Folk vs Folk

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 02:56 PM

So folk was not defined by people but given entire in a Moses/Tablets deal? And if it was set down by people they had to have a) the authority to do so b) a full understanding of the past and future potential of the form and it's modes of adoption c) a comprehension of national and international perspectives on that form and its roots.

In the last month I've heard folk isn't folk if it's on stage, harmonised, polyphonic, electric, sung through a mic, written by a known person, written in the recent past, sung by anyone attractive, performed by anyone young, performed by anyone who has a formal degree in the subject, performed with any notion of professionalism up to and including strict tempos or note specificity, sung in an accent not particular to the singer and song, etc, etc, etc. Why am I beginning to see Rambling Syd Rumpo? I don't like introspective young people singing American Pie either but that still leaves a lot of room for inclusion.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 02:57 PM

Congratulations Gene:

"Jim Carroll you have no understanding of semantics or of the ideological components inherent in the use of language."
Sorry, meant to say it may be true that my understanding of semantics is somewhat lacking, but not quite enough for me to suggest that it is necessary to know who defined a word before I accept that definition.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 03:30 PM

Glueman,
Sorry, we crossed postings.
Don't know where your list of don't came from but none of them are covered in the definition, and certainly never mentioned by me.
We don't accept any definition if it doesn't make sense - nor do we reject an existing and established definition because it is personally inconvenient.
As I understand it, the established definition was drawn up by people working in the subject; basically by those who supplied us with the raw material in the first place.
A fair stab at an analysis was made by Sharp in 'English Folk Songs; Some Conclusions' and followed up by Bert Lloyd's 'Folk Song in England'. There are several hundred other books on the subject which can be taken into consideration.
Be glad to hear any specific problems you have with the definition as it stands, or any of the written work on the subjects.
My own personal experience of thirty years collecting leads me to believe that they got it more or less right - with some minor quibbles.
Do you a deal; Ill show you mine if you show me yours - research, that is!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 03:41 PM

I certainly haven't made them up and the people who stated them seemed to do so with some authority. It would be a cheap shot to imply a folk Taliban but the list of interdictions make that organisation sound like a liberal drinking club. I suspect the intolerant nature of the exceptions are because folk people feel it under threat or that it isn't being properly recognised, neither of which are the case. As DS said, you can't hurt the music.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Marc Bernier
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 04:39 PM

Good answer Don. Thank you. And thank you for your part in keeping alive the tradition. My initial comment again was a Quote of an insult I once through at someone I was angry with. I don't think I'm necessarily happy I repeated it a second time. In reality I'm no where near that narrow minded. I sing anything that makes me feel good or sometimes sad, any where folks want to listen, and some call it folk.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 04:40 PM

As I said, doesn't fall within my definition or the established one, so it's a bit of a red herring to this discussion.
'As DS said, you can't hurt the music.'
Sorry - another bloody stupid statement.
Of course you can hurt the music - the influx of the 'make-it-up-as-you-go-alongs have decimated the clubs to the extent that the chance of hearing good folk-songs well sung has been severely lessened nowadays.
The present Irish success story has been floated on the basis of respect for and understanding of the music.
Doesn't it occur to you that the fact that a thread entitled 'Folk vs Folk' is taken seriously indicates that something is distinctly rotten in this particular State of Denmark.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 05:28 PM

I'm not going to re-enter the debate on the 54 definition. I accept that Jim can't begin to get his head round the point I'm making, which is fair enough and probably my fault because I've failed to find a way of expressing the difference between linguistic change and legalistic change. This is a shame because there's no doubt in my mind that this shift lies at the heart of many of the challenges faced by folk music today (accepting all definitions), and I really hope to make some progress on this here, but that's life.

One thing, though, Jim, if I may? Could I ask you not to try to express what it is you think I'm saying on this? Because you've missed my point by a country mile above. If you need to remind people what I've said, could you quote (or perhaps point to) my actual words? Thanks.

And of course there are many great singers and players about apart from Christy, but I think anyone taking an objective look at his career would say he'd more than earned his share. And you say, "Among many other factors, success can depend on having a good agent, knowing the right people and simply being in the right place at the right time." Well, maybe - but the 'other factors' are soon proved paramount. To last beyond 'the right time' you need them in abundance

Mark. Apology accepted, and may I apologise too? I just get so weary of reading posts here which not only fail to recognise, or seek to minimise, or deny, the influence of 'trade' music on the stuff we all enjoy hearing and doing, but worse, seek to present hard-working low-earning artists as harlots - often in terms can can wind up making folk enthusiasts, as a tribe, seem mean-spirited, 'hsibbons' (that's snobbish inverted, by the way), and frankly just ill-informed about what it takes - and means - to be 'successful.'

When I read you post I thought of The Demon Barbers last summer, doing a brilliant show at Cropredy before how many thousands, then jumping in the van to drive all the way to Dartmoor, to leap into a tiny stage and do another flawless performance that same night. They've worked damn hard to get to that level. They've taken big risks but compromised nothing, and they've brought many new lambs to the fold. Their success is 100% deserved - and i think that goes for the vast majority of the bigger names around today.

Maybe there's a handful of people who do fit your category, but I think we can safely ignore them, and I hope we will.

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 06:07 PM

Tom Bliss

seek to present hard-working low-earning artists as harlots

What are you on about? Nobody has ever suggested anything of the sort as far as I have seen.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:29 AM

Tom
I do not automatically link talent and dedication with large audiences and financial backers - I took that to be what you were saying. If I have misunderstood you I apologise - it was not intentional.
For me, this thread has to be about definition, otherwise why should people involved in music be in competition with each other, as the thread title implies.
The suggestion that there are two distinct streams of 'folk', self penned and orally transmitted (simplification - sorry), is a nonsense, and will continue to be so until those involved in the former can produce a tangible reason for its inclusion in the term. That, to me, is an uncomplicated fact.
I believe that in the past, the parasitic nature of the former in attaching itself to the term has done enormous damage to the survival of the latter as a performance art. People simply stopped going to 'folk' clubs when they found that they could sit through a whole evening without hearing a folk song. I was one of those people.
In terms of how the music is viewed outside the folk scene; until we take ourselves seriously and be clear of what our aims are, folk music will continue to be the butt of media humour, fail to get air space, and continue to be overlooked when it comes to getting grants for peformance, archiving and research. Ask John Adams how difficult it is to keep C# House going on a shoestring budget.
We've discussed in the past the mixing of copyrighted and public domain material, which is now beginning to have an adverse effect on the very healthy Irish scene.
If we don't get our act together folk music will only continue to exist on library shelves.
That, for me, is the real meaning of 'Folk vs Folk'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:58 AM

Jim my objection was not about the link or otherwise between financial backing and size of audience. I was referring to this; "Tom Bliss has admitted that the music he describes as 'folk' in no way fits the long-established and accepted definition, but follows this up with the somewhat feeble argument that he is justified in using the term because of its constant misuse."

I'm painfully aware of the dichotomy of definitions, and am supremely careful what I say in this matter. I've explained many times that I don't call my own music folk without some distancing or qualifying device. And when speaking to those in the know I use the terms 'folk and 'trad' as they are 'correctly' defined. But when talking to the wider world I must use terms that THEY understand. This is not misusing a word, it is choosing language that your interlocutor will understand. It's called communication.

There is no need to make any new definition, just accept that the common use of one of the words used in that definition has altered, and adjust our language accordingly.

You still - and I now accept will until you die - see the erosion/mutation of the meaning of word 'folk' as an invasion of the 54 definition. It is not. Your comment above suggests that I'm condoning and contributing to this erosion. I am not. I am using a word in the way it is understood by a huge majority in the 21st century, while remaining as passionate about celebrating the thing defined in 1954 as you are. We can only celebrate the 54 by making a definitive separation, so people can understand how it came to be, and thus why it is special, and therefore how we can use and enjoy it. But to do that we must use words as they understand them, and try to do so in ways that will open doors, not close them.

Tom

Jim, you mind is made up on this, but if anyone else still has doubts, here are the artists and tracks listed under 'Folk' on iTunes this morning. THIS is my starting point and the reason I struggle to find, and promote, a consensus.

Amy MacDonald        Mr Rock & Roll
Amy MacDonald        This Is The Life
Amy MacDonald        Poison Prince
Amy MacDonald        Run
Amy MacDonald        L.A.
Beirut        Nantes
Billy Bragg        A New England
Brandi Carlile        The Story
Buffy Sainte-Marie        The Big Ones Get Away
Cara Dillon & John Smith        If I Prove False
Cary Brothers        Blue Eyes
Damien Rice        Volcano
Damien Rice        The Blower's Daughter
Damien Rice        Cannonball
David Gray        Please Forgive Me
David Gray        Babylon
David Gray        This Year's Love
David Gray        Sail Away
David Gray        Say Hello, Wave Goodbye
Devendra Banhart        Little Yellow Spider
Don McLean        Vincent (Starry, Starry Night)
Donovan        Catch the Wind
The Dubliners        Seven Drunken Nights
The Dubliners        The Fields of Athenry
The Dubliners        The Wild Rover
The Dubliners        Whiskey In the Jar
Fionn Regan        Be Good or Be Gone
Gordon Lightfoot        If You Could Read My Mind
Harry J. All Stars        Liquidator
Isobel Campbell & Mark Lanegan        Come On Over (Turn Me On)
Janis Ian        At Seventeen
Joan Baez        The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down
Joanna Newsom        This Side of the Blue
John Denver        Rocky Mountain High
John Denver        Sunshine On My Shoulders
John Martyn        May You Never
Johnny Flynn        The Box
Johnny Flynn        The Ghost of O'Donahue
José González        Heartbeats
Judy Collins        Send in the Clowns
Judy Collins        Amazing Grace
Kate Rusby        Village Green Preservation Society
Kate Rusby        You Belong to Me
Kate Rusby        Underneath the Stars
Kate Rusby        Who Knows Where the Time Goes?
Kate Walsh        Your Song
Laura Marling        Ghosts
Leo Kottke        Vaseline Machine Gun
Leonard Cohen        Suzanne
Leonard Cohen        Hallelujah
Leonard Cohen        Dance Me to the End of Love
Lucky Jim        You're Lovely to Me
Mark Knopfler        Sailing to Philadelphia
Matthews Southern Comfort        Woodstock
Mikis Theodorakis        Horos Tou Zorba (I) / Zorba's Dance
Nick Drake        Northern Sky
Nick Drake        River Man
Noah and the Whale        2 Bodies 1 Heart
Pentangle        Light Flight
Peter, Paul And Mary        Leaving on a Jet Plane
Peter, Paul And Mary        Puff, the Magic Dragon
The Pipes & Drums of The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards        Highland Cathedral
The Pipes & Drums of The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards        Last of the Mohicans
Ralph McTell        Streets of London
Ray LaMontagne        Crazy (Single Version)
Ray LaMontagne        Trouble
Ray LaMontagne        Shelter
Ray LaMontagne        Hold You In My Arms
Robert Plant & Alison Krauss        Killing the Blues
Robert Plant & Alison Krauss        Gone, Gone, Gone (Done Moved On)
Robert Plant & Alison Krauss        Please Read the Letter
Sarah McLachlan        Full of Grace
Sharon Shannon        Galway Girl (With Mundy)
Sharon Shannon        Galway Girl (With Mundy) [Live Version]
Simon & Garfunkel        The Sound of Silence
Simon & Garfunkel        Homeward Bound
Simon & Garfunkel        Scarborough Fair/Canticle
Simon & Garfunkel        The 59th Street Bridge Song (Feelin' Groovy)
Simon & Garfunkel        A Hazy Shade of Winter
Simon & Garfunkel        Cecilia
Simon & Garfunkel        America
Simon & Garfunkel        April Come She Will
Simone White        The Beep Beep Song
Simone White        The Beep Beep Song
Soko        I'll Kill Her
Steeleye Span        Gaudete
Steve Earle & Sharon Shannon        Galway Girl
Tom Baxter        Better
Tom Baxter        Miracle
The Town Pants        Galway Girl
Vashti Bunyan        Diamond Day
The Weepies        World Spins Madly On
The Wurzels        I Am a Cider Drinker
The Wurzels        The Combine Harvester (Brand New Key)

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,TB
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 04:08 AM

Sorry - important correction:

"Your comment above suggests that I'm condoning and contributing to this erosion."

should be

"Your comment above suggests that I'm condoning and contributing to this INVASION."

Guilty to the former, NOT guilty to the latter.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 04:21 AM

"But when talking to the wider world I must use terms that THEY understand. This is not misusing a word, it is choosing language that your interlocutor will understand. It's called communication."
If you are using the term incorrectly, for whatever reason, you are peddling misinformation.
I repeat, no matter how many times people refer to geneology it will continue to be wrong and by accepting it you are being patronising.
Going through your list (some of which I am familiar with, most I am not) what is the common feature which makes them 'folk'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 04:38 AM

This is like wandering into an Alice in Wonderland world. Traditional Folk music, handed down, unaccompanied, local, continues to exist on record and has a body of literature. It will lie low until people who want to go out for the evening prefer it to Streets of London. It still goes on in homes, round the odd pub fire that hasn't become a surf and turf eaterie and so on. 'Folk Clubs' were an artificial construct of the folk revival where young people could flirt to the sound of Scarborough Fair by someone who sounded vaguely like Art Garfunkel with the flu. They have never, to my knowledge, been a substitute for an authentic folk tradition.

I still say you can't hurt the music.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 04:39 AM

"what is the common feature which makes them 'folk'?'

Jim I have not the faintest, foggiest, fuzziest notion. I don't think these IS a common feature - just a vague consensus in the English speaking world that this sort of music is now called 'folk.'

And it's not MY list - it's the iTunes list - the world's leading download site, and therefore as good a snapshot of where we are on 02 06 08 as we'll get.

We can take it from this list that the fans of all those artists, in fact most people who have heard of them (apart from those of us who DO know what the word really means, of course!) would be comfortable using 'folk' to describe them.

As I've said many times (though you choose to ignore these parts of my posts), I don't know how it happened - I wasn't there, and I would NOT have condoned it if I'd seen it happening, because it's wrong, it's stupid, and it gives those of us who are trying to promote and develop both 54 folk AND WIki folk a massive headache.

But it HAS happened. A long time ago, now.

So now we have a choice:

Your way: Re-educate 64 million people who we can't reach and aren't interested anyway.

My way: Use the word 'trad' when referring to the 54 for now, and try to find something better asap.

Nothing to do with refining the 54.

I'm all washed out on this.

Anyone else got any ideas?

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 05:15 AM

Tom,
Are you really suggesting that 64m people have the wrong idea about folk music - or even care? The misuse of the term come exclusively from within the folk music fraternity - deliberately and cynically so in most cases; any misconception outside arises from that fact.
"I don't think these IS a common feature"
Then you have no case; your argument flies in the face of logic.
"don't know how it happened - I wasn't there,"Yes you were/are, and very much a part of it; it continues to happen and it continues to damage - you appear to be prepared to condone that.
You have not addressed one of the problems caused by the misuse of the term. You don't strike me as someone who would shrug and say "tough titty", but that is how it is beginning to come across.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 05:48 AM

I would not be debating here if I didn't care.

I hope you meant: "The misuse of the term CAME exclusively from within the folk music fraternity - deliberately and cynically so in most cases; any misconception outside arises from that fact."

Yes, and it happened long ago, or that list would be much much shorter.

Now we have a fait accompli - unfortunately.

"Then you have no case; your argument flies in the face of logic"

I'm not making an argument for this use being correct, because it's plainly not - it's wrong. I'm saying it's current - and if we want to be understood we have to work with that currency.

We still need to separate the 54 - even more so than in 54. But the word 'folk' is lost to us. if we maintain the definition intact, then we ARE doing EXACTLY what we both want to avoid. Coralling Mark Knopfler into the oral tradition!

It is to prevent this that I want to use a different word, which is still largely understood as something close to the 54.

You have never answered my analogy of the word 'Gay.'

Would you reserve this exclusively for "having or showing a merry, lively mood"?

Do you see any parallel?

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 07:43 AM

Tom,
It actually began to have an adverse effect in the late through the 80s, when it brought the clubs crashing - not that long ago.
More later (I'm afraid) - off to a singing session.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:28 AM

Well you see Jim I was not involved in folk music, by any definition, between about 77 and 95. In 77, when I decided to buy a plexiglass gibson and die my hair blue, people had been calling the likes of Cat Stevens and Al Stewart 'folk' for a long decade - since Dylan et al, or maybe their agents, had first blurred the word.

I only re-entered the scene properly in about 2000, at which point I noticed the records on the shelves labelled 'folk' in HMV, what Mike Harding played on 'Folk on Two,' what people were singing in 'folk' clubs, and what was being reviewed in 'folk' magazines. Hmm, I thought - the line's shifted even further west than it was in 77.

And it's moved even further since then.

I'm 100% behind the 54 definition - it describes something of enormous cultural importance (though I wish they'd added a clause to remind people that the oral tradition should always be seen in context with the written and, later, recorded systems). I want to UN-blur the line. So people are able easily to spot the 'trad ABV' in any modern interpretation, and so find their way back to the well.

Like you, I want to a unique label to go on this tin - but for me 'folk' won't work any more, because too many people think it means something else.

I'm trying to do the same thing as you, and for the very same reason. But I'm hacking my way out of a territory where David Grey and Robert Plant actually ARE 'folksingers.'

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:10 AM

Tom.
Now, after a wonderful afternoon of singing, where most people in the room appeared to be in no doubt what they meant fy folk song - where was I!
"but for me 'folk' won't work any more, because too many people think it means something else."
Sorry Tom, we can't seem to get past this stumbling block.
General ignorance or deliberate misinterpretation is no reason to abandon a definition which perfectly explains the meaning of a word. Anyway, the 'folk' pool includes so few people, and the question arises so infrequently outside of that 'little circle of friends' (and enemies, if I am to take the title of this thread seriously) that it really is not an issue. It is not as if your 64 million people are banging on the door looking for a definition.
If people really want to know, they will look in a dictionary - if we adopt your solution, will they be any wiser for having done that - a little like starting up a dry-ice machine in a London pea-souper I would have thought!
Thank you for your 'gay' analogy - it's perfect for what I'm talking about. Of course there are numerous meanings to some words and gay has come to mean homosexual (you might also add the one derived from Middle English which means dissolute or licentious). Nobody would I hope, suggest that all definitions of 'gay' refer to the same thing, nor would suggest that all homosexuals have or show a "merry, lively mood". While some of my gay friends fit this description, others I have met were right miserable bastards.
Your proposal for the inclusion of your music under 'folk' merges the existing definition with your non-definition, (nobody, yourself included, has produced one single defining feature of your music, apart from the fact that it wasn't sung by horses!) suggesting that it is all the same thing.
Even the term used by some dictionaries (incorrectly), 'modern folksong' - "those which have been created in the folk style", doesn't work as a general catch-all because, while some writers are writing in this manner, many 'modern' folksongs have as little to do with the real thing as Brecht, Schubert or Gilbert and Sullivan.
What you are proposing is not a re-definition, but an abandoning of the existing one because it has become meaningless and undefinable, which to me is cultural vandalism.
The fact that your music lacks, even defies definition, means that it has become a large and extremely anti-social cuckoo in the nest.
It has also led to the practice of others dumping their particular product, 'Music-Hall', Parlour Ballad, early pop-song et al into the 'folk' slot and has led to the present state of the clubs.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 05:23 AM

and I said I wasn't re-entering the debate!

Apologies to everyone else for the way Jim and I are monopolising this thread - I know I'm never going to get my view across to him, but some of the points he raises do require rebuttal or clarification if we're ever going to move towards a resolution on this (which I do believe we, as a group, must).

"General ignorance or deliberate misinterpretation" are terms that do not apply to the current use of the word 'folk' to describe a larder, rather than only one tin in it. They could perhaps have been applied at the time when the change was happening. But now the change has taken place, and the use of the word 'folk' by the majority of the English speaking world is, de facto, by force majeure, correct.

Because that's just how language works.

It is exactly the same as the way the most common meaning of the word 'gay' has changed. Or 'RnB' to use a more pertinent example.

Language means what the person using it means - NOT what it says in the dictionary.

Lexicographers play catch-up as the word meanings shift through common use. Some are quicker to re-define than others, and if you go look in the 21st century's most interactive equivalent of a dictionary - Wikipedia, you will see the 'larder' definition of the word 'folk' - not the 'tin' one. People who use the word like this are wrong in our terms, but completely right in theirs - and to accuse them of "general ignorance or deliberate misinterpretation" is technically, linguistically wrong, unhelpful and actually rather rude and inflammatory.

Jim, you are fighting a rearguard action in a battle that was lost 50 years ag.

Furthermore you are encouraging something which I believe from your other posts you actually don't want to encourage - helping to hide traditional music away. By failing to put up a sign that passers-by will understand, we are limiting our ability to promote and celebrate traditional music.

This phrase is telling: "Anyway, the 'folk' pool includes so few people, and the question arises so infrequently outside of that 'little circle of friends' (and enemies, if I am to take the title of this thread seriously) that it really is not an issue. It is not as if your 64 million people are banging on the door looking for a definition."

This is where you and I differ. We both want the world to be able to recognise the difference between proper 54 folk and the other tins in the wiki larder. There are umpteen reasons why this is important, which I think we agree on.

But you seem only interested in the existing 'little circle.' I believe the entire world should be part of this. I'm a pragmatist and an optimist. I believe in achieving things, and I want the UK (let's start with something relatively easy) to start to re-connect with its musical roots, I want purveyors of both wiki-folk and 54-folk to be more successful, I want the community activities around folk music to flourish, and I want to try to clear up the current mess over copyright - and some other stuff too.

And ALL of this requires that we have a different words for the tin of 54 folk and the larder door.

And if you want to communicate, you HAVE to use words as the OTHER guy understands them.

I'm not going to make ANY progress with iTunes, or HMV, or the gazillions of nu/wyrd/rock/shoegaze/retro/new-age-folk artists, or even Mike Harding if I tell them they are misusing the word folk, and must come up with a new word. (Luckily, PRS does not use 'folk' - I don't know about other bodies around the world).

I am going to make no progress whatsoever, even if I chain myself to the top of Big Ben and play a concertina with my knees.

But if our 'little pool' begins to use - in common parlance - the word 'trad' when they want to refer to the 54 definition, we have an achievable objective - specially as about 90% of that pool are already doing exactly that.

Though while there are still a few people pulling in the opposite direction, and making a big noise about it (which pisses off the people at the margins - the very people we want next to reach) - that task is made harder then it needs to be.

I don't want there to BE an outside world.

Just a world.

Do you see?

Tom

PS You might have noticed that, even though you keep mentioning it, I try to avoid mentioning my own music into these discussions - because it's the bigger debate that's important and I'm, unhelpfully bang in the middle of that difficult margin territory I referred to above round the edge of your 'little pool' (which is why I'm so tuned to the reactions of the other people I meet there).

However, for the record as there's no reason why you should know, I do sing and play a lot of trad (specially when working with Tom Napper), and my own songs are more closely connected with the tradition than many contemporary songwriters. I frequently make new songs from old, I borrow melodies and bits of melody, and words and phrases from traditional sources, and I almost exclusively write about real events in much the same way that the old ballad writers did. But I draw a BIG line between what I do and the tradition. I always explain what is trad and what isn't and why it matters - and while people are kind enough to suggest that some of my songs may, in time, enter the tradition I actually believe that is impossible, because the tradition that made the works that we call trad no longer exists. My songs may enter A tradition - which is cool, but not the same thing. So if anything I'm stricter about all this than most. It is only the LABLE I want to change, and that is for sound 'corporate' reasons.

I spent 25 years as a writer/producer/director and communications consultant (ok, spin doctor), working in, and with, TV, radio, and web providers involved with entertainment, marketing, advertising, training, HR and even government. I'm not coming to this in blue-eyed innocence.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 05:32 AM

Sorry - I meant to respond to this too:

"What you are proposing is not a re-definition, but an abandoning of the existing one because it has become meaningless and undefinable, which to me is cultural vandalism."

Yes that is what I am proposing, but it is NOT cultural vandalism.

It is the way that language is, and was, and always will be.

Go read a bit a Chaucer, then tell me that that the reason you don't understand much is because of cultural vandalsim. (Ok, the Norman Conquest was - but even that is just What Happens).

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 05:44 AM

Tom,
Any definition must take as it's starting place what has gone before.
Would you advocate that we now use the term 'Genealogy' instead of Genealogy because of constant misuse - I won't begin to talk about the grocer's apostrophe?
If you are going to re-define the word (nobody else has), then do it, otherwise we will have no definition for what we do. In which case, all the books on the subject on my shelf (dating from mid 19th century to a year ago) will cease to have a meaning.
By bowing to (or being part of) a minute, self-interest pressure group it is you who is confining our music to obscurity.
Tins in a larder carry their own descriptions and definitions - tomatoes, beans, marmalade, whatever - nobody in their right senses would refer to them all as a larder and nobody would suggest that they are all the same. Your particular tin doesn't have a label; put one on it!
The general definition is 'music' or 'song'; 'folk' is the specific term to describe the contents of the tin.
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 05:58 AM

Tom,
Sorry, meant to say what a good analogy your 'larder' is.
Music or song is your larder, folk is the label on the tin.
The putting of The Canterbury Tales into modern English is a far cry from making the Wife of Bath an advertising executive in the city.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 06:02 AM

I wouldn't advocate that Genealogy should be replaced by Geneology, but if it happens -as it may well do - the dictionaries will be altered to recognise it. Any study of language shows that this is exactly how words change and always have done. By common use. A Butterfly was once called a Flutterby - and yes, dictionaries ARE now showing the grocer's apostrophe as correct.

"If you are going to re-define the word (nobody else has), then do it"

Err - Jim, it's been done very nicely. And I've told you I accept it. Look again at Wikipedia.

Yes, it's a shame about the books, and about the correlation with folk art etc, but the Wiki does take that into account, and a link remains intact.

A minute, self-interest pressure group?

Jim, wake up and smell the coffee mate. If you'd written that in 1965 you'd have had a point, but you are simply wrong. Look again at the iTunes list. There is the proof that it's way past a minute self-interest group.

My own tin has a label which I've already told you about: 'Story songs.'

Do you know the town of Wells in England? It has wells in the middle of it. The wells gave the town its name. No-one complains that the town has houses and shops in it and isn't actually only some wells. Oh, and if you do want to find the wells, you have to follow the signposts to the Bishops Palace.

Sorry Jim that's all I can say.

I need to go change my strings

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 06:42 AM

The Wikepedia definition flies in the face of all other definitions ancient and modern. It is vague and generalised, and even in the terms it has set itself - totally out of date.
Any definition of a specific activity must surely be that which is articulated by its practitioners (and articulators).
Wells became Wells because it had wells, not because it was one, and a butterfly was always a butterfly, and still is.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Black Hawk on works PC
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 07:00 AM

any definition of a specific activity must surely be that which is articulated by its practitioners

I thought that was what Tom was saying?

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 12:27 PM

I wrote 'articulated' by its practitioners, not labelled.
'Folk' is not a label - it defines the music; it refers to its origins, it's creation, transmission, its function and the people it served.
Exclude tomatoes from soup and it ceases to be tomato soup, take folk out of folk music and it ceases to be folk music, no matter how many people wish it were otherwise.
Tom says his particular tin is labelled 'Story songs', which could place it in the 'opera', 'country and western' or 'music hall larder; it has no part in the overall definition.
Wikepedia includes 'electric folk' in its definition, yet does not include Vaughan Williams or George Butterworth or Percy Grainger, who all have a greater claim to the source of the music. If you are going to widen your definition, surely you must remove all the boundaries.   
Incidentally, at the 1971 Loughborough Folk Festival, one of the leading exponents of 'electric folk' Bob Pegg astounded a roomful of people by announcing that he was no longer interested in folk music. When asked why he still played it, he replied "for the money".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Def Shepard
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:11 PM

And this was stated, Bob Pegg astounded a roomful of people by announcing that he was no longer interested in folk music. When asked why he still played it, he replied "for the money".

Well at least Mr. Pegg was being honest about his intentions.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:29 PM

what the f#### going on here?.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:54 PM

Pardon?

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 05:09 AM

Jim, you appear to be overlooking the fact that the 1954 definition was for the purpose of academic study. It is commonplace in all activities for practitioners to use words in a more precise way than in general usage. It is therefore possible for "folk song" to have two meanings, the wider one in general use and the narrow, more precise one for specialists. Confusion arises on a forum like this which is composed of enthusiasts but not necessarily academics, who may use both senses without being clear which one they mean.

I suspect that in 1954 "folk song" even in general use still meant pretty much what Jim would like it to mean ie traditional song. However by the mid-60's it had broadened to include acoustic popular music. Now "folk" can mean almost anything - I have been listening to the BBC 2008 Folk Awards CDs and there's stuff on there that I can't see as being "folk" under any criteria (but perhaps that's just me turning into a Grumpy Old Man).

The fact is that the term "folk" slipped away from the 1954 definition long ago. We can't really complain, since the folk revival was happy to go along with this at the time. By the time I started to go to folk clubs in the early 1970s you could expect to hear all sorts of music there, including blues and "contemporary folk", probably a wider range than you would now. The accusation of "Judas" levelled at Dylan was because of his use of electric instruments, not because he was outside the 1954 definition of folk.

If the 1954 definition was being formulated now, it would probably have to use the term "traditional song" rather than "folk song".

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 05:47 AM

Howard,
"You appear to be overlooking the fact that the 1954 definition was for the purpose of academic study."
No it wasn't; it was an attempt by researchers and performers to identify a specific genre of music for all purposes, study and performance included.
"We can't really complain, since the folk revival was happy to go along with this at the time."
No we weren't - we walked away from the clubs in our thousands - and we never came back.
"the term "folk" slipped away from the 1954 definition long ago."
Again, not the case. A couple of years ago I completed my set of 'The Greig Duncan Folksong Collection', an incredible source of material for students and singers alike - and spot on '54'.
Shortly before that I received as a birthday present Vance Randolph's 'Unprintable Folksongs and Folklore' as a birthday present.
Far from having gone away, the term is still very much alive and kicking.
I was never a stickler for the strict use of the term as long as it didn't stray too far from its correct meaning, just as (occasionally) I am prepared to eat food which contains taste-alike ingredients that have never even seen the shadow of the real thing.
Traditional doesn't do as a term, as I am more than happy to listen to contemporary songs composed using traditional forms, even though they are neither/nor.
I certainly will never accept a folk club evening of Beatles songs, as happened not so long ago in the North of England.
If someone is prepared to come up with a workable definition which leaves the 1954 one intact, fine, let's look at it, but what is constantly being proposed is the total abandonment of any definition, which will ring (and has rung, to a great extent) the death-knell on folks song as I understand it as a performance art.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Sue Allan
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 08:36 AM

For information, for what it's worth, some info on the International Folk Music Council for those who don't know. It seems pretty clear to me that it was primarily aimed at academic researchers and collectors. Certainly its journals give that appearance.

Maud Karpeles wrote an article in Ethnomusicology magazine (Vol 1 No9 1957) called "The International Folk Music Council: its aims and activities", in her capacity as Hon. Sec. of the Council. It opens:

The International Folk Music Council, which was founded in London in 1947, is a worldwide organization with a membership drawn from over fifty countries and an Executive Board which is served by members from fourteen countries. Its President is Dr R Vaughan Williams. It is affiliated to Unesco through the International Music Council, of which it is a member.
The Council's aims are (i) to assist in the preservation of folk music (and dance) of all countries; (ii) to further its study; and (iii) to encourage its present day practice.

Following the formulation of the 1954 definition Maud Karpeles also, if memory serves me right wrote, a piece adding various riders to the original … but I'd have to check details at home (am at work at present with no access to academic journals.

The IFMC morphed at a later date - someone with more information than me mentioned this recently on a thread, with reasons why - into the International Council for Traditional Music.

The ICTM stated aims are quite different, it seems:
"The aims of the ICTM are to further the study, practice, documentation, preservation and dissemination of traditional music, including folk, popular, classical and urban music, and dance of all countries."

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 09:33 AM

I'm probably going to regret this, but here goes -

Jim Carroll

Any definition of a specific activity must surely be that which is articulated by its practitioners (and articulators).

Did the communities in which this music thrived call it "folk music"? Were the travellers, farm labourers, shantiemen, fisherman, waulkers, shepherds... represented at Sao Paulo or was it decided on their behalf by self-appointed folklorists? It seems reminiscent of European explorers "discovering" foreign lands.

Looking at it another way, is there any other word in common usage that has been defined by a committee?

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 12:41 PM

Jim, I didn't say that "folk song" no longer means "traditional song", but it no longer means only that, at least not in general usage.

The examples of traditional songs you mention are correctly labelled "folk songs", both under the general and 1954 definitions. However "folk song" now includes other things, unless you are explicitly working under 1954.

All traditional songs are folk songs. Not all folk songs,as the term is generally used, are traditional songs.

I agree that a performance of Beatles songs doesn't qualify as folk under any definition, but folk clubs aren't academic institutions, and if they want to put something like that on (presumably as a one-off) that's a matter for them and their audience. But if that sort of thing becomes the club's staple, then the name "folk club" would become inappropriate (and would probably put off the target audience for that music).

You seem to want the world at large to use the specific 1954 definition, but the term isn't even limited to that sense on this forum of enthusiasts. Language is defined by its usage, not what we would like it to be.

I understand your frustration at the way the term in general usage has largely lost all meaning, but it's too widely established to change now.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 05:08 PM

Thank you for widening this dialogue - I was beginning to feel guilty for monopolising Tom Bliss.
First can we clear up 'academic', which tends to be used as invective nowadays.
My dictionary gives
Pertaining to university... etc
Scholarly to the point of being impractical
Pertaining to formal education
Formalistic, conventional
Merely theoretical - speculative.
or Pertaining to the academy and philosophy of Plato
Don't know which of those you had in mind Sue, but the 1954 definition was based largely on the work done by Sharp in the field, which he wrote up in 'English Folk Songs, Some Conclusions'. Sharp certainly was a collector, but if he was an academic he spent a great deal of time at the coal-face, and his aim in collecting what he did was specifically for performance.
The fact that the IFMC includes performance and dissemination in their list is surely indicative that their aims were not purely academic.
Sharp's work was re-visited by Bert Lloyd in 1967 - was he an academic? As I remember him he was that lovely balance of researcher and performer. It was he who drew my attention to the 1954 definition in Folk Song in England. I seem to remember that Bert was involved in drawing up the 1954 definition - not sure if he was wearing his 'academic' or 'performing' hat at the time!
MacColl / largely performer with a deep interest in the subject, was happy to accept the definition
Me - I spent my working life as an electrician, fell in love with folk song as an apprentice on the Liverpool docks and, even though that interest tended to go fairly deeply from the word go, that love-affair has lasted a lifetime; I am certainly not an academic.
The revival I came into in 1962 was largely the offspring of the 1954 definition; that's what you got when you paid your entrance fee.Any knowledge I might have on the subject came from singing, listening, reading, helping run clubs and thirty years worth of interviewing traditional singers.
Snail
"Did the communities in which this music thrived call it "folk music"?"
Some did, some didn't. Walter Pardon certainly did. I think I included transcripts of what Walter had to say in a thing I wrote for the Enthusiasms page of Musical Traditions entitled 'By Any other Name'.
Blind Travelling woman Mary Delaney called the songs, "Me daddy's songs' even though she only learned a tiny handful of the 100 songs she sang us from her father. Mary refused to sing us any of her country and western songs because she said "they had the old songs ruined' and had only learned them because 'that's what the lads ask me for in the pub".
Traveller Mikeen McCarthy, Traveller called them "fireside songs" and Clare small farmer Tom Lenihan called them "the old tradition". Other singers we have met have called them 'folk' 'the old songs' and '"come-all-ye's". The point is, whoever we questioned isolated a group of songs and named them. I referred to Tom Lenihan as a 'small farmer' the term generally applied to those of his occupation and background. He would not have referred to himself by that description; others in his position might even take offence - but that is what Tom was.
The name on the door I came in - folk - whether it was chosen by a committee, or whether it evolved, was widely accepted internationally, was part of the definition, and, as far as those of us who continue to research the subject, is still very much in current use.
If you wish to challenge it, adapt it to include other types of music or replace it altogether, please feel free to do so, but you have to take the original definition as your starting point, and explain how, why and into what it has changed.
"is there any other word in common usage that has been defined by a committee?"
I assume that by this statement, you are challenging the validity of the original definition - on what grounds? Surely definitions can be arrived at by those working in the specific field. As I write at present, two of my friends are working on definitions of aspects of music for an Irish encyclopedia. I believe VWMLibrarian Malcolm Taylor has contributed definitions to various works. Personally, I can't think of any better arrangement.
Howard:
"I agree that a performance of Beatles songs doesn't qualify as folk under any definition,"
How dare you make such a claim; what makes your definition, or non-definition any more valid than a club that decides to call a night of Beatles songs 'folk'. I've certainly heard people argue for the Beatles songs to be considered folk because of their continued popularity in pub sing-songs. Are you claiming exclusive rights on changing the term?
The only solid argument I have heard for expanding or discarding the term folk has been it's alleged misuse, though that misuse appears to be a largely cynical exercise by a self-interest pressure group.
It makes gibberish of our language, but it also has a more sinister side.
George Orwell referred to such practice as 'Newspeak' and more recently, it has led to 'torture' being replaced in the vocabulary with 'special rendition', killing your own side as 'friendly fire' and 'the massacre of civilians as 'collateral damage'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Howard Jones
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 06:03 PM

Jim,

I wasn't using "academic" as invective or as a put-down, what I was trying to convey was that the 1954 definition was intended mainly for those working in the field of folk music, which I am happy to accept includes performers as well as academics. And I don't doubt that in 1962 "folk song" still meant the 1954 definition. But only a few years later it had expanded to include Dylan, Peter Paul & Mary, the Byrds, and pretty much anyone playing an acoustic guitar.

I don't think this is "Newspeak", which is a deliberate attempt to manipulate language in order to mislead, simply a casual misuse of the phrase. Journalists and the public both needed a label for this new type of music which had invaded the world of popular music. It is unsurprising that they latched onto the term "folk" when so many of those involved at the time were also involved with 1954 folk music and described themselves as folk singers. Yes it dilutes the meaning, but for most people the distinction is irrelevant.

Of course the term "folk music" remains in current use, and I use it interchangeably with "traditional music". But I accept the fact that, the original meaning, the 1954 meaning, has become watered down, and if I want to be more specific I say "traditional music". I'm not saying this is a good thing, simply that's how the language has evolved - not through any sinister attempt to undermine traditional music, just through the need for a simple label to cover acoustic music which had at least some links with 1954 folk.

I have to admit to being unclear by what criteria some modern songwriters are accepted as "folk" while others are not. Sometimes it seems to be a bit arbitrary. But I don't think Beatles songs qualify - they don't usually follow a similar structure to traditional songs, nor were they written with folk clubs in mind as a target audience. While they have become popular and may be often sung by "the folk", they have still to show the degree of variation required by the 1954 definition, and I suspect that most people still have the original tracks firmly in their minds when they are singing them. I don't believe the qualify as folk yet, but many of them are strong enough songs that they could well evolve into folk songs, given time.

If you are going to insist on "folk music" only being applied to music which fits the 1954 definition, then you are going to have to find another term for the range of other music which doesn't fit it but is nevertheless accepted in the folk revival. Either that or say the other music has no place in folk. The first is impractical because the wider world is quite happy with its usage of the term, and I don't think you believe the second any more than I do.

Jim, the genie is out of the bottle. You may deplore the dilution of a term with a precise meaning into one which is so vague as to almost defy definition, but I don't believe the linguistic process can be reversed.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 06:03 PM

Jim et al,
Long ago I shied away from trying to give strict boundaries and definitions to music genres. Try giving a strict boundary to 'jazz', 'classical', 'rock'. We all have different ideas as to what they constitute. 'Folk' is no exception to this. As has been said it means different things to different people. So what? It doesn't stop me from enjoying it, playing it, singing it. If it overlaps into something else occasionally so what if it's enjoyable?
It is a useful label, but no more than that. AND don't forget words and indeed definitions of words are evolving all the time, particularly in the English language. Most words in the English language have multiple meanings and different dictionaries give slightly different meanings. It doesn't stop us from doing crosswords or understanding each other. Using the word 'Ballad' presents far more problems than the term 'folksong'. Try putting 'ballad' into Ebay and you come up with all sorts of stuff. This word has changed its popular meaning drastically many times over the centuries.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Def Shepard
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 06:07 PM

It is my opinion that too many people try to set too many boundaries and definitions around music, and I for one say "Did you say something about how I should play and what I should play? Because if you did, you need to mind your own business, to be blunt about it.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 02:51 AM

Def Shepard,
In a similar vein, if you turned up at our folk-club (R.I.P. many times over) toting a Steinway and demanding to be allowed to play your selection of Chopin...... (repeat of your last sentiment).
More when I've woken up!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Black Hawk on works PC
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 03:28 AM

Why do posters keep defining acoustic music as folk music.
C & W was acoustic & is still mainly played on acoustic bodied guitars with pickups rather than solid bodied.
Same with most blues.
My daughter plays cornet in a silver band but has never used amplification.
The content is the definer surely, not what it is played on.
It is difficult enough agreeing what 'folk' is (if we ever can) without bringing method into the equation.
A novice once told me he couldnt see any circumstance where a singer would need a microphone.
I asked him if he thought he could sing at an outdoor concert at Wembley stadium & be heard.
Its a means to an end.
And if it has been recorded (on any medium), on play back it is no longer 'acoustic'.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:01 AM

Black Hawk, I think the use of the term "acoustic" to describe material that sometimes overlaps with "folk" is simply borne out of people's searching for a term (other than "folk") which can be applied to said material. I see it as a tryout, and by no means as an established term - yet.

Howard Jones said "I have to admit to being unclear by what criteria some modern songwriters are accepted as "folk" while others are not." Well, you and me together, and I am trying to be one of the very ones you refer to. Overall, I would refer to myself as a songwriter, full-stop. I would be the first to admit that some of my material does not belong to the genre (and I do not play them at folk club gigs, but I do include them in albums). But some of the material does move towards that wide and undefined category that the majority of people refer to as "folk". How can I tell? I don't know, the best way I can describe it is to do with the choice of subjects and the approach to them, the storytelling and picture-painting rather than the music itself. That's how it works for me, in my own mind.

By the same token, I consider some songs that sprang out of the pop or rock world to be worthy of inclusion into the same above category, irrespective of the fact that the people that wrote or made them popular are not accepted as folk artists. Such songs for example, would be "Penny Lane" and "Eleanor Rigby", Mark Knopfler's "Prairie wedding" and "Sailing to Philadelphia", Billy Joel's "And so it goes" and the "Piano man".

So whether the song is, or is not, "folk" (always in the wider-than-1954-sense, erroneous or not) has nothing to do with who wrote or sang it. The characteristics - for me - are in the song itself, not in the provenance or how it is delivered.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Ewan Spawned a Monster
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:32 AM

Apart from when talking about performers of traditional material, I don't think it's possible nowadays to wholly define who is and isn't a folksinger. I'm not sure it really matters. There does seem to be a massively arbitrary element to it.

I'm with Howard on the "linguistic slippage theory". I also think there's a point to be made about context. For example, George Papavgeris and James Yorkston are both contemporary singer songwriters. George is considered a folk singer, because he often plies his trade at folk clubs and festivals to a folk audience. James isn't because he usually doesn't. However, to the general public, both would be considered folksingers and to the 1954ers neither would. Context and perspective, then.

Blooming good songwriters, nonetheless.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:43 AM



"Did the communities in which this music thrived call it "folk music"?"
Some did, some didn't. Walter Pardon certainly did.

Well that's one but it doesn't seem to be general.

Since you ignore my question about whether the communities that the songs were collected from were represented at Sao Paulo I take it they weren't.

"is there any other word in common usage that has been defined by a committee?"
I assume that by this statement, you are challenging the validity of the original definition - on what grounds?

No, I am challenging its authority.

Surely definitions can be arrived at by those working in the specific field.

Of course, for their own use. They have no right to impose those definitions on the general public. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists defines an alcohol as any of a group of chemicals the simplest of which is methanol and the next ethanol. If you ask a scientist if they drink alcohol they are more likely to say "That's very kind. Pint of best, please." than quibble over the definition.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:59 PM

I'm with you, Snail!

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 04:26 PM

"Such songs for example, would be "Penny Lane" and "Eleanor Rigby","
Oh dear: I put up the Beatles example as how bad it could get - and it got worse!
Sorry folks - this is nonsense. You can't even agree among yourselves. 'Penny Lane' - give us a break; can Tom Jones and Shirley Bassey be too far behind, I wonder!!!
If anything convinces me of the need for a clear definition, this does.
"However, to the general public, both would be considered folksingers"
Do you have any grounds for claiming this? Since ALL sides of this argument have totally failed to catch the interest of the 'general public' I suggest that they would have no idea what it was.
"Did the communities in which this music thrived call it "folk music""
I replied 'some did' and mentioned Walter Pardon. I could have mentioned 'Straighty Flanagan' Mikey Kelleher, Duncan Williamson, 'Pop's' Johnny Connors, Martin Howley... and a number of others, all who we have heard use the term at one time or another and whose names would almost certainly have meant nothing to you. Your somewhat grudging "well, that's one" suggests that it would have been pointless for me to have done so. Walter was an extremely intelligent, perceptive and articulate man who gave a great deal of thought to what he did; far more so than most revival singers I have met and debated with. He had the added advantage of having been part of a living tradition.
"Were the communities that the songs were collected from were represented at Sao Paulo?"
No they weren't, and I find the suggestion that they should have been somewhat odd.
As much as I admired Sam Larner and Phil Tanner, I couldn't imagine them to speak on behalf of say a Lancashire weaving community or a Durham mining village, let alone communities in Spain, Finland, Rumaina... and all the other places covered by the definition.
It was arrived at, at the time of the greatest collecting project ever carried out in these islands before or since, on behalf of the BBC. Among those involved in that were Sean O'Boyle, son of a traditional singer and musician, Seamus Ennis, a musician and singer with at least one foot firmly in the tradition, and our own Bob Copper, member of Britain's number one 'folk' family. Assisting in an advisory capacity was Paddy Tunney, son of one of Ireland's finest traditional singers and one in his own right.
Also involved around this time was the magnificent American traditional singer, Jean Richie
It would be ludicrous to suggest that the findings of all this work was not taken into consideration when arriving at the definition, particularly as the nephew of one of the IFMC members was head of the BBC project.
This member, Maud Karpeles had worked with Sharp, so was familiar with the collecting in the South of England and in the Southern Appalachians and was a collector in her own right in Newfoundland.
The definition was accepted in Britain and abroad by academics and performers alike.
I would suggest that any challenge would be best aimed at the definition itself rather than the somewhat ingenuous approach of undermining the authority of its authors.
By the way, the damage that has been done to folk music by the attempted abandoning of ANY definition was not done 'a long time ago' as has been suggested, it has been, and still is a process of erosion.
I like to believe that even at this late stage the process can be reversed, but if that is to be the case it will take a little more thought and sensitivity than has been shown so far in these discussions.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 04:51 PM

To confuse things further, James Yorkston actually does traditional material - mostly rather badly, it has to be said (he's a very inexpressive singer), but he does get the songs out there.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Ewan Spawned a Monster
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:00 PM

Nice bloke too. Huge fan of Ann Briggs and Lal Waterson, as it 'appens.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:16 PM

Jim,

I may have missed something, but I'm not sure that anyone has challenged the validity of the 1954 definition - I certainly haven't. It's a useful and well thought out definition, in my opinion. But the language has changed over the last 50 years, and both the general public and the folk movement now use the term in a much wider sense.

Yes its regrettable, but it's what happens to language. If you think you can reverse it, good luck, but it's been established now for half a century. Personally, I think you're on a loser. That's not to say I don't agree with the principle, but I'm being pragmatic.

I'm not sure what damage has been done to 1954 folk music by this. For years the folk clubs thrived on a mixture of 1954 and other folk. Whatever the reasons for the subsequent decline of the clubs I don't believe it was because they were offering too little or too much 1954 folk.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:18 PM

Jim, it is precisely because of your own Beatles example that I referred to those two songs, in order to show that there is a wider public out there (misinformed perhaps, I won't argue there) that applies the term "folk" to a much wider bag than that defined by the 1954 definition. I will not argue the rights and wrongs of it, there's no point. As Howard Jones said, the genie is out of the bottle, no use arguing the toss no matter how upsetting it may be. You/we may wish dearly that they would use some other term than "folk" for the purpose, but the majority rules. We may call it "newspeak" but that changes nothing.

The time to shore up the 1954 definition was in the 60s. If it proved impossible to do then, by what measure can one hope to achieve it 50 years later?