its life Jim, or shall we say its folk - but not as we know it.

When No Fixed Abode recently said sheepishly they had been offered folk gigs in a chain of caravan parks - the reaction from mudcatters was SO predictable. 'Oh you're going to be playing Agadoo and the Birdie Song.......

I just think we should give an ear to and accord similar significance to the people who are right alongside us in our communities.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:17 AM

> The point is that when you are going to obscure corners of the world to interview gypsies, fishermen, shepherds (never check out girls or people working in call centres, or blokes fitting double glazing) - you are ignoring the vast generality of humanity and the songs they sing and the stories they have to tell. <

The double glazing fitters and check-out girls probably do have their own workplace folklore, family stories and oral history, WLD, but do they (any more than accountants and IT specialists) have songs - meaning verses and choruses, that they can sing without a cue card? That's why Jim Carroll has spent so much time with the travellers - their communities carried on singing songs after many others had stopped.

For what it's worth, I thought Pip Radish's first post summed it up really well.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 03:59 AM

I don't agree with the 'drummer lightly or wish to set a precedent but he's bang on the money with that comment.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 03:45 AM

Bit snippy this morning Mr Radish? I'm suggesting that an agreement has been reached that folk is a certain thing - judging by the endless discussions on here - and in the OP I'm asking if 'it's' people instead.
Jim Carroll is a wise counsel on many topics but he seems to believe folk can be reclaimed as a word that means, well, we all know what he thinks it means, which qualifies him as a dreamer, splendid chap though he is in many ways.
Winning the argument is always fun but it depends who's doing the arguing and about what. I've always believed folk revival is built on heady mixture of Merrie Olde England (add country of choice) and self delusion but that much of the music is quite splendid. It just doesn't bear scrutiny as authentic in the linear way it claims. An example. Soldiers have been fighting wars overseas for centuries. Having heard the local tunes and picked up a smattering (or a proper dose) of the local culture they return home with a new instrument and a different set of songs which their friends and family pick up and before you know it East Sussex or the West Riding are performing French or Balkan traditional music.

If you buy into the viral theory of infection eliminating indigenous musical memes (to mix a metaphor), it didn't start with Elvis's pelvis or even peculiar musical hall acts but is in the DNA of the sound and if the sound then the folk. You're ahead of me when I suggest national boundaries are not the best hermetic barrier to verse or mode. So who are 'folk'?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 03:38 AM

The point is that when you are going to obscure corners of the world to interview gypsies, fishermen, shepherds (never check out girls or people working in call centres, or blokes fitting double glazing) - you are ignoring the vast generality of humanity and the songs they sing and the stories they have to tell.

In short we're pissed off with being ignored and discounted by the middle classes who find us SO distasteful and our culture so insignificant.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 03:21 AM

middle class, informed, contemplative, argumentative people on here don't believe community folk singing goes on anymore because those people may have been exposed to viruses like education, the movies, rock and roll and the TV news and so the noble savage has been infected by choice and cannot be folk.

That's quite something, glueman - to wildly misrepresent an argument that was set out in great detail less than twelve hours (or comments) ago. But I guess it makes the argument easier for you to win - and that's the main thing, eh?

I'm not folk but only miss out by a generation (there are over 90 years between my son and his grandfather) and there are people around who still qualify.

Well, Jim Carroll thinks otherwise. Between a guy who dedicated large chunks of his life to looking for folksong in the wild and some guy who posts anonymously on the Internet - well, it's hard to know who to believe, isn't it? In any case, I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that there are people around (in Britain) who still qualify - that's one more argument that I never actually made. But I think it's very, very unlikely.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 02:55 AM

The point is folk - by which I think of the middle class, informed, contemplative, argumentative people on here - don't believe community folk singing goes on anymore because those people may have been exposed to viruses like education, the movies, rock and roll and the TV news and so the noble savage has been infected by choice and cannot be folk. Well I know people, not a lot but a few who have nothing to do with the folk community, i.e. wearing pretend old clothes and drinking from leather tankards but qualify as folk by any other criterion.
I'm not folk but only miss out by a generation (there are over 90 years between my son and his grandfather) and there are people around who still qualify. It's presumptious to think that because a concensus has built up that folk have died away like the neanderthal, that they actually have. I do agree though that folk would be most unlikely to be found in folk clubs.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 09:03 PM

Well I sure as HELL am NOT a Horse , so I think (Despite making that Nasty money stuff out of my music) that I AM Folk ! When I am NOT doing paid Gigs , I get out to Clubs and Sessions and Festivals and
sing and play fot FUN !

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:28 PM

glueman

Wassa boy gotta do?

Get out more?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 06:49 PM

'I say I is folk too.'

well you're not! You fall outside the 1654 definition.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 06:39 PM

I'm a white boy, lost in the blues in Southern California. I write songs, and I also play songs that go back centuries, just for the pleasure of doing so, and I was raised in a family where singing on the spur of the moment in three-part harmony was kind of nach'l.

I am also a citizen of a rugged, confused country where technology runs rampant and MP3 players have swamped the nation, beebop and doowop were invented and jazz came of age, rock and roll was born and the blues spawned in rough country, and where it is just as "genuine" to sing "Trouble in Mind" as to sing "Diesel Smoke" or "Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Cowboys" whether it sounds like the record or is your own version.

At the same time I do engineering for a living and write white papers full of gobbledygook, own several computers and cell phones and network devices and talk about the impact of the internet on modern ways of knowing and relating. So I obviously am not a farmer even if it is not my first rodeo. But I have been a farm-boy, and I have hauled nets, and dug hard quartz rock out of the ground as well, and stood dawn watches out of sight of all land, too.

I drive a nice car (which recently replaced a rambling scabrous old one) and do text messaging and email fairly often.

I say I is folk too.


A

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Betsy
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 06:27 PM

Folking joking aren't you ?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 06:24 PM

OK, we're not folk but glueman is - he's a living and breathing carrier of the oral traditions of the common people all on his own, right here on that Internet. (Except when he's arguing that there's no such thing as the oral tradition or the common people. Consistency is bourgeois.)

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:23 PM

'but we're not folk'

I am. On every level. White trash. No telly. Don't buy a paper. Gave up listening to the radio some time back. Play music for a small circle without payment. Repeat old lies. Wassa boy gotta do?

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:23 PM

Might find it easier to answer 'Who are not folk?'

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:18 PM

You really need to do more with your pensions....

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:18 PM

It was only flippant in a Chestertonian sense RB. It's probably more relevant than what is folk, anyroadup.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:16 PM

You called?

No, but they have to sing and play as part of their everyday lives, not as a specialised activity or hobby.

As you might have noticed me saying elsewhere...


If recording technology were somehow abolished next week, a 22nd-century collector might well pick up local variants of Blowin' in the Wind and Mr Tambourine Man. But we'll never know: Dylan isn't music of the people, Dylan's a recording artist. Traditional and folk-transmitted music survives here and there - football chants, playground rhymes, some hymns and carols - but there's really no music that's of the people in the sense of living and developing among ordinary people in the course of their lives. The ubiquity of broadcast and recorded music changed everything.

That's a real break in the history of music, and a very recent one. Traditional music - folk music, as far as I'm concerned - is all about reaching back before that break and finding out what people used to do for music, before they could all listen to the same thing at the flick of a switch.

***

"Streets of London", say, isn't a folk song and never will be. The problem is that there's a single, readily-available answer to the question: "what should that sound like?" We know the right melody, the right chords and the right words, and if we want to know how it all fits together we can listen to the writer singing it. That's a huge change from the conditions that existed as recently as a hundred years ago. Oral transmission, as a primary route for handing songs along, is essentially dead; the universal availability of recorded and broadcast music killed it. Oral transmission within the community of folkies goes on to a small extent, but that's not a community so much as an optional, part-time network that's selected itself around a specialist activity. It's a fantastic activity and an important network, but it's not a community

***

The uniformity imposed by mechanical reproduction has been eroding the diversity of the oral tradition for a long time, going back to pianolas and mass-produced parlour songbooks. Ironically, the oral tradition finally gave up the ghost (in this country at least) at around the same time the Revival was really getting going.


***

Do you sing while you work? Do your workmates? Do you sing at home to relax? When your friends or family want some music of an evening, do they suggest having a few songs?

The oral tradition - and the 1954 definition - is about communities and societies where people can, by and large, answer Yes to all four. Those conditions may still obtain in some parts of the world, but they certainly don't in Britain or the US. Folkies pass songs along, but that doesn't make us a community.

*** and finally... ***

Live music made by ordinary people without making a big deal of it - because it's what you do, because it passes the time, because everyone's got a song in them - has basically died out in this society. Live music made by enthusiastic amateurs (and a few enthusiastic professionals) is great - I'm well into it, without any loathing whatever - but we're not the folk, and any new music we make is never going to be folk music.

Subject: RE: Who are folk?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:15 PM

Actually, this may be a relaevant question, if one thinks of a community. Is it the lumpen proletariat (wanna argue that corner, WLD?) or the peasantry, or merely the sort of people who given enough money would drive a Subaru Impreza turno and have a vindaloo and 6 pints of lager on a Saturday night (or chavs - Cheltenham definition or Romany one)?

Subject: Who are folk?
From: glueman
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:08 PM

...and do they have to be dead?