The Folk Process

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:46 AM

child ballad number61,has only one version.
child ballad no 161,only one version.
child ballad 164,child 185,child 211, child222,child223,child 227,all have only one version.
so clearly there is no evidence that they have been folk processed,so if we used the folk process as solely the only way of defining a folk song as Howard Jones suggested here
Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Howard Jones - PM
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 03:39 AM

I am one of those who believe it is the crucial factor in identifying a folk song. There are plenty of very good songs which are perfectly compatible with the traditional repertoire, but until they have gone through the "folk process" and developed recognisable variants they cannot be "folk songs".
well do we throw these out and say they are not folk songs?they have no recognisable variants,but most of us would say they are folk songs,Eppie Morrie Battle of Agincourt, etc etc
Proffesor Child obviously thought otherwise,he thought they were worth collecting because of their quality,the fact there were no recognisable variants,did not exclude them from the collection.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:51 AM

The problem with using style as a means to identify folk song is that so many different styles have been applied. A traditional song is still a traditional song whether its performed unaccompanied in a pub, with an acoustic guitar or concertina in a folk club, by a classically trained singer in a concert hall or by an electric rock-style band. If Steeleye Span or Fairport perform a traditional song in a rock style, that can still be seen as "folk". But what makes a contemporary song performed in a rock style "folk" rather than "rock"?

I have one of recent BBC Folk Awards CD sets which includes a number of non-traditional tracks. In some cases neither the style of composition nor the style of performance resembles what I would recognise as typical of either traditional or contemporary folk music. I cannot identify any characteristic in these tracks which brings them within my understanding of "folk". However somebody obviously can, otherwise they wouldn't have been considered for the Folk Awards.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:58 AM

How could you possibly know whether or not there were at one time variants of these songs. All we know is what was collected, what happened in the pub sing song the next night remains a mystery. The 'variant' criterion is a full of holes as any other putative criterion. You cant contain the folk process in a couple of handy rules, itys far more promethean than that, thats why its a process, geddit.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 08:10 AM

Child DIDN'T COLLECT, Dick. He gathered together within covers all the *printed* versions he could find of any particular ballad: he didn't do live performance & only gave a handful of tunes as an appendix. When Kittredge, who saw the Popular Ballads thru the press after Child's death, wrote in his preface that he thought the collection probably represented the whole amount of the available material, it was one of the things that inspired Gavin Greig to go around Scotland and find dozens more versions still surviving in the oral tradition. So the fact that there is only one version of any particular ballad in Child proves nothing except that it didn't appeal greatly to the broadside press or any of the earlier gatherers like Percy or Douce from whose earlier work Child had reproduced his versions; or that there weren't plenty more versions around being sung somewhere.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: GUEST,Working Radish
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 08:29 AM

You cant contain the folk process in a couple of handy rules, itys far more promethean than that, thats why its a process

I think you mean 'protean' - but 'promethean' works too, sort of. Not to be confused with 'procrustean', which is what the people who disagree with you are.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 08:31 AM

"This claim, or something like it, keeps being made but I have yet to see actual evidence for it. Could you give examples?"

Will people please stop asking for 'examples' of things that are manifestly true and evidenced in such proliferation that the word can't begin to do justice to the volume. It's intellectually dishonest and leads to a close dissection of one point on a yes you did/no I didn't basis that is in no way a search for truth but a divertion tactic from the main point.

It's also extremely condescending.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 08:33 AM

a song is more likely to be processed ,if it has been sung a lot ,but some of the child ballads,have not,the sheath and the knife[among others] for instance,yet it is not discarded as a folk song,because of its rarity,neither was it discarded because it had not been processed .      neither was the Recruited Collier discarded because only one person collected it,[IMO]THE RECRUITED Collier is a folk song regardless of whether it is a modern composition,or whether it has been processed.
it is a folksong because of its style,its quality its melody and its words.
not only is the melody important but also the style of the lyrics,study the old child ballads,and we find certain lyric styles emerging.
30 years ago, very very few questioned the Recruited Collier?why because it sounded like a folk song,it should not be denied that term just because it has not been folk processed and turns out subsequently to be possibly a modern composition.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 08:51 AM

another perfect example of a modern folk song is scorn not his simplicity,it works very well sung unaccompanied,so stylistically it fits the description.
I stress that style is only one of the ingredients.
styles are also important in determining different traditions,for example arabic traditional music uses different melodic scales /notes to flamenco or irish music,it is these different styles of musical sound,that enable the listener to differentiate,between different roots musics or traditions,plus different styles of lyric writing.
if a song writer wishes to write a convincing modern english folk[FAKE TRADITIONAL] song written in an authentic style,he would be advised to study the styles of writing AND THE STYLES OF TUNES in CHILD BALLADS.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Brian Peters
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 09:16 AM

>> child ballad number61,has only one version <<

MtheGM has already given a good answer to that point, but it's also worth mentioning that Child included a lot of stuff that probably never had much purchase on the public imagination or the oral tradition (and of course he missed out a few good uns as well). Modern singers, however, are quite happy to take some of those obscurities and work them up into perfectly good, gripping ballads, and long may they continue.

Inclusion in or exclusion from Child's collection is not necessarily a measure of the 'folkness' of any ballad, although your last point about studying the style is a good one.

Oh, and 'process' is an observable phenomenon, not a law.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 09:33 AM

glueman, it may be "manifestly true" to you, but it's not to me. If it's that obvious, and that plentiful, why not give a few examples? Then we'll know if it is indeed true or whether you're misunderstanding what people are saying.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 09:54 AM

Sminky's joke about 'the law' is a classic bit of throwaway humour that reveals an underlying reality, namely that some people who inhabit Mudcat invest disproportionate weight into a 'process' or 'observable phenomenon' that makes sense from within the confines of a particular group but has little or no currency outside it. It's not a law on any statute or subject to the judicial system but resembles a law to those who wish to see it upheld within the larger trope.

In such allusions asking for examples is an internal derailment, not a proof exposable to cold fact. One might as well ask for three posts by Jim Carroll that don't exhibit didactism, or three that do exhibit a sense of humour - it leads us nowhere.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 10:02 AM

yes,but most of us consider the child ballads as folk songs,[whatever Mike tries to suggest otherwise]and it is not just the process that determines that its the style[or did before this discussion started]its the style.
in the same way CW has a style,that doesnt mean country cant merge into folk,it can and there will always be crossover and grey areas
most people would consider Sheath and Knife and Scarborough Fair a folk song,because of the style.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 10:45 AM

"One might as well ask for three posts by Jim Carroll that don't exhibit didactism, or three that do exhibit a sense of humour - it leads us nowhere."
Hit and run again glueman. I might say one as well ask for a reply to a question from you and your mentor - and wait, and wait, and wait.....
My sense of humour - nobody has complained about it before Rodders.
My opinions are based on my work on the subject and my research on the work of others - what are yours based on
And wait, and wait, and wait, and wait......
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 10:56 AM

"what are yours based on"

Folklore, critical theory and a big pin to pop pomposity.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 11:22 AM

"most people would consider Sheath and Knife and Scarborough Fair a folk song,because of the style"

I consider them to be folk songs because they come from traditional sources (Child 16 and 2 respectively).

Style? What style? If you mean the structure of the songs, they follow traditional styles because that's what they are. If you mean style of performance, they could be performed in any style.

It seems to me if you are judging composed songs as folk songs, the benchmark keeps coming back to traditional music. The closest we can get to defining folk song in its wide vernacular sense is something which fits comfortably alongside traditional song in performance. How close in style and content it has to be depends to a large extent on the attitudes of both the perfomer and audience.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 11:33 AM

'most of us consider the child ballads as folk songs,[whatever Mike tries to suggest otherwise]'

I didn't suggest otherwise - of course they are all folksongs, of the particular genre called ballads. All I pointed out was that Child himself was more interested in the words than the tunes, and didn't ever claim or purport to be producing a song collection, of the sort that Bruce & Stokoe were approx simultaneously doing in Northumberland, for example; he just didn't regard that as the brief he had set himself. So he worked from printed, rather than oral, sources, & did no original collecting of his own. Nothing against him or his work: he was an academic engaged in compiling an academic accretion of all the previous printed sources he could find, and that was all he professed to be doing.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 11:53 AM

I `ad that Mark Knoffler in my cab the other day. `e `ad a blooming great pile of books under `is arm. I `ad a quick shufty and, wouldja` believe it, they was all that Cecil Sharp`s stuff.
I said, "What`s up here then Mark? You going full blown trad now or something"
`e said, "Nah, Jim. Far from it. We`re going un-folking. I`m on my way to Abbey Road Studios. By the time we`ve given some of these the guitar, base and drum treatment and they play `em on `Drivetime` they won`t be folk songs any more!!"

Whaddam I Like??

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Goose Gander
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:01 PM

"Folklore, critical theory, and a big pin to pop pomposity"

Really? What folklorists? What 'critical theorists'? You have strong opinions, but you are remarkably reluctant to back them up with any verifiable facts. You have argued that you want to see the research that verifies the folk process, and shortly afterward you have told us that you don't want research 'anywhere near the music you love'. Make up your mind.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:04 PM

MM, when I use folklore terminology I'm accused of, well, all the things you can imagine folkies accuse one of when it suits them.
I'll have the 10 shilling argument please!

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:17 PM

ok,it is to do with style,if you took a country and western song,and it had been processed it would still be a country and western song,for instance,the last goodbye by the other dick miles,[you know the f######cw twat]you can process it but it will never be a folk song,because of its style,and its over sentimentality and awful lyrics.it belongs to tin pan alley.
however I do accept that old thyme music is folk music ,and I do accept there are cross over points,between country and folk.but just processing a song does not automatically mean it becomes a folk song.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:21 PM

"Will people please stop asking for 'examples' of things that are manifestly true ... "

OK, then, we'll stop asking for 'examples' of things that are manifestly true ... but is it OK if we go on asking for examples of things that are untrue?

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:33 PM

Just as the word "cat" describes a particular type of animal; however it is as if some people were to insist the description should also include dogs.

No (however, if you were to describe a cat and a dog to an alien who had never seen either, I think you'll find your descriptions would be remarkably similar). Most people know a cat when they see one. It has 'cattiness'.

A song is just words set to music. The journey (or 'process') it has undergone before it reaches my ears is irrelevant when I am in listening mode (interesting and worthy of study though that journey may be). It may have been written yesterday or 300 years ago - I know a folksong when I hear one. It has 'folkiness'.

PS: The lawmakers know who they are. Their feigned puzzlement doesn't fool anyone.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:40 PM

Sminky, you are my hero. Brilliant stuff.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:41 PM

"Will people please stop asking for 'examples' of things that are manifestly true and evidenced in such proliferation that the word can't begin to do justice "
If they are 'evidenced" where does one go to look for oneself - go on - giz a clue!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:44 PM

"The lawmakers know who they are. Their feigned puzzlement doesn't fool anyone."

Your serve Jimbo.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:45 PM

And why are there only two of you with acess to this evidence?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Goose Gander
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:48 PM

"MM, when I use folklore terminology I'm accused of, well, all the things you can imagine folkies accuse one of when it suits them.
I'll have the 10 shilling argument please!"

More gibberish, with no real point to argue.

Ho hum.


"I know a folksong when I hear one. It has 'folkiness'."

Sminky

"People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like."

Abraham Lincoln

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 12:48 PM

the trouble with Howards argument is that allows any modern song to be called a folk song providing its been processed,so little white bull,return to sender,we are all going on a summer holiday,catch a faling star,and other products of tin pan alley can be called folk.
that is bullshit,when I talk about style it is not just style of performance,it is style and content of lyrics,and style of melody.
So while folk process may play apart,ther are other ingredients that make it a FOLK SONG,and it is possible for a song to sound like a folk song despite its not being processed [ eg Recruited Collier]
Howard , do you consider Recruited Collier a folk song?
I do.
I do not accept TIN PAN ALLEY CRAP,even if it hasbeen folk processed.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 01:03 PM

"I know a folksong when I hear one. It has 'folkiness'."

That description has a lucidity 99.99% of the world would agree with. The other six people on Mudcat who disagree don't matter. 87.3% of statistics are made up.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 01:22 PM

"That description has a lucidity 99.99% of the world would agree with"
And is that what you base yout thories on?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Goose Gander
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 01:25 PM

" . . . the trouble with Howards argument is that allows any modern song to be called a folk song providing its been processed,so little white bull,return to sender,we are all going on a summer holiday,catch a faling star,and other products of tin pan alley can be called folk."

First of all, it's not really Howard's argument, it's the accepted definition of folksong that can be applied to (among others) sea shanties, Appalachian ballads, blues, corridos, etc. 'Return to Sender' et al are not folksongs according to this definition, at least not in the versions with which most people are familiar (exceptions can made for possible parodies, etc.). Commercial products of Music Hall, Tin Pan Alley, minstrelsy etc. can and have become folksongs, North American folksong is full of songs that originated on the stage.   The same can be said of British folksong – can you possibly be unfamiliar with the role of the broadside press in the British and Irish tradition?

I get it – you want every song you sing to be a 'folk song' so you expand the definition to include anything that 'feels' folky-folkish to you.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 01:45 PM

*Waits for Shimrod to make his 'favourite music' claim.*

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 01:48 PM

That's right MM. It's an Illuminati conspiracy to have Puppet on a String accepted in the hallowed walls of the Finger and Tankard.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 01:55 PM

no i dont,but I see it as ridiculous to use a definition,that would exclude Recruited Collier or Masters OF War,because they hadnt been folk processed,and yet include Return toSender or Little White Bull because they had been folk processed.
ask yourself, why music hall songs the have been assimilated, its because they are compatible with the folk repertoire,because they have quality,not because they have been folk processed.
lastly it is Howards argument,right here.
Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Howard Jones - PM
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 03:39 AM

I am one of those who believe it is the crucial factor in identifying a folk song. There are plenty of very good songs which are perfectly compatible with the traditional repertoire, but until they have gone through the "folk process" and developed recognisable variants they cannot be "folk songs".
Micheal Morris read all the posts please

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Goose Gander
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 02:03 PM

"ask yourself, why music hall songs the have been assimilated, its because they are compatible with the folk repertoire,because they have quality,not because they have been folk processed"

Absolutely ass-backward, good soldier. They are compatible with the repertoire because they have been folk-processed. The originals generally wear their stage-clothes proudly and are distinct from folk (exceptions for faux-folk productions, with 'country' dialect, etc.)

Howard was merely restating an accepted opinion that is only controversial to to horse-singers and amateur tautologists.

I read as many of the posts here as I care to, anyone who reads ALL the posts here needs an intervention.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Goose Gander
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 02:12 PM

And how has 'Return to Sender' been folk-processed? It was written by Winfield Scott and Otis Blackwell, best known from the singing of Elvis Presley. 'Little White Bull' by Tommy Steele? Don't see the folk-process there, either.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 02:28 PM

"*Waits for Shimrod to make his 'favourite music' claim.* W
Waits for an answer to his question
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 02:45 PM

Answered many times JC, always the same way, ignoring the reply is the same as not listening. I think you are talking out your fundament, you think I am, inclusivity, fun, anything folkie goes so long as The People enjoy it, smiles, togetherness, youth, kindness, yes bloody kindness, I am your folk nightmare. If I didn't exist you'd have had to invent me.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 03:02 PM

You really are a defensively unpleasant little scrote - aren't you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 03:04 PM

And you Jim are very, very grumpy.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 03:35 PM

you miss my point,
modern folksongs are written[in fact all folksongs and broadsheets were composed by someone]Most but notnecessarily all traditional songs have been folk processed.
It does not matter whether LITTLE WHITE BULL was written by Tommy Steele or Jez Lowe,according to Howard songs becomes folk songs if they becomes folk processed ,so logically a modern song is not a folk song unless its been processed,and I am saying that that is a stupid way to determine whether a modern song becomes a folk song,and that there are other additional characteristics that make a song a folk song,please read my posts,or go somewhere else.
Little White Bull according to that logic fits the definition if processed,but Masters of War which has much more in common with Traditional Folk songs,is not a folksong unless its processed,that is just the most utter codswallop I have ever heard,IT TAKES NO ACCOUNT OF STYLE OR CONTENT.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 04:15 PM

I despair of these threads. There seems to be an inability of people to understand the basics of any scientific argument. Logic and balance of proof of points seems to be beyond the grasp of some participants. I normally confine myself to posting tunes and lyrics, but there's a certain morbid fascination in reading this. So without wishing to get drawn into the debate on what is folk/the folk-process/the tradition - all of which seem to be rehashing the same things - here's a few observations on this thread.



I don't intend to check all the references, but as far as Child 61 - Sir Cawline - goes, although Child may give only a single set, my copy of Roud's index lists 13 entries for the song under a three or four titles. I suspect if I bothered to check others in the list of singular entries from Child a similar situation would apply. Having a song once or more than once in folk-collections is not really relevant (I have a friend is has a special interest in songs that have only been collected from a single source). These are snapshots of a particular place at a particular time; nothing more. And with regard to Child, it has already been mentioned that he was interested in ballad text, not folk songs as we would understand them (in any sense of the word).


Quality of songs (and the criterion of quality doesn't matter) is an irrelevance that Dick brings up repeatedly. There is dross in all genres of songs; but being dross doesn't prevent the song being an example of the genre. As a child, on car journeys, my parents sang to me The Birdy Song (Let's all sing like the birdies sing...). I learned it orally and I might sing it to other children, who might pass it on. I might well consider it a folk-song. That doesn't mean it isn't a rubbish song. If there is such a thing as a folk-process, you might expect that over time the dross would be weeded out;people will remember and sing the better songs. But not necessarily - one man's dross may be another's gold nugget. Applying a goodness quality criterion to select songs is no better than the (different) selectiveness that the 19th/20th century collectors have been accused of. All goodness tells you is whether the song is a good folk song or a bad folk song; nothing more. Whether you choose to sing it or not, whether anyone will listen to it or not is a different question. I'm now begging you - Please, please, please stop asking if Masters of War is better than Hitler's Only Got One Ball (or whatever). As far as I can see it, the countless times across these threads noone has disputed that Masters of War is a good song; they've only disputed whether it can be called a folk-song. (And for what it's worth Lloyd would dispute about the commonality of Masters of War with traditional song; IIRC he says at the end of FSE with respect to protest songs something along the lines of protest songs are fairly rare in the English tradition. But that's his opinion and that is something you could debate).


The general point seems to be that Dick (and some others) wants modern written songs to be called folk songs - his post of 03:35 has at the start modern folksongs, which precludes any disputation of their naming; the other side wants modern written songs to be in a different category from what we may recognise as traditional songs (this is the same argument that Lloyd was making in the article cited in a recent thread; in FSE he thought it did a disservice to the modern songs to call them folk-songs - maybe if Bob Dylan hadn't been so strongly associated with folk he would't have been booed so much for refusing to work on Maggie's Farm). In general usage the boat has probably sailed - they are all indiscriminately referred to as folk songs. Personally, I see nothing wrong in distinguishing them in a technical sense; it doesn't stop me singing Masters Of War any more than having them all called folk songs would stop me singing The Lass Of Lochroyal. But noone's changing sides. One side has a set of criteria which has been used in the past to define folk-songs; Dick offers a new set of criteria which would allow him to include modern written songs as folk-songs. No-one is seeing any merit in the others' viewpoint. Save yourselves from the endless name-calling and mudslinging and retire these threads gracefully.



Mick

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Goose Gander
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 04:19 PM

"please read my posts,or go somewhere else"

Now, that's a pleasant way to engage in conversation.

I don't see that Little White Bull has been folk-processed. It was in a film, it's a familiar popular song (like Return to Sender) but where is the oral transmission, change over time, etc.?

Again, the idea that commercial products can become folk culture by the process of oral transmission, etc. is NOT a concept that originated with Howard.

Master's of War is popular song written in a folk style. Dylan was at pains to point out that he was not a folksinger, that was a label hung around his neck by people who then accused him of 'betraying' folk when he picked up an electric guitar.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Art Thieme
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 04:27 PM

Well, I see I must change my mind now---after hearing so many tell me what I thought for 50 years is not correct. With that in mind, I feel I am ready to acknowledge that Odetta's hair style is, indeed, a part of the folk process! Anyone not agreeing, just f..k off.

Art

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 04:33 PM

Without naming names, I feel moved to quote that firne TRADITIONAL saying ---

viz   N O B O D Y   L O V E S   A   S M A R T A R S E

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 11 Sep 09 - 07:59 PM

yep, working radish, I meant, of course, protean, though promethean is interesting, as you suggest.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 12:32 AM

One of most influential songs of the Revival was Irish traveller Margaret Barry's wonderful, heartbreaking rendition of She Moved Through The Fair, which everyone, but everyone, was singing in fine traditional style in the late50s-early60s [despite its traditionality being disputed, whatever Wiki sez]. When ultimately asked in an interview [by Karl Dallas if memory serves] where she had learned it - on the road? from parents? from other travellers? - she replied cheerfully, "Oh no, I learned it off a gramophone record by Count John McCormack".

Not the first time I have mentioned this; but I thought it belonged on this thread also

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 08:00 AM

Oscar Wilde
"...I like talking to a brick wall- it's the only thing in the world that never contradicts me!"
Ah Oscar,I know the feeling well.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: glueman
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 12:03 PM

Heads up. Aldi are doing a folk processor at only £14.99. 200 year guarantee and traditional settings.

Subject: RE: The Folk Process
From: Art Thieme
Date: 12 Sep 09 - 01:39 PM

Yes, we ought to stuff all the SMARTARSE war lovers into the ARSENAL! (By way the the Andy Warhol.

Art