Folk vs Folk

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Folkiedave
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 06:12 PM

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

Then whatever else one may think, from that, he has excellent taste.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 06:26 PM

"the general public...... now use the term in a much wider sense."
Can you give me an example of this Phil?
"For years the folk clubs thrived on a mixture of 1954 and other folk"
and one more or less drove out the other - guess which one?
When folkies describe 'boring folk songs at folk clubs' and whinge about 'long' ballads, I wonder whether we inhabit the same planet.
"I'm not sure what damage has been done to 1954 folk music by this" is it my imagination or didn't most of the clubs disappear in the 80s?
I decided that my last visit was the night I sat through an evening where I didn't hear a song which remotely resemble a folksong; and when I hear ... Penny Lane, for god's sake.
I think I might have fallen down a rabbit hole, now wher are the hatter and the doormouse?
Don't know "James Yorkston" - please don't enlighten me; this is depressing enough as it is.
I have no doubt that the real thing will survive and that people will be listening to Walter Pardon and Tom Lenihan a century hence. I doubt if you can say the same about your music as you seem totally at a loss to define it - surely that says something.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 06:39 PM

I too am certain that "the real thing will survive and that people will be listening to Walter Pardon and Tom Lenihan a century hence", Jim. We agree there. Though I think they will be singing Webber's Padstow May Song and Bogle's "The band played Waltzing Matilda", too. And - don't turn your eyes up in horror now - perhaps, just perhaps, in some odd and unguarded moments, even "Eleanor Rigby".

What they will call them, I do not know. Perhaps "ancient music", perhaps each will be called something different or all referred to by the same term. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that they should be sung, because they all deserve to be - for different reasons and to varying degrees, but they deserve it. Always IMHO.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tpm Bliss
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 06:42 PM

Hi folks,

I feel I should explain that Jim and I were, above, continuing what was a very lengthy discussion of this topic in another thread (from which we had both retired hurt) - which may be why some of what we said to each other may not have made sense. Many of the images, of tins and larders and genies and bottles and colours and wells and wikis and 54s go back to this. Sorry if it seemed somewhat incoherent out of context.

I have now had this chat with Jim, and with another regular who's not contributed this time, on about 5 occasions over the past two years, without any meeting of minds on the central issue.

That issue is that to Jim, and others who agree with him, the word folk is welded to the 54 definition. Therefore if some music is described as folk, then, to them, this means that the music is being included (or is hoped to be included, in their eyes) within that definition. And this makes them unhappy, and a little bit cross.

To me, and others if like mind, it is not. It is merely that the meaning of the WORD folk has been expanded to include this other music, leaving the 54 definition intact, but now with a new label: Traditional. We see no problem with this. One word has replaced another, and the definition - and all it stands for - is largely safe and healthy.

I have tried umpteen ways to help Jim get his head round this, but every time I think I'm getting somewhere, he comes back with a comment which shows that he's not got the point all - and here, above, we have more examples, with a number of well-reasoned arguments all getting the same response.

It's a shame, it's frustrating, but does it really matter?

Well, there will be many who'll say it doesn't. The music will survive and the only bad thing we can do to the songs is fail to sing them. (©MC)

I'm of that opinion too - but with one crucial proviso.

If Jim and his ilk were content only to defend their position, and fight the good fight for the word folk, I'd have no problem. We could all engage in spirited debate until the end of time.

But what bothers me, and bothers me a lot, is that whose who feel the way Jim does tend to view, and speak about, 'wiki' folk artists, like me and George - and in fact hundreds of others, as cultural criminals - or worse. They plainly feel we are usurping the tradition for our own mercurial ends, and are therefore dishonest (and other things we'd probably rather not be called). Jim's posts are peppered with understated insults aimed at non-trad 'wiki-folk' artists - as others posts by other contributors have been in the past.

Now, I don't actually care about this for myself (and I doubt George does either). My conscience is clear, and I know there are plenty of people who like what I do, and feel I'm committing no crime in doing it.

But what I DO care about is that this battle, when seen by people at the margins of our world - the very people we hope to draw into it - makes us look like a bunch of rather mean-minded plonkers.

And we have a big enough image problem here already - so we can do without this particular own goal.

That's why I've gone 20 rounds with Jim and others, and will probably continue to do so, as long as he has rounds in hi rifle.

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 06:48 PM

With you on that, George. The oral tradition has never stopped assimilating new material in those few areas left in the country where it continues. West of Sheffield the farming community has a strong mixture of poems set to music, sentimental Victorian songs, Music Hall, Carols, oh and a few of what the rest of us call 'folk songs' which are in fact the pop songs of the early 19th century as printed on broadsides and sung in the street by ballad singers commercially.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 03:05 AM

Tom and all,
First an unreserved apology, then an explanation.
If I have offended anybody with my arguments and how I have delivered them – sorry, that was not my intention. Twenty-odd years ago I would have sat on my hands and kept silent; that's what I did in those days and that's what I don't do any more; don't really have that time now.
In the early sixties I found a music which sucked me in and more or less took over my life; I didn't know much about it, just that it was different and that I liked it. It was never a 'head' thing - in those days it came from Jeannie Robertson and Harry Cox and Joe Heaney and The Stewarts.... and many more who I was lucky enough to see and hear in the flesh, and in some cases, get to talk to.
Right through the sixties and seventies I attended clubs, I sang at them, helped run them, even helped set some of them up; they became a large part of my life when I wasn't working. I read a little about the music, but not much; I was far more interested in listening to it.
In the early seventies my wife and I began collecting; going out and finding the people who sang the songs I was interested in, whose parents had sung them and whose parents' parents had probably sung them. We met them, recorded their songs and, far more importantly, we talked to them – in many cases at great length.
We met Travellers who had worked in tinware, dealt in horses, built and travelled in horse drawn caravans and had done a host of other jobs and had led lives completely alien to our own. They took us in, made us welcome and sang for us – and talked, and talked, and talked - filling several hundred tapes with songs, stories, reminiscences and information.
Shortly after that we visited this town on the west coast of Ireland and met small farmers, landless labourers, council employees who worked on the road, singers, musicians, storytellers, tradition bearers...
We went to the town/village a few miles down the coast from here and met fishermen who where then still going out to sea in three and four-man canvas boats and whose parents had gone out in the same type of boat earlier in the century and rescued the crew of a French sailing ship which had gone aground in bad weather. They told us of the incident, and sang us the songs that had been made about it. Again we were made welcome, and again these people filled another several hundred tapes with their songs, stories and information.
We went to the East coast of England and met a carpenter from farming stock who sang us wonderful songs and spent the next twenty years filling tape after tape with information about the singing of those songs and with his very strong and thoughtful ideas of how they came about and how they should be treated.
We met East Anglian deep sea fishermen, Scots Travellers, Irish men and women, mainly from rural backgrounds; singers, storytellers, musicians and dancers who had all ended up in London.
We finally moved over here to the West of Ireland and are now in the process of trying to make sense of what we've been given and trying to work out how to make it available to as many people as might be interested in it.
We haven't gone to the books for our information; we've relied largely on the people I've mentioned and on others we've met with a similar interests to our own. The books, or at least some of them, have been a seasoning rather than the main meal; the ball of string that helps us try to find our way through the labyrinth.
All this is a little long winded – sorry for that – it's an attempt to explain who and why I am. In some ways my desire to debate is a repayment of the debt of gratitude to the people who have been generous and patient enough to pass on to us what we have been bequeathed; if you like, a recognition of the responsibility that seems to go with the territory.
I enjoy these discussions/debates/arguments – whatever they are; I find them educational, stimulating, entertaining: I don't particularly like it when they become too heated, but it seems to be an inevitable part of them and it's certainly a two-way street. I didn't start this thread; I didn't call it 'Folk vs Folk'. I regard discussions like this as little more than marking out our own territory, I never understand why people should take them as questions of value judgements – they're not. Why should I object to what other people listen to; my own musical tastes are fairly catholic.   
Just occasionally some of the arguments strike a raw nerve in me.
I was born and grew up in Liverpool, a city I was quite fond of at one time. In the mid-sixties I watched my home town being turned into a gigantic money-making machine by a cynical and highly-manipulative music industry. When I am told that one of the products of that machine is part of the music I have been listening to and recording over the last forty years...... well - sorry for the knee-jerk reaction.
I don't suppose these arguments ever change peoples' minds – speaking for myself, they give me a great deal to think about, I hope they do the same for others. I am, of course, unconvinced by most of the arguments put forward; too vague, too unsubstantial, a little like trying to wrestle fog.
One point I remain absolutely unconvinced on is the idea that the term 'folk' has changed because millions of people now take it to mean something else. One of the great failures of all of us has been our inability to bring people to our music – however we care to define it. We are, and probably will remain a tiny Freemasons Lodge with our own customs and language; these arguments are little more than a heated family discussion over the tea and toast – not the way I hoped it would turn out, but that's the way it seems to be. It's really up to us to sort out our differences; the outside world neither knows nor cares what we are about.
There is still much to be said on the subject of 'folk'.
Steve if you wish to believe that we still have a living tradition and that the Victorian and Music Hall songs are part of it, of course you are very welcome to do so.
I believe the tradition died when people stopped making and adapting songs and became recipients of rather than participants in their culture. I also believe Pat and I witnessed part of that dying in the mid-seventies when the Travellers got portable televisions and stopped singing (except to pests with tape recorders).
My late friend and neighbour Tom Munnelly, one of the greatest folk song collectors in these islands with 22,000 songs under his belt, as far back as the early 70s described his work as "a race with the undertaker". His field-work finally dried up altogether in the mid-nineties.
.............. but perhaps that's an argument for another time.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 03:49 AM

Thanks for this Jim. May I say I have the greatest respect for your feelings, and understand entirely why you take the stance you do.

That said, if one merely does a 'replace' operation on any of your posts, and substitutes the word 'tradtion/al' for 'folk' all of the disagreement disappears at once.

I think the most telling contribution on this page comes from Sue Allen: "The IFMC morphed at a later date - snip - into the International Council for Traditional Music."

That says it all for me.

As I've said, I wasn't involved in this music in the 80s - but I don't think it was the admission on non-54 music into folk clubs that caused the decline. From the start of the revival many clubs admitted blues and skiffle and music hall and all sorts - and I don't think the repertoire changed in the 80s, or since. If you look at the national picture over the whole half century the songs have come and gone out of fashion, but the styles are largely the same.

Other factors have affected the health of clubs.

Maybe you are basing your views on your own experience in the clubs you frequented. As I say I wasn't there in the middle - but I hear much the same stuff in clubs now as I did in the 60s and 70s. All that's changed is that we say trad when we used to say folk.

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 04:04 AM

I too would like to compliment you on your latest post Jim, and like Tom, I also hold the greatest respect for your views, the more so as I stand further back than Tom in my knowledge and experience of the genre. And I think folk (note the absence of quotes) is all the better for having passionate supporters like you. Put it this way - I'd rather be arguing with you about these things, than not, if you get my drift.

Have a good day now, and I'll catch up with the thread later, the day job calls, you know how it is, pens to pilfer, social evils to commit, environments to pollute... an office worker's work is never done.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 04:07 AM

Steve if you wish to believe that we still have a living tradition and that the Victorian and Music Hall songs are part of it, of course you are very welcome to do so.

The 54 definition is capacious enough to include music hall songs, isn't it? Just as long as you get them from someone else (who got them from someone else), rather than out of the library.

I take your broader point, though - I know I'm not part of any living tradition or even a witness to one. As Sedayne said upthread, we're essentially running a museum, albeit an unusually rich and lively one. That thought should probably prompt mourning as well as celebration.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 05:04 AM

I would like to endorse the comments above. Jim, I have the greatest respect for your work with the tradition and fully understand the point of view you are coming from.

I think you must have been unlucky with the folk clubs you went to. I regularly went to folk clubs for about 20 years, starting in about 1970. The range of music was very wide, but was substantially 1954 folk, albeit mostly performed by revival performers rather than true traditional singers. But I was lucky enough to see the Coppers, Fred Jordan, Walter Pardon and a number of others.

But in addition to this there was a range of other music, not traditional but which was in some way acceptable to a folk audience. Not all of it was to my taste, but the same can be said for 1954 folk as well.

The reasons for the decline of the folk clubs is a subject for another thread, but I believe it was largely down to economic factors and other demands on the time and money of both club audiences and organisers. The clubs that survive are often singers clubs - on the few occasions I now visit I find the range of material is no different from the heyday in the 1970s and 80s, but they can't afford to book professionals so the standard is often lower.

I'm sorry Jim, but you are wrong when you say that the idea of "folk" has not changed. It hasn't changed for people like you, who are deeply involved with traditional music, but it has for other people. The 1954 definition is still valid, but the term "folk music" which it was applied to has moved into the general language and acquired a broader meaning.

I don't think the "other folk music" is trying to pretend it comes into the 1954 definition, but the folk revival was always willing to embrace other music besides strict 1954. As, of course, were many traditional singers, who often had music hall and popular songs in their repertoire alongside true "folk songs" and often recognised the distinction between them. So this is nothing new.

Let us suppose that "folk music" had kept its strict 1954 meaning. I think the folk revival would still have embraced Bob Dylan, Ralph McTell etc because it saw a relationship with 1954 folk that brought it into the tent. The folk clubs were always about performance and entertainment rather than the study of folk song. They might have had to be called "folk and XXXX clubs", just as the early ones were known as "folk and blues" clubs, but the range of music would be the same.

If people ask me what sort of music I play, I tell them "folk music". They understand this, in a vague sort of way. If I told them "traditional music" I would have to explain what I meant. If I tried to give them the 1954 definition their eyes would glaze over. To them the distinction is meaningless.

As I said, Jim, this is with the greatest respect to your point of view. No one is saying you can't "folk music" in its 1954 sense, it will always be clear, if only from the context, what you mean. But you can't stop others from using it differently - again, it is usually clear from the context what they mean. We could wish for greater precision in the language, but that's not how it evolves.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 08:02 AM

Jim Carroll

"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.

But Cecil Sharp can speak on behalf of Norfolk fishermen, Maud Karpeles on behalf of Gower farm labourers?

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

To my mind,Sam Larner, Phil Tanner, the Coppers, Fred Jordan, Walter Pardon... are the practicioners but it is "somewhat odd" to suggest that they should have been involved in Sao Paulo. It seems that the articulators (whoever they are) are the only ones that matter.

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.

I am not undermining their authority to define the music, just the authority to define the meaning of words already in use in the English language. "Folk" had been in use for a long time before 1954. You bizarrely say that your 19th century books "will cease to have a meaning" if the definition is abandoned. Had they been meaningless for the previous hundred years? Woody Guthrie was known as a folk singer. He was 42 in 1954.

The definition is fine, it's just the claim to exclusive use of the
word that causes problems.

Incidentally, the programme at the Royal Oak last night (guests Judy and Dennis Cook) included versions of Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight (Child #4), Sir Patrick Spens (Child #58) and Jellon Grame (Child #90) as well as many other traditional songs and tunes. Nobody sang a Beatles song, I haven't heard one in a folk club for about twelve years. There were some non-traditional songs from 19th C to modern and the evening was rounded off with Ta Ra Ra Boom Di Ay. I really don't think this did any damage to folk music.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 03:27 PM

Jim,
I empathise with the majority of what you are saying. I am also aware that a different state of affairs exists in Ireland where there has long been a strong tradition of song making independent of the broadside press, but in the rest of Britain and in Dublin/Cork/Belfast at least 90% of what we call folk song/traditional either started out on a commercial printed broadside, or had been substantially helped along by its being printed on a broadside. These then were the pop songs c1800-1850.
Yes what makes them folk is the fact that to some degree or other they have been passed on aurally, but so have many Music Hall songs and even the likes of Sharp and Broadwood couldn't filter them all out. There are some in their collections, Common Bill, Jim the Carter's Lad, The Country Carrier, etc, etc. John Howson's 'Songs Sung in Suffolk' probably has a majority of these sort of songs.

Even the Child Ballads (gasp!), about a third owe their lives to those revolting broadsides Child so detested. Some of them even originated as broadside ballads. All of the Robin Hood ballads for instance.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 03:33 AM

Steve,
I am aware of the printed circulation of the songs and ballads; one of our Traveller singers was active in the trade and gave us a great deal of information on the process.
Surely it's not how a folk song originated (of which we know virtually nothing), but what happens to it when it leaves home - so to speak.
In my experience, not only are the composers of the music hall pieces usually known, but the songs tend to remain static and unadapted to any significant degree. There are exceptions of course, but I have usually found it a fairly common tendency.
I once thumbed through, but didn't get the chance to read fully, an old friend, Bob Thomson's thesis on the influence of broadsides on local singing traditions. I think there is a copy at C# House.
Once again, Walter Pardon had a fair amount to say on the differences between "the old folk songs", music hall, and Victorian parlour ballads, all of which were included in his own repertoire.
Snail and all,
Sorry, I'm not ignoring your postings - will respond when I've recovered from my recent bout of 'shell-shock'. Thank's for once again giving me much to think about.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: mark gregory
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:34 AM

The 1954 definition was an improvement on what came before it in a number of ways ... it had an international focus, it was more inclined to allow in literary sources or was more aware that there had not been a purely oral culture for a very long time.

I first read about it in Lloyd's Folk Song in England

Reading and rereading through articles written by Bert Lloyd I found his 1979 definition of 'Folk Song' in a collection called Folk Music in School (p10)

"I would suggest that nowadays by 'folk' we understand groups of
people united by shared experience and common attitudes, skills, interests and aims.
These shared attributes become elaborated, sanctioned, stabilised by
the group over a period of time. Any such group, with communally
shaped cultural traits arising 'from below' and fashioned by
'insiders', might be a suitable subject for folklore studies. Some of
these groups may be rich in oral folklore (anecdotes, speechways,
etc.) but deficient in songs; others may be specially notable for
superstitions and customs. Perhaps for English society the most
clearly defined of such groups are those attached to various basic
industries: for example, miners with their special attitudes, customs,
lore and language, song culture and such. But it will be seen that my
suggestion does not rule out the possibility of regarding hitherto
unexplored fields, such as the realms of students, actors, bank
clerks, paratroopers, hospital nurses, as suitable territory for the
folklorist to survey.

The present-day folklorist, who views the problem in its social
entirety, and extends his researches into the process by which
traditional folklore becomes adapted to the conditions of modern
industrial life, has to consider the classic 'peasant' traditions as
being but a part - the lower limit, if you like - of a process by
which folklore becomes an urban popular affair. Indeed, as far as song
is concerned, that is the present stage of folklore development:
nowadays there is far greater use of the folk-song repertory and of
folkloric forms of creation in our industrial towns than in the
countryside."

Seems to me to be pretty broad but not so broad as to become meaningless and to take into account an understanding of the importance of industrial folk song or folk music in an idustrialised era.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:15 PM

Mark Gregory,do you believe that what Bert said was true? THIS:
Indeed, as far as song
is concerned, that is the present stage of folklore development:
nowadays there is far greater use of the folk-song repertory and of
folkloric forms of creation in our industrial towns than in the
countryside."

Seems to me to be pretty broad but not so broad as to become meaningless and to take into account an understanding of the importance of industrial folk song or folk music in an industrialised era.
Doubts about some of Berts scholarship exist ,some of his own songs have been passed off by him as traditional .

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: trevek
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 01:59 PM

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."

The use of the word "presrvation" interests me? How far does the preservation go?

Jim said: "I believe the tradition died when people stopped making and adapting songs and became recipients of rather than participants in their culture."

A good point. In theatre circles I've heard this called "spoonfeeding". I think we can couple this to the increase in recording of information. At one point people might hear a song and learn it without any idea (or care?) of whom the originator was. Now, not only is it easier to find the author it is a risky business to change words. If I were to change the words to a Burns song because I preferred a change I would be bounced on by a million Burns fans. I wonder how many people have been told they got the words to "No Man's Land" wrong because they didn't sing the Fureys' version.


Capt Birdseye: Indeed, as far as song
is concerned, that is the present stage of folklore development:
nowadays there is far greater use of the folk-song repertory and of
folkloric forms of creation in our industrial towns than in the
countryside."

In Poland (and east/Central Europe), in the 1980's there began a kind of anti-folklore ('fake-lore'), sometimes called 'post-folklore' where ordinary musicians and theatre-performers began to research old village music by seeking it out and learning it from the old musicians. Some of these researchers later developed schools for teaching the songs and singing techniques (as well as tunes/playing techniques). In my experience (albeit limited) most of the students of these techniques (and some of the teachers) are townies.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 05:37 PM

Snail:
"But Cecil Sharp can speak on behalf of Norfolk fishermen, Maud Karpeles on behalf of Gower farm labourers?"
The 1954 definition, from which most dictionary definitions are derived, was arrived at by the pooling of knowledge and experience of those working in the field. It reached far beyond the people present and took into consideration the work of people like Kidson, Broadwood, Vaughan Williams, Butterworth... (the articulators) all of whom had presumably gathered information from their informants. This would have been the case in the other countries represented. It was not an attempt to define the individual communities – fishing, mining etc.; rather it was an attempt to make sense of a world-wide phenomenon based on the information gathered by those working in the field.
If these people were not qualified to make an assessment – who would you suggest was more suited to the job? – or was anybody qualified? Was the job worth doing at all? If they got it wrong, where?
""Folk" had been in use for a long time before 1954...... exclusive use of the word that causes problems."
The relevant definition of folk as applied to music, tales, superstitions, art..... according to my dictionaries anyway is "occurring in, originating among, belonging to the common people. For full discussion of the term in this context, see Funk and Wagnall's 'Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend', under song, music, lore, customs tales dance....etc.
If that is correct – how does it fit in with your new re/non definition; if it isn't - why?
Howard:
"I think you must have been unlucky with the folk clubs you went to."
As I said, I finally stopped going to clubs when I came away not having heard a folk song, or anything that resembles one. Everything I learn about today's scene, including from discussions like these, convinces me that not only haven't things improved in this respect, but have, if anything, got worse – if that were possible. Not to say that there aren't clubs putting on the real stuff, just that my neighbour's hens have more teeth.....! That is why the clubs declined. In my experience the best of the clubs survived on the talents of their residents. Good guests were an added bonus.   
"the folk revival would still have embraced Bob Dylan, Ralph McTell etc"
You might well be right about Dylan – as he was thirty years ago. Eventually he dropped any connection with folk and his music drew more on pop – McTell never used, or pretended to use folk forms.
"you are wrong when you say that the idea of "folk" has not changed."
The persistent mantra that 'people' (what people?) have a different idea of folk music (I think Tom Bliss quoted the figure of 64 million) will never make it true unless you produce your examples. When I was working in the UK I would make a point of talking about my interest to the people I worked with (they often heard me singing at work). If I told people that it was 'traditional' you could almost see their eyes glaze over; if I said it was 'folk' there would be some recognition. (whoops – I appear to be repeating exactly what you said yourself – "If I told them "traditional music" I would have to explain what I meant.") I am not claiming that there was a complete understanding, but at least I had a toe-hold into a conversation. Now apparently, I am expected to abandon even that toe-hold in favour of...... what? If there is a 'broader meaning' what is it, and why should I accept it if is proposers are incapable of articulating it.
If anybody is really interested in the subject I can take any of 100 or so books off my shelf to help them understand, or I could give them the Caedmon, 'Folk Songs of Britain' series, or 'The Voice of The People' (wonderful name that!) both with examples and, clear explanatory notes. What could you give them; what does the word 'folk' signify in your definition?
When push comes to shove, why is all this important?
For a very basic start – when I buy something I want to know what I am getting – at a club or on an album; your non definition does not supply that information.
On a more mundane note – financing our habit!
Here in Ireland the music is on a roll at present (not so much the song – but even that is infinitely better that it appears to be in the UK).
In twenty years we have moved from it being the despised 'diddly-di' music to it being recognised as a significantly important art form. It can be viewed half a dozen times a week on television, both in session and concert form and in serious documentary programmes. We are at present in the middle of a series dealing with regional musical styles. There have been documentaries on performers such as Joe Heaney, Seamus Ennis, Luke Kelly, Pecker Dunn, Maggie Barry, Sarah Makem, Sarah Ann O'Neill..... and numerous others. Radio stations devote large chunks of their programming to playing and discussing the music most nights of the week. At the moment we are in the middle of being interviewed for a series of three radio programmes on the Travellers we recorded in London for the Irish equivalent of Classic FM.
Ireland has two magnificent archives, one at the Folklore Department, the other, The Irish Traditional Music Archive, in the centre of Dublin, which was originally opened by the then President of Ireland, then re-opened when it moved by the current Arts Minister. The latter is recognised as probably the best in Europe, and is of world class. Local archives are beginning to spring up all over the country – we have just purchased premises here in Miltown Malbay to house an archive, library and visitors centre devoted to Clare music, song and lore. The town continues to host an annual week-long school, now in its 34th year, dedicated to local piper, Willie Clancy and teaching all the traditional instruments. Young musicians who we remember as pupils in past years are now taking classes themselves, guaranteeing that the music will continue to be played by at least the next two generations.......
None of this is by any means perfect, but compared to what is happening in the UK, we've all died and gone to a very rich musical heaven!
This has been done by a handful of dedicated individuals who know exactly what they mean, are very clear about their objectives and have dedicated huge chunks of their time and energy into achieving those objectives. It certainly has not been achieved by people whingeing about 57 verse ballads, boring folk songs, fingers-in-ears, purists, folk-police, or any other epithets that seem to take up so much of many U.K. folkies time and energy.
Finally – (t. b. t. g.) – on a personal note.
As I said earlier, the term folk was chosen originally to denote material that "originating among, belonged to the common people".
I was once told by my teacher that all I needed to know when I left school was to "tot up my wages at the end of each week to make sure they were correct". I have gone through life being told that 'ordinary' people like me are incapable of producing great art.
My involvement with MacColl, and to a lesser degree, my contact with Lloyd not only provided me with wonderful entertainment and aroused my curiosity enough to prod me into finding out about this 'folk' stuff. It also gave me a great buzz when I realised that it was 'ordinary' people like me who gave us all the magnificent songs, music and stories – folk music says it all in a couple of words.
Sorry to have gone on at such great length – it's a big subject and I appear to be incapable of writing short letters.
Off to Youghal tomorrow for a couple of days, so we can all recuperate from my verbosity.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 07:04 PM

JIM CARROLL said.McTell never used, or pretended to use folk forms.
what a load of rubbish[Ralph Mctell aka RalphMay]played Blind Blake imitations on his guitar,and very well too,he took his stage name from the blues singer Blind Willie Mctell,blues is a folk form.
You are clearly not very well acquainted with Ralph mctell.
you are also not clearly acquainted with his songwriting,which he brought into his folk club act gradually,and which is heavily influenced by folk forms.,even if his songs are influenced by American folk forms,it is still a folk form.The song about Craig and Bentley is acase in point Album: Other Song Lyrics
Title: Bentley And Craig   Print
Correct


Complimentary "Bentley And Craig" Ringtone


BENTLEY AND CRAIG

Ralph McTell

In 1952 in Croydon
There was bomb sites still around from the war
November that year food was scarcely off the ration
Two boys went out to rob a store.

Craig he was just about sixteen years old
Bentley he was nineteen
But Craig had a shooter stuck in his pocket
Mad him feel more like a man.

Out on the roof of Barlow and Parker
Somebody saw them there
In a matter of minutes the police had arrived
And when they saw them you can bet those boys were scared.

Craig he shouted that he had a gun
And he thought about the movies that he'd seen
Back at Fell Road they signed the rifles out
And arrived very quick back on the scene.

Some of the police got onto the rooftop
Bentley knew that he could not escape
So he gave himself up and they put him under arrest
And he begged his young friend Chris won't you do the same.

Give me the gun the sergeant cried
Let him have it Chris poor Bentley said
But a shot rang out well it tore the night in half
Well the poor policeman was lying there dead.

Some people said it was a bullet from Craig's gun
That laid that policeman away
Some people said it was a police marksman's bullet
Some people said it could be a ricochet.

Both was found guilty of murder Craig he was too young not yet a man
Though he was under arrest when the fatal shot was fired
Derek Bentley was judged old enough to hang
Bentley he was judged to be a man.

Twenty three of January in Wandsworth prison
When they took poor Bentley's life
Some people shouted and some people prayed
Some people just hung their heads and cried.

Oh you men on our behalf who sanctioned that boy's death
There's still one thing left to do
You can pardon Derek Bentley who never took a life
For Derek Bentley cannot pardon you

Derek Bentley cannot pardon you.
Dick Miles.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 03:23 AM

Cap'n
I confess I am not that familiar with McTell's music - the only examples I heard to any great length were the few on the radio and the interminable 'Streets of London'.
I was basing my judgment on what he performed when he (fairly regularly) visited the West London Irish Traditional Music Association (the branch of CCE that was expelled). McTell was a great supporter of Irish music.
That bore no resemblance whatever to folk music as I knew it.
However, I'm happy to bow to your greater knowledge - my apologies.
I did intend to raise one point you made earlier, but my last posting was already far too long. Regarding Bert Lloyd, you wrote:
"Doubts about some of Berts scholarship exist ,some of his own songs have been passed off by him as traditional."
I was extremely grateful to Mark Gregory for posting a quote from Bert that I either hadn't come across before, or that I had forgotten.
While I have some queries about parts of Bert's statement (I tend to believe that communities must have more in common that attending the same office each morning), much of the quote makes sense to me.
Are you saying that you disagree with the statement - if so, what are your objections?
On the other hand, are you suggesting that because Bert did some things we wouldn't necessarily approve of, that we must reject everything he says. This latter, in my opinion, seems an extremely draconian stance to take towards someone who did more to give us the music we listen to than the whole of the Mudcat membership rolled in one.
It always seems a particularly facile and unfair method of argument to attack the person making the statement rather than the statement itself.
Will look forward to reading your response when I get back
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 04:17 AM

I am agreat admirer of Bert Lloyd.
it was just a statement of fact.,but I think once someone has been dishonest, all statements made by that person have to be scriutinised carefully,so no I dont believe we reject everything Bert LLoyd said,we just need to examine it carefully because he has been academically dishonest.
I am not attacking anyone.
if you are not familiar with Mctells music you should keep quiet.DickMiles

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 05:31 AM

On Bert Lloyd, this sentence jumped out at me:

Perhaps for English society the most clearly defined of such groups are those attached to various basic industries: for example, miners with their special attitudes, customs, lore and language, song culture and such.

Lloyd uses miners as a strong example of the kind of contemporary 'folk' community he's proposing. But some of the criticism of Lloyd's work has attached specifically to the miners' songs he collected, or claimed to have collected. I haven't studied the CAYBM material, but we know The Recruited Collier" wasn't what he claimed it to be, & doubts have been raised over The Blackleg Miner. So I think it is reasonable to relate Lloyd's philosophy of contemporary folk back to the doubts over Lloyd's scholarship (which I seem to remember Dick challenging the last time we discussed this!).

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 08:52 AM

Phil,Iprobably did,but other peoples arguments convinced me.yours sincerely, Egotistical Twat,aka Dick Miles.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,ESAM
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 09:21 AM

"Egotistical Twat,aka Dick Miles"...

Now really, Dick! You'll be scourging yourself with briars next!

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 10:01 AM

'the term folk was chosen originally to denote material that "originating among, belonged to the common people'

Shaped by the common people but NOT necessarily originating among.

Jim, I agree with the rest of your long posting.
Steve

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 05:42 PM

"'A definition isn't imposed - it defines.'
but it's who sets the definition that matters."

Kinda' like Stalin when he says something like it's not who votes but those who count the votes that counts.

A definition is arbitrary depending on the agenda of the creator. Webster's has been upgraded considerably. There is little unanimity.

Folk is not limited to gigs. It has a broader reach. Folk is a bird in flight. A song on a page is a photo of a bird in flight. It changes as people change but is not frozen in time.

It involves a community. A business is not a community. Show business is not a community but a commodity.

Folk music has to be accessible to anyone otherwise it is "art" or "elite" expressions of art.
It also must be accepted by many to find longevity.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: TheSnail
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 07:37 PM

Jim Carroll
"But Cecil Sharp can speak on behalf of Norfolk fishermen, Maud Karpeles on behalf of Gower farm labourers?"
The 1954 definition, from which most dictionary definitions are derived, was arrived at by the pooling of knowledge and experience of those working in the field. It reached far beyond the people present and took into consideration the work of people like Kidson, Broadwood, Vaughan Williams, Butterworth... (the articulators) all of whom had presumably gathered information from their informants. This would have been the case in the other countries represented. It was not an attempt to define the individual communities – fishing, mining etc.; rather it was an attempt to make sense of a world-wide phenomenon based on the information gathered by those working in the field.
If these people were not qualified to make an assessment – who would you suggest was more suited to the job? – or was anybody qualified? Was the job worth doing at all? If they got it wrong, where?
""Folk" had been in use for a long time before 1954...... exclusive use of the word that causes problems."
The relevant definition of folk as applied to music, tales, superstitions, art..... according to my dictionaries anyway is "occurring in, originating among, belonging to the common people. For full discussion of the term in this context, see Funk and Wagnall's 'Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend', under song, music, lore, customs tales dance....etc.
If that is correct – how does it fit in with your new re/non definition; if it isn't - why?

I have agonised about how to reply to this. Perhaps the phrases I have highlighted will help make my point.

I find it hard to make you out, Jim. At times, you speak with passion and admiration for the people that you have collected songs from; at others, you seem to be dismissive of them, thinking it "somewhat odd" that they could be expected to speak for themselves.

Earlier you said -

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.

Really? Who supplied us with The Seeds of Love, Cecil Sharp or John England?

Was the job worth doing at all?

A good question. The "practitioners" had managed perfectly well without it for hundreds of years. I don't think they relied on von Herder or Funk and Wagnall to tell them what it was they were doing. Clearly, it is of use to the folklorists who coined it for discussion amongst themselves and it is of interest to those of us who have followed after. I think we would call ourselves "enthusiasts" and we tend to use the term "traditional" to distinguish from the widely used (and rather vague) term "folk".

how does it fit in with your new re/non definition

I don't have a definition. I have no authority to impose one. I simply have to listen and interpret what people are saying in context. Language evolves.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 02:56 AM

Tom B, 5/6/08:

"to Jim, and others who agree with him, the word folk is welded to the 54 definition. Therefore if some music is described as folk, then, to them, this means that the music is being included (or is hoped to be included, in their eyes) within that definition. And this makes them unhappy, and a little bit cross.

"To me, and others if like mind, it is not. It is merely that the meaning of the WORD folk has been expanded to include this other music, leaving the 54 definition intact, but now with a new label: Traditional."

Jim Carroll, 4/10/2003:

"It is many years now since I more-or-less abandoned the term folk song because of the confusion that had been caused by its constant misuse. Now it seems the same confusion has grown up around the term traditional. "

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:04 AM

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here Phil, though your post does flag up one point that I've subjugated in my arguments above for the sake of clarity (though I've expounded on it at length elsewhere) - and I suspect this is also what Jim's referring to in your rather out-of-context quote.

This is that there are at least two interpretations of the word 'traditional' too. So it's not cut and dried!

The dichotomy is not as wide as that between the two main meanings of the word 'folk' but it does throw up its own set of problems and confusions.

One group of people use the T word specifically to mean the 54 definition. I tend to this camp as can be seen above, and I opt to use a capital T, or 'THE Tradition' when I'm referring to this meaning to try to help with clarification. I think there's some consensus within this group that because the Trad process was largely killed off by the advent of 20th century technology, and all that went with it, 'Trad' today mainly refers to a specific repertoire, which is now largely a closed book (even though we may dispute the contents at times)!

The other group use the word traditional in a more general way. They'd include all the above, but fell that the '54 folk process' did not stop with the advent of recording technology, because that it is the community process which defines the tradition - not the oral-only element. This group therefore allow quite a few contemporary songs to be called traditional, as long as they've been taken up by a community, and/or are associated with some traditional activity. This, of course, is one of the ways that the 54 definition was eroded in the first place (it wasn't just artists jumping on a bandwagon)

To give an example: Happy Birthday is not trad to group one, but it is to group two. And that goes for Fiddlers Green as well.

Anyway - does this all matter? Not much, as long as people respect the other guy's viewpoint, don't mud-sling, and attribute sources correctly (and, ideally, habitually).

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 05:07 AM

My point was that back in 2003 Jim seemed resigned to losing the word 'folk' (for the 54 definition) and using 'traditional' instead - precisely the position you've been arguing here & he's been resisting.

If we were arguing about the meaning of the word 'traditional', I'd probably be in group 1 along with both you and Jim. But we've been arguing about the word 'folk', which I find a bit odd in the light of that 2003 article.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,TREV
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 08:09 AM

Surely the point is that because the world and the transmission of music and songs have changed then the terms need reappraisal.

100 years ago I don't imagine many folk singers bought a book of traditional tunes in Waterstones. they might not have the access to variants and research which a singer can have today. Also, the wider access to material and info by an audience erodes the idea of oral transmission being the main form of transmission.

Also, might we argue that any song written today might be considered for electronic media...

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 09:32 AM

This is where trying to define something can end up in nonsense. "Happy Birthday" isn't traditional because (leaving aside the fact that it's still in copyright) it hasn't undergone a process of change by the community - everyone knows the same the tune and words. However it's hard to deny that there is a "tradition" of singing the song on someone's birthday - such a strong one in fact that it now crosses boundaries and cultures. So if it's part of a tradition, should it be considerd a traditional song?

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Black Hawk on works PC
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 09:39 AM

In one sense Happy Birthday is evolving everytime it is sung as the name changes each time.
And it is always by aural transmission.
L.O.L.
Someone once said they knew all the words & I asked them what the words would be on my daughters birthday. They didnt know.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 01:58 PM

At the risk of repeating myself: The English language is evolving all the time. We can be unhappy about this or we can be happy about it BUT we can do very little about it as individuals so we might as well learn to accept it. A sensible way forward for all of us here is to accept the wider usage and meanings of both words and come to an understanding among ourselves about what we mean by them when we discuss them on forums like this one.

Of course 'Happy Birthday' is traditional in almost every sense. It doesn't alter (apart from in the very humorous way mentioned above)simply because it is very brief, easily remembered and is in constant use. this hardly disqualifies it from being traditional and the fact that we know its origins is totally irrelevant.

SteveG

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 02:07 PM

Heehee - see what I mean?

Steve is 100% correct - as a member of 'Group 2'

However Group 1 might point to this phrase:

"The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready-made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk character"

and rule it out - along with Music Hall, O'Carolan, Jez Lowe, Lennon/McCartney etc etc etc.

So yes - the important thing is indeed to 'accept the wider usage and meanings of both words and come to an understanding among ourselves about what we mean by them' - only that's not as easy as it looks on paper.

Me, I wish there were specific words for all these things. Not to prevent arguments on web forums but so we'd have a leg to stand on when dealing with funding bodies and PRS and all of that stuff.

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: trevek
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:21 PM

"The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready-made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk character"

How does this work with obscure or obselete songs or tunes which are discovered and printed and then adopted by the (imagined) community of folk-singers?

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 05:22 PM

"How does this work with obscure or obselete songs or tunes which are discovered and printed and then adopted by the (imagined) community of folk-singers?"

Good question.

As I've said elsewhere, in my opinion the 54 definition should ideally have included a caveat to ensure that the oral process was always studied in its true context, with the influence of recorded/printed material and the role of trade musicians properly recognised. The wording of the definition suggests that they didn't do this only because they took the context as read, and were needing to focus specifically on the oral community process.

However, sadly, this omission has contributed to a certain romanticisation of the process and the communities involved, which is unhelpful in terms of understanding how the songs were actually created and evolved, and which leaves us today with a residual feeling among some that trade musicians are of less worth than they deserve to be.

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 07:13 PM

and which leaves us today with a residual feeling among some that trade musicians are of less worth than they deserve to be.

Tom .
could that some, include Jim Carroll?

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 03:03 AM

I'm sure Jim can speak for himself. I'd certainly not accuse him of failing to recognise the worth of trade musicians. His issue is different and well detailed above.

There are however a significant number of people (a group well-represented on internet forums) who delight in a 'hsibbons' view of trade music. They suggest, for example, that the influence of commerce is damaging to the tradition, that professionalism is a kind of prostitution, that the registration of arrangements is a kind of theft, that anyone wanting to make a living at music is only in it for the money (rather than a committed artist), that doing it well is bad, that being innovative is bad, that concerts are a betrayal of the song-handing ethos, and so on and on and on.

A caveat might have helped to keep things in perspective, and encourage everyone to recognise that pro and am have always been the yin and yang of folk. And remain so today.

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 03:55 AM

There are so many contradictions in the application of the word Folk it's hard to know where to begin. If we accept that traditional singers and musicians were largely unpaid, apart from beer money perhaps and of the community, it would be in keeping for their contemporary equivalents to spread the music through the same values. Except a new cadre of professional traditional musician has appeared who is a hybrid of entertainer - with the norms of pay expected within the industry - and collector of songs.

The only rational conclusion is to acknowledge folk as another musical genre and treat it accordingly. Arguing for special status for 'Folk' will place it under re-enactment for the temporary amusement of people passing though national trust properties, industrial museums and the like (no doubt with full period dress, wigs, prithees, etc).

Some musicians stick close to traditional presentations by being a busker of one kind or another, or getting a guitar out in the pub garden for the amusement of their peers but what we're talking about are people who 'perform' 'professionally'. My taste doesn't run to Beatles songs, American Pie, Streets of London but within a professional form of presentation there can be no difference between those songs and traditional material, it's all generic music for a paid audience by tax paying performers.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 03:59 AM

That should be 'paying audience' of course.

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

Glueman is right.

"Folk music" exists in two quite separate environments. One is the "tradition", the 1954 definition where songs and tunes evolve and are transmitted within a community. The other is as a genre of entertainment (however much some may dislike the idea) which is identified ("defined" is too strong and implies too much precision) by a certain style of performance rather than the origin of the material.

Is it correct though that traditional musicians were largely unpaid? We know that instrumentalists like Scan Tester were very active providing music for all sorts of social occasions and would be paid for this, whether in kind or cash from a collection. It was never enough to make a living from, but the same applies to many "professional" performers today.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 04:28 AM

We're going over well-trodden ground here again Glueman, but I think it's been established beyond reasonable doubt that the 'professional traditional musician' is not a new phenomenon. Any period you look at in history you'll find trade musicians making a significant contribution and providing major influence. Some even argue that all the non-trade system has done is encourage songs to fall into disrepair, and that it was always the working chaps (or those with a 'trade' attitude) who did the making, the mending and the significant disseminating. And yes, Howard, we do know that the better non-trade musicians did win rewards on occasion (just as trade musicians did - and still do - play for fun as well as reward). It's all mixed up together. What we have here is yin and yang - or maybe two dimensions - X and Y. You can take any folk event, or person, or song, or whatever you like and plot it on that pro/am graph. But it won't stay there long, because it's a dynamic system and everything's tumbling down the stream all the time. And that's what makes it special. Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 05:21 AM

It may be old ground TB but a fair proportion of Mudcat is devoted to picking the scab of definitions. Those taxonomies depend on the other expenditure of heat and light on this board - the value of modern performers.

If one end of the folk specrum is occupied by those who believe 1954 has it bang to rights, money has next to no place in the equation. Neither 'quality', 'professionalism' or any of the contemporary totems of public performance. That is what gives folk its uniqueness. Once a fiscal value is placed on the rendition Yellow Submarine occupies the same marketplace as a sea shanty, there can be no third way. That people gripe about their value is only human nature but by even attempting to put a cash equivalence on a folk performance they're entering a public arena dominated by market forces and the market for traditional pieces is a very limited one.

The sensible conclusion is that folk simultaneously occupies multiple agendas which are defined largely by taste.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: glueman
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 05:49 AM

I should add that I agree money has always played a part in performance which is where I find 1954 definitions partial. It beggars belief that exemplary tunesmiths with wide collections of music for each occasion and access to large public gatherings - horsefairs, hangings, festivals - would not have received recompense for their work. Nevertheless, the central nature of money to the folk revival points towards more renditions of Scarborough Fair of the Simon and Garfunkel variety, highly arranged, harmonised nearer to the Everly Brothers than traditional tonal difference and majoring on the market status of the performer. In other words pop.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 12:41 PM

Would like time to read through what has been sent since I went away.
In the meantime:
Cap'n
"if you are not familiar with Mctells music you should keep quiet.DickMiles"
I would be grateful if you didn't make this another of your pissing competitions.
If we were to obey your edict, I'm afraid very few of us would have very little to say about anything, including (some would say especially) the RH Member for West Cork.
To err is human - to forgive is divine
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 01:13 PM

Jim,it takes two to tango.
one of the good things about this forum is the passing on of information,particualarly learning of musical techniques.
the downside is ill informed comments.
Ralph Mctell is a fine songwriterwho did/does use folk forms.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 03:03 PM

Sorry to bleat on about the commercial influences on folk song but a large slice of those variations in text we so readily covet are directly down to professional ballad hacks who sometimes collected from oral tradition, sometimes wholesale rewrote ballads for their paymasters, the broadside printers, and sometimes simply pirated them from other printers. Sometimes the ballad sellers were at once collectors and disseminators. The Glasgow Poets Box c1850-1880 was typical. The 'Poet' actively advertised for new songs and old and people would take into his office the latest music hall songs, songs straight from oral tradition and songs printed by other printers, for a small remuneration.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 04:15 PM

Steve,
On the other hand - some time in the late 60s a song was composed about a 'made match' between two Travellers. 'Made matches', marriages agreed by the parents of the couple and finalised by a go-between 'matchmaker' (usually with the complete agreement of the couple) were common in rural Ireland right up to the 50s and among Travellers possibly into the 70s. It was said to have been made up on the day of the wedding by a group of guests. Nobody knows who the makers were; so far we have come across around eight versions of the song.
I have no doubt that what you say is correct but I would suggest that the vast majority of versions of folk songs are down to the oral tradition (which I am quite sure you are not doubting the existence of).
Work we did in West Clare points to the fact that not only was the oral tradition very strong here, but songs learned from 'ballads' (printed song sheets), underwent significant changes almost immediately after they were taken up.
Exceptions very seldom prove rules.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 04:45 PM

" ...underwent significant changes almost immediately after they were taken up"

I'm sure it did but this always begs the question - but were those changes actually improvements?

I'm forever finding versions of songs which have a crucial fact or notion missing, without which the story no longer makes any sense. But you can tell by the quality of the word-smithing that there was a skilled canny writer behind the original work.

For example: Compare 'The Bloody Gardener' and 'The Bloody Garden.' The Carthy/Swarb version is largely the same as the one Maud Karpeles collected in Newfoundland, in which the motivation of the gardener to killing the girl is not explained (one assumes he was just a psychopath), so when the lad goes home and blames his mum is makes no sense at all (even though she's mentioned in verse one is beng disapproving of the marriage). Yet the Peacock version (also from Newfoundland) has these extra verses - which I'd wager a tenner are by the original writer:

His mother, false and cruel, wrote a letter to his jewel,
And she wrote it in a hand just like his own;
Saying, "Meet me here tonight, meet me here, my heart's delight,
In the garden gay nearby my mother's home."

The gardener agreed oh, with fifty pounds indeed,
To kill this girl and lay her in the ground;
And with flowers fine and gay oh, her grave to overlay,
That way her virgin body ne'er shall be found...

And suddenly it all makes sense.

I'd submit that here the oral process has merely weakened a well-written song, to the point where it no longer holds water from a story-telling point of view (and that was, after all, the whole point).

So why is it that we so often put the process higher than the original creation?

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 05:21 PM

Tom
"but were those changes actually improvements?"
I don't think that was the point Steve was making; it certainly wasn't mine.
This discussion, as far as I'm concerned, has managed to avoid the subjectivity of personal taste - of which 'improvements' is a prime example, that is what makes it so interesting.
Who are we to say which of the 200 odd versions of Barbara Allen is best, beyond saying which one we prefer.
Jim Carroll