Is this a folk song?

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 06:59 PM

Perhaps if the folk process is still happening (and I'm certainly willing to admit the possibility)certain recent or contemporary songs will eventually become folk songs. But it could be, of course, that if I could move forward in time a couple of hundred years I might find that the songs that have been (are going to be ... oh, bugger - this is confusing!) 'elevated' by the community to folk song status are not to my taste. This does not mean that my taste is any better than anyone elses, of course (perish the thought!!), but I might find, personally, that the folk song genre is no longer of any interest.

What if, in the future (in, say, 2207) such songs as 'The Birdy Song', 'Imagine' and 'American Pie' have replaced the Child Ballads. I think I'd rush back to 2007 and take up knitting ...

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Snuffy
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 07:58 PM

"Old" and "traditional" are not interchangeable.

Many of the Child Ballads are not necessarily traditional folk songs - they are old texts. Many have never been found sung in the tradition, and many have no known tune. They had effectively died out - rejected by the "folk".

As songs they are a product of the revival of the 1950s and 60s, and have no more right to be judged traditional than anything written by Dylan, the Beatles or Leonard Cohen

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 09:13 PM

Yes! Someone agrees with me! That was my point earlier on. The emphasis is too often simply on how old a song is. Some people even seem to feel superior because they know an older version or even the 'original' (straight off a broadsheet, for all we know never sung). Then they have the temerity to talk about the folk process.

Shimrod, I haven't heard that particular recording, but I've listened to other recordings of other songs by old fishermen/labourers etc... They tend to be great historical documents if you like. The preservation of the songs is a great thing as far as I'm concerned and any nuances or bits of folklore or whatever. I'd much rather listen to someone with a decent singing voice sing the songs though and a decent arrangement, maybe the odd bit of harmony is nice too. Obviously you're of a rather different opinion and fair enough but I don't think I'll ever be a fan of croaky off key singing. If I know the guy and he's having fun and thereby raising the mood that's different but I would only really listen to those sorts of recordings to learn asong.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 04:49 AM

Hi Bardan,

I DO know what you mean ... and yet ... and yet. If I'm honest I used to think the same as you when I first got interested in folk song - give me a decent singing voice - not these croaky old geezers. Then, for my 21st birthday, I got a load of record tokens and bought Topic's 'Folk Songs of Britain' series (on vinyl LPs, of course - I'm showing my age here!). Soon I found I was coming back to them again and again because I found that once I got past the superficial roughness (and surprisingly few singers were singing "off key" by the way) I realised that there was something rather weird and wonderful going on. I just loved the contrast between the ordinariness of the voices and the strangeness (and occasional great beauty) of the material.

There's a theme that runs through this thread which suggests that folk song should be directly relevant to the lives of people living NOW and that old is BAAAADDD and new is GOOOODDD. I have to say that I find this way of thinking a bit alien. I suspect that many people rather like to escape from the humdrum nature of their day-to-day lives, now and then (I know I do!), and I suspect that the 'old people' who sang the 'old songs' often felt the same. I'm also not very impressed by new things unless they work (like digital technology - which works about 85% of the time!). Much contemporary music doesn't work for me - which is why I tend to like the old stuff.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 05:29 AM

Bardan,Not all traditional singers sing in a croaky off key manner,try the following, Phil Tanner,Harry Cox,Fred Jordan,Bob Roberts,BobLewis,Geoff Wesley,Holm valley tradition,Bob and RonCopper,to name but a few.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 07:17 AM

I'm not saying they all are. I'm simply saying that a lot of the recordings we have are of genuinely old people who's voices have more or less gone, and in some cases who can't even really hold a tune. They're important as repositories (nearly wrote supositories there for a moment-wouldn't that have opened a can of worms) but as music they're not great. That doesn't mean there aren't some great recordings as well or some great singers right now singing traditional songs well.

I'm certainly not saying old is bad either. I quite like a song with some archaic language, makes it more interesting. And I love a nice modal tune as well. Just think the tradition needs to continue and evolve or it'll stagnate and probably die.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 08:43 AM

ok.now Im a singer of traditional songs[ApparantlyIm not a traditional singer],.
I sing in tune,I have a vast repertoire of traditional and contemporary songs,Iam professional in my approach,and yet because Im a singer of Traditional songs rather than a traditional singer, I am supposed to be judged[dont ask me why] differently from a traditional singer,.
Whether this song is a folk song is not important to me whether I like it is,and I dont,noW hear is some traditional music that is not sung in an off key mannerHTTP://www.dickmiles.com

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:03 PM

The folk process is definitely ongoing, just as history never stops progressing. At any given time, of course, people living in the moment cannot possibly foresee how history will record the present time.

What makes it especially difficult to predict the future of "folk music,' or of any ongoing artisitic tradition, is the fact that audio and video recording technologies, among other similar developments, are so very new in historical terms. Not only is it impossible to forsee how this new complication will affect current and future development of our shared cultural memory ~ we are not even able to appreciate all the unconsious assumptions behind our own various ideas of "tradition" and "process," and how these assumptions are inescapably based upon information we have received through decidedly non-traditional channels: records and tapes, certainly, but also widely-available paperback books, contemporary universities and schools, computer-aided research, and even internet forums like this one.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:25 PM

I was thinking more of the field recordings/ stuff from archives etc... sorry for the misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 03:08 AM

To me folk music is about day to day life and things that we can all associate with, whether it be a couple of centuries ago or now.

What I find totally confusing is that if I go to any folk club/concert/festival, there are lots of different performers on and they are all classified as folk.

Would somebody tell me which of these performers are Folk or Traditional and why?

Martyn Whyndham-Read
Graham Moore
George Papavgeris
Vin Garbutt
Pete Coe
Anthony John Clarke
Jez Lowe
Duncan McFarlane
John Conolly
Bram Taylor
Bill Whaley & Dave Fletcher
Tim van Eyken
Napper & Bliss

There are many more people I could list. However I like all the ones mentioned above and consider them folk singers.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 04:03 AM

Cap'n
You are judged because you are - and have chosen to be- a performer, just as somebody who chooses to paint, write books, poetry or plays, act - whatever, has chosen to do what they do. All of these are judged, hopefully by people who know what they are talking about. If you are not happy about having your performance assessed, stay at home and sing in the bath!
In the time we have been collecting from field singers, I can recall very, very few of them who have regarded themselves as performers, but rather, as people who have remembered songs from an earlier period of their lives and are happy to pass them on to us. In virtually all cases, they have not sung, certainly not in public, for many, many years, and it would be totally unfair (apart from the potential damage it would have done to the task of persuading them to pass on their songs) to apply the same criteria as you would to a younger, healthier, and much more practiced and confident singer. Any judgment of their singing can only come from their peers and from within their own communities. I've seen up close (and not so long ago) the damage that can be inflicted on our access to the tradition by the arrogant and insensitive behaviour of some career folkies (and folkie-'academics') who have ridden rough-shod over the feelings of our traditional singers.
It is worth remembering Cap'n, now that you seem to have come round to the idea that you are not a traditional singer (no criticism - just an assessment of where you stand) that you, like the rest of us, have what we have, because of the generosity of the Walter Pardons, Sam Larners, Phil Tanners et al. As far as I'm concerned, that privilege carries with it a responsibility towards what we have been given, so that in the future others can get the same pleasure from the songs and music as we have. The 'thanks for the songs; by the way, your singing was crap' technique, far from being helpful, is, and always has been destructive. To say the least, it is extremely ungracious!
Despite the insistence of some people that we still have a living tradition and that some of the contributors to this, and other threads, are part of it, nobody has come up with a half-decent definition to substantiate these claims. A week ago, on the 'what is folk music?' thread, Richard Bridge gave an excellent summary of what goes into the making of 'folk' or 'traditional' songs, one I am happy to file and use whenever the need arises.
For me, the tradition, far from being on-going; is dead; what we are left with are the echoes of that tradition. I watched the extremely rapid demise of the singing tradition among Irish Travellers in the mid-seventies, when they acquired portable televisions.
Modern technology, canned entertainment and the fact that, rather than being active participants, most people are now passive recipients of our entertainment and culture; all these and other factors have put paid to a living tradition representing people and communities in general. Copyright laws have ascertained that individuals rather than communities 'own' newly written songs - and even songs like 'Scarborough Fair' and 'The Maid and The Palmer' which have been doing the rounds for centuries. If Comhaltas and the Irish Musical Rights Society over here have their wicked way, we'll soon be paying royalties for the privilege of singing and playing Irish traditional songs and music.
Some time ago somebody asked the question 'How do we honour the tradition?' As far as I'm concerned, we do so by recognising where we stand in relation to tradition, by acknowledging the debt we owe to those who have given us the songs, stories and tunes and by realising the responsibility that comes with that gift. This does not mean that we put what we have been given in a specimen jar and lock it away in a safe place. There are no 'rules' on how the songs and music should be performed (as much as people who use terms like 'finger-in-ear, 'folk police' and 'antiquarian' would wish to impose their particular take on the subject on us). Personally, I have got a great deal of pleasure from listening to the 'cowshit music' of Vaughan-Williams, Delius, Butterworth, Grainger, Bartok, and many others who have taken traditional music and turned it into something else.
If we make radical changes to traditional music, at least let us acknowledge that it is a self-conscious act on the part of us as individuals, and not the process of an on-going tradition.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 04:24 AM

dear jim ,as a matter of fact I sing in the bath as well.
individuals own arrangements of tradional songs,not quite the same trhing as owning the song,in the case of Scarborough Fair,Martin Carthy owned a particular guitar arrangement , Paul Simon was forced to acknowledge this,quite right too, the arrangement was Carthys work,even if ths song was traditional.
JIM,I make unconscious changes to songs over the years,some of them quite radical, eg the singing of The Greenwood laddie,in a different time signature[Ididnt realise I had done this until someone pointed it out]it just seemed thats the way it should be.
the tradition is far from dead, in fact in my opinion its very much alive,and will be all the time singers and musicians like myself,perform /or sing, whether its while im in the bath ,or milking my goats, or performing in a folk club.
my advice to you is to do some vocal exercises,and start singing again ,its great fun.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: dozy rozy
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 04:31 AM

Well said.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,edthefolkie
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:04 AM

Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein wrote a song for a musical. Many years later a chap called Gerry Marsden recorded it with his beat group. Football fans in Gerry's home town subsequently (or according to M Carthy, previously!) started singing some of the song on the terraces. Supporters of other football teams started singing it, sometimes with altered words. Eventually an enormous crowd sang the same song to the Queen in front of Buckingham Palace.

I refer of course to "You'll never Walk Alone". We know it came from a musical called "Carousel" - we can buy the sheet music - and yet it would appear to qualify as a folk song, because most of the singers probably have no idea of its source.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Grimmy
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:44 AM

Furthermore edthefolkie, football chanting in the UK meets all the conditions of the 1954 definition. It is truly a living tradition.

Cecil Sharp would have problems with some of the 'indelicate' words though. He would probably turn 'You're not fit to wipe my *rse' into some jovial hunting song!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 03:13 AM

Cap'n
Well done,
Once again you have managed to respond to all the points I didn't make and ignore the ones I did.
You really will have to make up your mind; one minute you are a traditional singer, the next, you are a singer of traditional songs - and if you decide you are part of the tradition, give us your definition and explain how you fit into it.
I might suggest that you go read a book - but I don't want to be accused of telling people what to do - anyway, I'm sure you've read one at one time or another.
Jim Carroll
PS The only thing unconcious changes are an indication of - is unconciousness.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:58 AM

Hi 'The Villan',

"Would somebody tell me which of these performers are Folk or Traditional and why?"

Have you ever thought of reading what's been written on this subject and having a go yourself? A lot of people who ask these sorts of questions seem to think that it's OK to give someone else the responsibility for research and analysis - but then seem to think they can pick-and-choose among the answers and casually discard those bits and pieces that don't fit with their particular prejudices and preconceptions.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 05:43 AM

GUEST(Jim),
to paraphrase you: I might suggest that with your last statement you are goading the good Captain, or trying to - but I don't want to be accused of criticising - anyway, I am sure you yourself have criticised others at one time or another :-)

The Captain did respond to at least some of your points, for example the one about unconscious or self-conscious changes to traditional songs. And I agree with him that at least some times unconscious changes can and do occur - without there being any cause for disparaging them in the way that seems intended by your PS statement.

In fairness, I don't believe that you are poles apart in your appreciation of the tradition, at least as expressed in this thread.
Perhaps some antagonism borne of the past is colouring the posts, and it can confuse the discussion, but OK, you believe that tradition is dead (your words), while the Captain believes that it is on-going. I confess to leaning on his side personally, even as I acknowledge your right to a different opinion. Perhaps you are both correct, even, in that the "existing" tradition is dead, but "new" traditions could be in the making as we speak, without us being able to identify them today, because we are too close - they will be judged in generations to come.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 08:58 AM

I shall treat Jim Carrolls latest post with the light hearted frivolity it deserves,but will refer back to one or two points that he made in his previous epistle.
I have never not treated singers such as Phil Tanner,Harry Cox with anything but the utmost respect.I do not think their singing is crap[and am not saying that you inferred that i had],just making my position clear.
Finally would you like to give us a precise time that you think the tradition died.
oh and I dont much like this song[Probably more to do with style]although I dont disagree with some of the sentiments,Ipreferred Mr President by PINK,,but does it really matter, whether their folk songs or Punk songs,a good song is a good song whatever its category

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 10:03 AM

Shimrod
I consider them all part of the folk scene and most of them do traditonal songs (or at least songs that deal with hsitoical issues).
I am not ducking the issue. I am genuinly confused about who of those are classed as folk and those classed as Traditional.
Until I started my folk club about 5 years ago I hadn't been in the folk scene as such for nigh on 30 odd years.
All I do see is a lot of people not able to explain what is what.
Incidentally, it didn't require your you to reply with attitude.

I can only improve my knowledge by listening to what other people tell me.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Steve-Cooperator
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:51 PM

Shimrod,

I really don't see where you are going any more with your argument.

You don't need a degree to be able to discern between different genres of song and music. There has been substancial research into traditional music for over a century which is available. Going by your suggestion that a song has to be traditional to be folk, I am interested to know what genre you class well crafted songs by writers such as John Conolly, Jez Lowe, Hughie Jones, even the Captain himself.... classical, pop, punk?

Toy Palmer, whio I am sure is impeccable in his research methodologies talks of the tradition in its making.....

Referring back to my original argument, new songs do find there m=way into the folk canon (I am no saying traditional, though many songs do wrongly get cited as such) those that do have a style that clearly identify them with the genre, conversely there are many songs that do not fit in with the style, and fall by the wayside.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 04:53 AM

Dear 'Steve-Cooperator',

Where, exactly, did I say that "... a song has to be traditional to be folk"? I think that there's a fair chance that you "don't see where I'm going any more" with my argument because you haven't read what I've written (?) Perhaps it's because I've written things which do not confirm your preconceptions?

I know that this is a futile exercise but one last time: A folk song is not a 'good' song or a 'bad' song, or a song that I like, or a song that you like. In addition it is not a song written in a particular style and whether or not it is 'well-crafted' is irrelevant - and it does not even have to be anonymous. It cannot be a recently written song because a particular song has to have undergone a PROCESS (involving selection, transmission and change) before it qualifies as a folk song. It is reasonably certain that most so-called 'traditional' songs have undergone this process and, hence, qualify as folk songs. If you look for exceptions to all this you will almost certainly find them, but this doesn't 'prove' anything.

Also bear in mind that the marketing category 'Folk' bears very little resemblance to the academic category 'Folk'.

Is the process that turns songs into folk songs still operating? Jim Carroll says "no" and I respect his opinion. I think that there is a possibility that similar or analogous processes may be operating now - but I think it's too early to tell.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 05:01 AM

>>I know that this is a futile exercise but one last time: A folk song is not a 'good' song or a 'bad' song, or a song that I like, or a song that you like. In addition it is not a song written in a particular style and whether or not it is 'well-crafted' is irrelevant - and it does not even have to be anonymous. It cannot be a recently written song because a particular song has to have undergone a PROCESS (involving selection, transmission and change) before it qualifies as a folk song<<

Well that answers it.

Almost all people who are currently singing folk songs aren't. No wonder the folk scene has got no chance.

How blinkered is folk.

The under current from contemporary folk singers at the moment is massive. I have seen that at my club. The number of great songs being written is massive. Keep it going, don't let the blinkered guide your course.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 08:27 AM

FOR CHRIST's SAKE - It's NOT a value judgement and has got nothing to do with being 'blinkered' or 'open-minded'! By standing by accepted definitions of folk song no-one is stopping you from singing anything you like or commenting on the quality of what you or others choose to sing.

Just reflect on the following quote from the great folk song collector, Mike Yates:

"...many people today want a world of certainties, a world where our every thought and desire can be seen in terms of black and white. But, of course, life is not like that, and kicking against this we so often find ourselves suffering from the unsatisfactory nature of things."

This is why you seem to be upset about the fact that, "Almost all people who are currently singing folk songs aren't."
And that last statement may not be completely true - I know plenty of people who choose to sing 'real folk songs'.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:12 AM

Villan: since you are firmly of the opinion that contemporary songs can be folk songs, are you going to tell us which contemporary songs come into the folk category? Are you all-inclusive(Sugarbabes, Arctic Monkeys and all), or a little bit more folk-policey. Or do you just mean"songs accompanied on the guitar sung in a folk-club". Because that is not really a defintion, it's a bit too circular. So come on, tell us. Which contemporary songs are folksongs,and which aren't, in your opinion?

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:18 AM

Shall we start with John Conolly and Fiddlers Green

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:30 AM

Well, that's one for the folk category. But what intrigues me is, which contemporary songs don't you allow into the folk list? And why? Bcause you must have some rationale that decides which are sheep and which are goats.
    And, not that this has anything to with the subject in hand, a Peacock butterfly has just flown in and sat by the computer.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:39 AM

We could then go on to

Graham Moore and Tom Paine's Bones

George Papavgeris with Empty Handed

Vin Garbutt with Storm Around Tumbledown

Jez lowe with Last Of The Widows

Duncan McFarlane with Bed Of Straw

Just a few - there are many

Who said I was talking about pop groups However I do like the ones you mentioned "Sugarbabes, Arctic Monkeys" and many more.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:51 AM

>>a Peacock butterfly has just flown in and sat by the computer<<

Thats me, I have just come to spy on you LOL.

Greg i could go on endlessly giving you songs written by people who have played at my club who are contemporary singer songwriters and you wouldn't have heard of the songs, more than likely. Howveer they have all been written about life.

Have a look at the lyrics of this one, which has only been written a short while ago about a Village not very far from where I live.

http://www.faldingworthlive.co.uk/new_page_1.htm

One of the songs I enjoyed and heard at my club that comes from a well known band called Guns and Roses and it was sung by a Ceilidh/Folk band called Byards Leap - the song was called Sweet Child Of Mine

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:48 AM

>>you must have some rationale that decides which are sheep and which are goats.
<<

I don't have any rationale. I tend to listen to a pop song and think "That would be nice done in a folkie style". Generally IMHO it would only be younger folk singers that would take modern pop songs and do them in a folkie style.

However on reflection, I suppose a true folk song would have lyrics that give a messge out about life in one way or another.

An example would be songs written about the demise of the fishing industry (very prevelant to the area of Grimsby (local to me)

But then, If I take John Conolly's Fiddlers Green thats about a fisherman who's time is almost up, and yet it is almost classified as traditional.

I don't know. You tell me.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 11:01 AM

All songs are about life, Villan(well that's a sweeping statement but it's probably near enough true). You'll have to do better than that.You've named some recently written songs that you think are folksongs. So, name some recently written songs that you think aren't folksongs, and let's see what sort of pattern develops.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 11:53 AM

LOL As I have already said I don't know , you tell me.

>>You've named some recently written songs that you think are folksongs<<
They are songs that seem to be accepted in the folk scenes.

>>So, name some recently written songs that you think aren't folksongs, and let's see what sort of pattern develops<<
Well teher starts the problem.
If for example we take Elton John who is not classed as a folk singer.

Candle in the wind which in some ways would be classed as pop. However when he used that song in relation to Princess Diana to some extent it became a song of the people and if you went to a concert of his, everybody would be singing it.

Likewise, I have seen Queen live 2 times who are definately not folk, but to be there live listening to everybody singing "We are the champions" is something to be seen. We are the champions in my opinion would not be classed as a folk song.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 12:16 PM

Villan,

You're making this up as you go along, aren't you? I'm certainly not going to abandon a perfectly good definition of folk song on the basis of your guesses, feelings and vague hunches. But if you want to do so, go ahead!
If you decide to do this please remember that if the word 'folk' becomes devalued and folk song becomes just another wooly-headed type of pop music (and blows away like a puff of pink smoke) please remember that you are responsible (along with all the other 'anti-intellectual-ain't-heard-no-horse-stamp-foot-everything-I-like-is-folk-throw-tantrum' brigade).

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Steve-Cooperator
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 12:40 PM

It is not down to one person to decide on what and what is not folk music beyond their own ability to discern. performers and presenters have some respibility to ensure that various aspects are availble to have an informed opinion. There is a wealth of published information, bulliting board, newsgroups, etc, from which one can draw futher information.

however, I don't see it appropriate to be dismissive about the revival which popularised folk.

talking of 'process' that raises the question of who decides that s song has gone through sufficient process. Also folk 'process' goes another way where the nuances of collected material have been lost through lack of care and attention towards the songs, and the ease of disseminating material in recorded form sometimes hastens this dilution.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 01:15 PM

Why should I make it up Shimrod. Greg asked me a question and I tried to answer.

I see so many people come through my club, who I book and they are all good and the majority are singer songwriters but all come under the classification of Folk.

All the people mentioned above apart from Elton John and Queen have played at my club and they have been really good. Oh sorry the only other one that hasn't played at the club is Vin Garbutt but that was when he was ill.

I get so much thrown at me about what is folk or trad, I wouldn't know anymore.

My attitude is if people enjoy what they hear then I must be doing something right. I get on average 40 people each evening which is not bad in this day and age for a very rural area.
Look at my diary for the club, you will see the type of people who are on Faldingworth Live Diary

Why are you being the way you are Shimrod?

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 02:36 PM

Shimrod, Les simply subscribes to a different interpretation of the meaning of the world "folk", and lord knows there are enough of those around. Don't be exasperated at this, to the point of calling him responsible for the possibility of the term "folk" being devalued. His opinion simply differs with yours, and no deeper meaning than that exists or should be read into it. It's like me and my wife calling the hue "aqua", "green and "blue" respectively. I still love her, reasoning that she can't help being wrong :-) But back to the definitions of folk, and the likelihood of the term "folk" being devalued - and let's leave "traditional" out of this for now. Witticisms and horse-talk apart, I can discern from this thread alone the following definitions, each with its subscribers and advocates:

a) A "folk song" must first undergo the folk process, and can only become "folk" through this. This gives rise to two options:
   a1) The folk process is dead, and so no more folk songs can be ever created; this virtually equates "folk" with "traditional" (not 100%, I know)
   a2) The folk process is on-going, and so songs written today can only become "folk songs" with the passage of time, with hindsight so to speak

b) A "folk song" must have "anon" composer (again, this almost equates "folk" with "traditional")

c) A song is "folk" because a recognised "folk singer" sings it

d) A song is "folk" because it is written in a certain musical "style" commonly accepted as giving rise to "folk music".

Shimrod, I believe you subscribe to either a1) or a2) above, and you worry that the anti-Christ anti-intellectuals will sully and devalue the term.

But can you see the incongruity of using that very term "anti-intellectuals" as being the danger to "folk", whose original definition (as in, centuries ago) is "of the people"?

Me, I like to go back to the origins of things - and the definitions above, from a) to d), are hardly more than 50 years old. Based on the original meaning of the world "folk" (outside the world of music) I would like to offer an alternative view, one that might sound a little like d), but isn't:

e) Consider that there is such a thing as a "folk ethos". This is like saying "style", but I am going well beyond the external cosmetics of type of tune or instrumentation, modal or bipedal scales, dialect or antiquity of language employed, plugged or unplugged, acoustic or whatever. It does however point towards a number of things:
   - A thematic relevance to the world and society at the time when it is written (i.e. for a new song, relevance to today), except when specifically setting out to describe historical events
   - An equivalent linguistic relevance to the same period
   - An emphasis on story telling or image-painting
   - Most important: A viewpoint belonging to the "masses" (as opposed to aristocracy, oligarchy etc)

Note that I said nothing about the music; that is partly to further emphasise the importance of lyrics (which puts the majority of pop and rock outside the scope); and partly to enable the freedom to embrace different musical styles, both chronologically and geographically, as indeed the people have done throughout the ages. (I know that some will immediately pipe up "how does this folk ethos apply to tunes, then?", and I have to own up that I don't know; I am more familiar with song than with pure music, but perhaps those with a tunes-only bend can offer some equivalent).

This would then lead us to term some contemporary songs as "folk" in the sense of "written with a folk ethos"; and suddenly, Jez Lowe becomes acceptable as "folk music", as indeed do all the examples that Les quoted above. Just as I we say that certain songs are written "in the tradition", without confusing them with "traditional" - and if we do, what the heck, it just shows how well they were written "in the tradition".

I would personally prefer the academics to use a "folk ethos"-based definition of "folk" rather than the current chronologically-, authorship- and technology-based ones, which I find to be too dry. But that is my view. You may not like it, and that is fine - but call no exorcists, this not the devil speaking.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: smileyman
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 02:50 AM

I just stumbled into this forum, but I found myself sucked in. In regards to the folk vs not folk debate currently raging, I have a couple of points that I'd like to throw out just for fun.

A. Is it the song or the performer that makes it folk? For e.g., I think most would consider Woody Guthrie a folk singer, but if a hardcore punk group like The Dropkick Murphys takes his song "Gonna Be A Blackout" and perform it, does it no longer become folk?

B. If a song must be attributed to "anon" before it becomes folk, where does that leave songs such as "The Black and Tans", or "Waltzing Matilda"?

C. If a requirement of a folk song is that it is taken by the people and changed, does that make "We Shall Overcome" folk (as has already been pointed out), or Bob Marley's "Get Up, Stand Up", or Bob Dylan's "Chimes of Freedom". (Personally I think that the only one of these that can currently be claimed to be folk is "We Shall Overcome", but give it another 50 years and I think the other two will make a case for themselves.)

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 04:31 AM

Smileyman, as you can see from the thread, different people will give different answers to these questions. But specifically with tegards to yout first question (is it the song or the singer), my personal view, following from my "folk ethos" argument in my previous post is:

The song can be folk because it is written with a "folk ethos", and if performed in a manner outside that ethos, this doesn't stop the generic song from being folk - but the performance is not folk. A folk song sung in a non-folk (pop, rap, whatever) manner, that's all.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 06:28 AM

"Why are you being the way you are Shimrod?"

I'm being the way I am, Villan, for two main reasons:

(i) Because I'm sick of going to, so-called, 'Folk Clubs' and sitting through an entire evening and not hearing any folk songs. I wouldn't mind if the 'nu-Folk' I'm forced to listen to was any good or bore any resemblance to 'real' folk song - but usually it doesn't (at this point I'm specifically excluding George Papavegeris from this - if everything was as good as his stuff, I wouldn't be as pissed-off!). If I hear one more song about how awful it is to be a fisherman/unemployed fisherman or a miner/unemployed miner and all to some mawkish - 'just-made this-up-in-the-bath-by humming-old-Neil-Young-hits' tune I shall f....ing well Scream!!

(ii) This thread poses a closed question ie. "Is this a folk song" and refers to some 'socially relevant' punk epic. There are only two possible answers to a closed question: 'yes' and 'no'. My answer is a resounding 'no'! But that is not the answer that the poser of the question wants to hear (you can probably guess which answer he actually wants to hear). There is also a subtext here that anyone who disagrees with the implied answer to the question is a 'purist' and 'fundamentalist' and must be attacked - and, sure enough, the 'anything goes in a folk club' brigade have come pouring out of the woodwork in support.
I find this whole approach to be basically dishonest and irresponsible. A more honest approach would be for the poster to state that the above epic is a folk song and to give the reasons why. I would still disagree, of course, but would have a bit more respect for the poster and his supporters.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 07:59 AM

There are folk songs and then there's folk singing. No matter how much some of us would like to make rules about what 'folks' are allowed to sing, they're going to ignore us in the millions and go about happily humming 'Feels Like Teen Spirit' and 'Hey Jude'. They're going to (and by the way, I love this) continue to write their essay answers to standardized test questions in the form of a rap. They're going to whip out the dead date songs such as 'Teen Angel' at the end of a singing session when the easily offended have gone off to bed.

The 'folk' sing for joy, and they really don't care about what other people don't like or what offends them. I love the traditional stuff, but the minute someone gets all shirty about it and wants to ban all new songs, it sure doesn't make me want to sing the songs they like.

Of course, it doesn't sound like you want to ban ALL new songs. Shimrod, the more you write here, the more I think you're talking about music you like vs. music you don't like. I don't think what George sings is 'folk', as in 'traditional', but I like it too. Other people sing the same generation of songs, and I may not like them. It's not about what is or isn't 'folk', it's about the way you believe everyone else should think. When you try to tell other people what to think, you wind up with and argument. If one uses a definition as a standard to judge what should be instead of describe what is, the word interferes rather than aids communication.

We sometimes refer to traditional music as 'roots' music If the tradition is a living thing, it has to have more than just roots.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 09:22 AM

Jeri, I am NOT telling anyone what they should sing or what they should think. And I have never advocated banning anything! What I am doing, and what I have a 'right' to do (although I tend to think that it is cowardly and stupid for people to attempt to stand by their 'rights' in a situation like this), is expressing my opinion and disagreeing with people. My 'crime' is to express a minority view which deplores the fact that the folk music that I grew up with is being replaced by an anodyne, inferior 'nu-Folk', comprising mainly dire, self-penned ditties which claim to be 'relevant to folks' lives today' (bollocks!), and, perhaps, 'Folk-lite' which is the pretty, bland, traditional-based commercial effusions produced by the 'Newcastle Prodigies' and their ilk.

But as I say, many people can't bear it if someone disagrees with their precious opinions - that someone is guilty of a 'thought-crime' and accused of all sorts of other crimes. I challenge you to go back over my posts and give me one instance of where I have advocated banning anything. You might also like to think of ways in which I could possibly enforce such a ban!
You might also like to reflect on the fact that there is a big difference between defining something and stating a preference. For example, I like George Papavgeris's songs very much but I don't think that they are 'folk' - I do not believe that this devalues George's achievement in any way. Furthermore, I would not dream of suggesting that George should be banned or excluded from folk clubs.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 09:55 AM

OK Villan, we're getting somewhere. You include John Connolly and George Papavgeris in the canon of "folksong", but not Queen and Elton John. So, two questions. What is about Fiddlers Green that is more "about real life" than Elton John's or Queen's songs(as that is apparently your crierion for choice)? And the most relevant question , you howl with rage at Shimrod for excluding songwriters from the category of folk,calling him a purist and folk-police or whatever and all that stuff, but you do exactly the same thing?
    And Jeri, you really are being extraordinarily unfair to Shimrod by accusing him of trying to ban George Papavgeris and all that sort of thing. When has the poor lad said any such thing? It's really bad manners to accuse people of things you know perfectly well they are innocent of. Shimrod, like Villan, and George P, and all of us, has his own defintion of "folk". These definitions may differ. That does not mean that Shimrod is trying to ban George, or that Villan is trying to ban Queen.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 12:08 PM

>>you howl with rage at Shimrod <<

Sorry Shimrod.

I will stay out of this thread from now on as I obviously seem to know FA about Folk Music. However I do know what sounds good and what sounds awful (which stops people coming to listen).

Just as well I am stopping running Faldingworth Live at the end of the year.Once less place to play at(If nobody comes forward and takes over). Don't suppose anybody will as it is too much hard work, and the crap you have to take from some prima donna's is unbeleivable.

Maybe some of you would liek to buy a yellowbellies 2 CD. Go to this link and follow your nose. http://www.faldingworthlive.co.uk/yellowbellis_2_cd.htm

PM me if you would like one.

Enjoy yourselves guys and gals. :-)

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 12:20 PM

Thanks to Greg for understanding my, somewhat stroppy, point of view!

and thanks to Villan for the apology.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 01:41 PM

"And Jeri, you really are being extraordinarily unfair to Shimrod by accusing him of trying to ban George Papavgeris and all that sort of thing. When has the poor lad said any such thing? It's really bad manners to accuse people of things you know perfectly well they are innocent of."

If I'd said that, I'd be unfair. Whatever. Wait, it's the 1st April, and you're accusing me of saying something I didn't say accusing someone else of saying something he didn't say? Haha -- very funny.

A person would have to be a complete moron to take the thought of any one person 'banning' music seriously. I am not that moron. I'm sorry if anyone thought that's what I really meant.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 04:28 PM

Jeri,

"Of course, it doesn't sound like you want to ban ALL new songs. Shimrod,..." (your post 01 Apr 07 07:59 AM).

This suggests that you believe that I would like to ban some new songs ... doesn't it, Jeri? Again I challenge you to find anything in my posts, in this thread, which suggests that I would like to ban anything.

But hang on! Oh, I see - it was an April fool's joke! Ah hah hah hah hah!! Good one! You really fooled me there, Jeri!



Let's leave it at that, shall we?

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 04:39 PM

Jeri: well I've read your reply so naturally I've gone back and reread your post closely, the last thing I want to do is to accuse you of something you haven't done. But I am afraid I can't interpret your letter in any other way but as an accusation that Shimrod is trying to ban certain songs. There are at least three perfectly clear comments to that effect. Go back and have a look.
    Shimrod seems to express his opinion a bit over vehemently, but, as they say, "cet animal est mechant. Quand on l'attaque, il se defend". All he seems to me to be doing is sticking by his definition, which suits him well, and arguing against Villan's(and other's, perhaps yours?) which he finds confusing. And he's right, redrawing old definitions(however flawed) can be very confusing. You spend years teaching kids that zebras are the ones that look like horses, only covered with black and white stripes; but elephants are the big grey ones with a trunk at the front. Fine, that's great, that works. But if someone else arrives and starts telling the kids they are both actually zebras, than you get a complicated situation. Shimrod's defining, that's what he's doing. He's saying zebras are this, but elephants are that. He's not trying to ban elephants, and it's just confrontational to accuse him of it, when he patently isn't.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 04:41 PM

OK, I finally re-read what I wrote, and I understand how people took my comment literally. I meant 'want to ban' as 'want the new songs to go away' as opposed to enforcing some sort of rule. It's poor communication on my part, and I'm truly sorry about that. I have to remember I'm speaking to people who don't know me and who like to argue. I think I was reacting to the level of anger and defensiveness I perceived in the thread, and I veered off-topic.

My last words in this thread. I have to question my own intelligence for getting involved in the umpteenth incarnation of the pointless 'what is folk' debate.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 04:58 PM

Jeri: yes it can be irritating, this age old topic(I think I am probably older than you, so I've had this and allied discussions longer than you have!). But let's face it, this a forum for discussing folk and blues, isn't it? So if there is considerable difference in what different members mean by these terms, it has to be thrashed out every year or so, so people can say where they stand. Folk music is not unique in this respect: classical means different things to different people. And think of the concept of R'n'B now, and R'n'B in the 50's.
    It wouldn't half take the heat out of these arguments if people would realise that saying "Richard Thompson's latest song is not a folksong" is by no means the same as saying "Richard's Thompson's latest song is rubbish" or "Richard Thompson's latest song should be banned". There is no value judgement whatsoever in saying which song you think is folk and which isn't. In making a statement like that, people are merely applying definitions, surely a morally neutral position in this case.
I would finish by echoing Ian Anderson, fRoots mazine editor, who pointed out recently that the "purists" he knows are the people with the most eclectic record collections.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Tootler
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:45 AM

I was browsing the Contemplator website when I came across this;

Before the printing press broadsides were written by hand. Before folk songs were written by hand there was a centuries-old tradition of minstrels and folk singers. As these declined and the printing press became more common, folk music transmission was channeled into broadsides. Broadsides contributed to the further decline of minstrelsy. Broadsides were, in turn, replaced by newspapers and printed sheet music.

Of course, this is a simplification but it kind of looks familiar. I think we are in a similar period of transition with the relatively recent invention of electronic media which has had a profound effect on the way music is transmitted. I have for quite some time now held the view that the invention of printing had a profound effect on the society of its day in a similar way that the invention of the computer is having on ours, though maybe it is not just the computer but the whole business of electronic recording and transmission of information in all its forms that is having the effect.

One of the negative effects is taking music making away from ordinary people and making it the province of "experts"