Is this a folk song?

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: guitar
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 06:57 AM

you never win do you

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: guitar
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 07:31 AM

we can arguing about this till the end of time and still wa=on't know the answer, as a famous blues once said, when asked what he thought Folk music is he said well he hasn't heard a horse sing, so until we hear horses sing what is it.

tom

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 07:42 AM

And here we have the folk process in action - an expression taken up by the people, changed to suit or as well as memory serves and the originator forgotten; it's a traditional saying!

Just a little tease, guitar...:-)

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 07:56 AM

Thouht I'd just express my opinion on the matter. If a song has been around for a while and survived, if it is sung and passed on by people who aren't the original writers and if it has at least the chance to change it's a folk song. Obviously people are going to argue about how long it should survive for and I have no doubt people will disagree with me but I think thats a decent definition. I think a lot of the hard core folk purists on this site would be shocked to realise what fits into that category. Certainly a lot of sixties and seventees stuff has survived for a generation or two. It's quite a bit older than me. In a lot of cases I learned it from family and friends of the family. There have been enough changed and forgotten words for the song to have changed at least a bit. The obsessive folkies on here probably won't like it, but when I've been at impromptu sessions with folk (not the "folk elite" or whatever with their siege mentality and their half hour conversations about the seventeenth verse of some ballad no one has wanted to sing in a century and more)it's been old rock and pop, even the odd bit of reggae that most people knew and joined in with. Now, at any impromptu sing around style event, there's a high probability of there being folkies around as well so I have no doubt that older songs will get sung, but eventually they will probably be forgotten and replaced with newer ones. That's natural. How many folk songs from the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries get sung now? How many EIGHTEENTH century songs have an unbroken line of performances up to the present day? There's no reason why desperado can't be a folk song if I sing it to my kids one day and they pick it up. If we lose all the traditional songs in twenty years that's terrible. If thirty year old ongs join the tradition and in seventy years time only the really great songs from the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries are being sung, I won't object.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 08:48 AM

"How many EIGHTEENTH century songs have an unbroken line of performances up to the present day?"

Let's dispose of this one, first. The ballad called 'The Outlandish Knight' could well be a lot older than the "EIGHTEENTH century" and I know several people who sing versions of it. The mother of a friend of mine used to sing a version of this song and had no idea that it was an old ballad. I could give you a long list, but can't be bothered because you would just ignore me and it's not what you want to hear.

You carry on dreaming up spurious theories if it makes you happy!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 09:28 AM

Brilliant! We have ONE song! Isn't that great! And you *could* come up with a massive list but you just don't want to waste your time. hmmm. You still haven't told me about still older songs either. All you're doing with examples of Eighteenth Century songs is making the dying off period longer- not refuting my point.

A song has to be really different, (or maybe just lucky) so stick in people's minds for two or three hundred years. I will gladly have a dig at people who will accept a really old song that died within decades but has since been rediscovered and who have a go at a new song that has been passed on and sung etc for longer than the old one. I am just as happy if I offend people who want to kill the whole genre of music. Who think that nothing can be added to the tradition. Who think everything is set in stone. You know, you real hard-core traditionalists should really be sitting in caves banging rocks on deer skulls. Anything else is really a bit too innovative. Wouldn't want to be destroying the precious 'tradition'.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 10:19 AM

Iwas only able to hear ten seconds of this,the sound kept freezing.
what I heard I didnt care for,this band describe themselves as punk,so presumably they dont think they are folk.
so it must be a punk song,not to my taste and I dont think the lyrics are very good ,if this geezers got a headful of insanity why doesnt he tell it to a shrink,instead of inflicting it on other people under the misnomer of music.
In my opinion its a load of old sQuit.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 12:00 PM

Bardan,

God, this is so tedious - and I should really make you do the work yourself (but you're not really interested in anything but Rock music, are you?).

Here's a fuller list:

'Scarborough Fair' ('The Elfin Knight' - Child 2.)

and

'Seven Knights Drunk' ('Our Goodman' - Child 274.)

were both pop hits in the second half of the 20th Century as was 'Strawberry Fair'.

Songs like 'The Flash Lad', 'The False Bride', 'Barabara Allen', 'The Princess Royal', 'The Grey Cock' etc., etc. all lingered on into the second half of the Twentieth Century and, of course, are still sung in folk clubs by people like me!

As for the question of why you should want music you like labelled as 'Folk' - this continues to baffle me! When I first attended folk clubs in the late 60s I encountered these old songs which were so much more exciting and meaningful to me than commercial pop music. They were called (at that time uncontroversially) 'Folk' or 'Traditional' songs and they made a refreshing change from pop and rock-n-roll (which I had disliked since childhood). Now there seems to be a vociferous group who seem to be desperate to replace the old songs with rock-inspired ones. You keep moaning on as though you were the victims of some monstrous conspiracy to stop you singing or listening to the stuff that you like - but that is ridiculous - as a moment's thought should tell you. You are perfectly at liberty to sing, play or listen to anything you like - I CAN'T stop you - but if you call it 'folk music' I will disagree with you. What's the matter, can't cope with someone disagreeing with your precious opinions? People disagree with me all the time - I either ignore them or, if I think that they have a point, I alter my opinion - it's as simple as that!

The image you present at the moment is of some sleazy salesman who turns up a someone's door and tries to persuade them to replace their cabinet of priceless ceramics with a load of plastic tupperware. When the owner of the ceramics refuses you start insulting them (telling them that they "should be sitting in caves banging rocks on deerskulls" etc.). Naturally, the ceramics owner tells you what you can do with your tupperware! It's no way to win an an argument.

As for "...killing the whole genre of music" - I'm sorry but that really is a dumb remark! How many fans of traditional song do you think there are in this country (a couple of thousand? Or is that an overestimate?). How on earth are we going to put an end to all music (if that's what you mean), even if we wanted to? If 'music' is really being killed it is more likely to be as a result of the policies of the big commercial recording companies - save your wrath for them!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 12:14 PM

When I was a kid, the black and white stripy animals were zebras. The ones with the really long necks, and brown and pale patterns, were called giraffes. Those definitions suited us well, and they suit me now. If that makes me a fundamentalist, fine. I can live with that. And people can come along and tell me the long necked ones are zebras till they are blue in the face, I will still call them giraffes. There is nothing wrong with giraffes, or zebras. They just happen to be have been defined as different kind of animals for a while. And that's good. They are also both mammals, but they are not the same species.
    But if it really makes you feel good to call giraffes zebras, carry on. It's a free world. Just don't apply for a job writing the labels in a zoo.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: chrispin
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 12:27 PM

A fascinating debate to come across just as I find this site...

I am absolutely no expert on folk music and do not claim to be so but I love what I think of as folk music - which tends to be traditional songs - and the more I hear, the more I enjoy them a cappella or with minimal musical accompaniment.

But surely "folk" has to be a living thing - if we define it too narrowly then it cannot change or develop - each generation will inevitably come to the tradition from its own perspective and reinterpret the material according to its needs. If a singer sings "Rounding the Horn" with respect and honesty then I as a listener feel moved or transported. The music has to be performed and shared with truth, but that doesn't mean it can't be sung honourably by someone who has never rounded the horn! The relevance of the music is in the universality of its appeal - the closest I've been to Rounding the Horn was a fairly rough channel crossing when I was thirteen... but I can absolutely empathise with the hardship of the sailors of earlier times precisely through the music that has been handed down and the effect it has on my imagination.

To say that a particular song is "not folk" is similar to attempting to define what "English" is an age that is so radically reinventing it through the use of modern technology. We may despise the use of "TXT" style language or of internet speak (LOL) etc - but we can't deny their place in the language.

As has been offered earlier in this thread a song can become folk only by its "acceptance" - its "use" by singers and audience alike...

Who should define folk but folk themselves?!

Chris Baldwin

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 12:32 PM

"Who should define folk but folk themselves?!"

Snap!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,John from Elsie`s Band
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 03:26 PM

Correct me if I am wrong but did I not hear on "Folk Hibernia" that Woody Guthrie, when asked the question "What is a folk song?" he replied "Three chords and the truth".
Anyway I would love to know who were the people who composed, and no doubt ensured they were not lost, all the ancient songs we sing today.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 03:31 PM

no, the material this band plays, is described by the band themselves as punk,they would probably be horrified to be described as folk.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: BB
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 05:03 PM

Mike of Northumbria said:

"At festivals, the sessions are crammed with frighteningly talented young instrumentalists, but in the singarounds, young vocalists are rarely noticable. Does anyone out there have any ideas on why this happens, and what we can do about it?"

I think that to sing, particularly solo, makes them feel very exposed in a way that playing an instrument doesn't. As you say, the sessions are crammed with young instrumentalists - they're playing with lots of other people, rather than on their own. When I started singing on my own, I felt the need to use a guitar to accompany myself, which made me feel slightly less exposed - I could sort of hide behind it. It took listening to Roy Harris to realise that I didn't need that - and nor necessarily did the songs. There are young singers around, but most of them, it seems to me, hide behind microphones, and perform with other people. In singarounds, this is not so easy to do.

I'm not sure that there is much *we* can do about it. I'd like to see more of the likes of Jim Causley in more informal situations, and it might encourage other youngsters to give it a go, just as seeing Roy helped me all those years ago.

Sorry, this is all probably a bit off thread, but to get back to it, I agree that, whatever ones own definition of 'folk song', giving anyone the opportunity to sing whatever they like in an acoustic situation gives songs the chance to be taken up, spread and, in time, perhaps be considered 'folk songs'. Although that would probably be long after our time on this earth.

Barbara

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 05:22 PM

"No academician can decide what is a folk song, and no definition helps".

That is one of the biggest piles of tow hitch adornments I have ever heard.

It is the academic who does define meaning, and when the various schools of thought (or hay) realise that those who have bothered to find out what "folk" means are interested in the meaning, and do not use the meaning as a barrier to finding merit, this discussion may move on.

Incidentally, George, I looked up "tralatitious" in the complete Oxford on Saturday. The primary (English, not American) meaning is "characterised by transmission", and other meanings add the sense of transmission over generations, which fits perfectly with the definition of folk music. Not only is folk transmitted over generations, but the events of transmission have characterised it.

The problem is that for a bunch of self-serving or self-aggrandising reasons, (or possibly out of misguided attempts at wit, in which case I would point out, as Heinlein does, the geometric progression of: - once: wit - twice: half-wit - thrice:quarter-wit - and so on) there are people who wish to assert that that which is not folk is in some sense folk. There is only so much idiocy I can stand, and as respects intentional idiocy it is rather less.

Those who invent their own meanings for words are simply wrong. Even vulgar (another, but obsolete, meaning of tralatitious) adoptions of meaning do not affect the academic meaning.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Stewart
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 05:36 PM

I don't know. I belong to a local folklore society where the "concert committee produces many folk music concerts each year." Since most of these concerts are by singer songwriters singing their recently composed songs, and the society calls them "folk music concerts," I guess this song might qualify. On the other hand...

Oh hell, I only know "good music" and "bad music" (my opinion), and I've given up trying to understand (or even care) what "folk music" is.

So there!

Cheers, S. in Seattle

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 05:53 PM

Are all recently composed songs now to be labelled "folksongs", or only some of them? And if only some, which fundamentalist folk-nazi police are going to sort the sheep from the goats?

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST, Mikefule
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 06:58 PM

Well, suddenly, the tone of the discussion has changed. It has moved on a bit from the starting point, but it's introduced some interesting thoughts - which is all I intended to provoke.

One misunderstanding from a few posts back: that punk bands would not want to see themselves labelled "folk". In fact here are few people reading this who would not find the Skids' solo unaccompanied rendition of And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda to be a good, respectful and sincere rendition of this great song.

Apart from the misguided introduction of some melancholy keyboard "choir" in the last verse or so (it was a new "toy" back then) it would pass muster in any folk club I've ever visited, even on the nearest meeting to Armistice Day. But the Skids would have called themselves punk.

The best answer to my initial question is the one referring to Terry Pratchet's answer to the literature question. Regardless of the subject material, and the origins of the singer, and his close association with the audience, and the audience's familiarity with the working environment described in the song, it is unlikely to be remembered in 50 years' time. That is why it is not a folk song.

I think a song becomes a folk song when the singer and the audience have no idea who wrote it, and no reason to care, and they just sing it because they enjoy singing it. Anything else is, at best, no more than "in the folk style" or "sharing some of the characteristics of a folk song".

I have written a few tunes over the years. Any one of them is broadly within the generic traditional style. Plenty of people have asked me where I learned them. They will only be starting to be folk tunes the day I walk into a pub I've never been into before and a complete stranger is playing one of them. I do not expect this to happen, but it would be hugely satisfying if it did.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,wordy
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 07:19 PM

How many fans of traditional song do you think there are in this country (a couple of thousand? (quote from above)
Exactly. Meanwhile the folk are singing back in 1945 "Tipperary", "Roll out the barrel" etc with no idea who wrote those songs. Therefore they qualify as folk songs far better than those researched songs sung in folk clubs by 2000 people nationwide.
The "Folk's" tradition goes on and yet you can't rejoice in that fact.
The sieve songs go through is still the people. Respect their choices!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 05:10 AM

"The "Folk's" tradition goes on and yet you can't rejoice in that fact."

Yes I can - but with reservations. Because I'm not an anti-intellectual, "prolier-than-thou", Rock music obsessed, ageist snob - as several posters to this thread seem to be - I'm a sceptic. Just because the above mentioned snobs scream in my ear that "A is B" and "zebras are giraffes" (thanks, Greg) doesn't mean that I'm going to automatically endorse their vacuous, uninformed notions.


"The sieve songs go through is still the people. Respect their choices!"

No problem there! What's your problem?


"Are all recently composed songs now to be labelled "folksongs", or only some of them? And if only some, which fundamentalist folk-nazi police are going to sort the sheep from the goats?"

This is a good point, Greg. As a fully paid up 'fundamentalist folk-nazi policeman' I don't think I've got the stamina! The other night I sat through a session in which several dozen 'contemporary' dire ditties were warbled and were interspersed with a handful of traditional songs. I don't want to hear any of the dire ditties again, let alone have to sort them!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 06:18 AM

Well, maybe some of my comments were out of line, but shimrod has certainly allayed any worries about that by responding in kind. No I don't necessarily "prefer rock music". I'm not ageist. I'm not prolier than thou-(which is a bit of a cliche btw) or snobbish. I'm certainly not anti-intellectual. I'm just very aware that in the last twenty years or so folk musicians have suddenly lost the right to compose songs and tunes and call them folk. In many cases this is the case even when the songs have been around for quite a long time and people are learning them and passing them on. At the same time, songs like some of the Child ballads have been 'rediscovered' and hailed as wonderful folk songs. If the child ballads haven't been passed on orally for some time then (by your own definitions)they're certainly not folk. Some people on the folk scene seem to have a strange sort of "my song is older and longer than yours" complex. They sneer at perfectly good songs because they're not old or contain references to things the audience has experienced. Now, I don't mind Child ballads. In fact I quite enjoy a few of them. That really shouldn't mean I can't enjoy singing crazy man michael or some Christy Moore song at a sing around or session or whatever and it doesn't mean they aren't folk. The repeated comment about zebras and giraffes is totally irrelevant. We're talking about one process starting with one set of songs and continuing with more. If you want to argue that 'modern folk' or whatever has evolved into a different species I'll at least listen to your point. If you want to claim they are completely different and were never really connected you need to go back and look at the situation again. My take is they are continuing the tradition. Alot of them may fall by the wayside just as a lot did in the 1890s or whenever else you choose to look at. A few songs however will survive cos people like them and keep singing them to each other. A natural process that's been going on since time immemorial. Surely something you 'traditionalists' should be protecting?

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: MikeofNorthumbria
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 07:07 AM

The suggestion that a "fundamentalist folk-Nazi police force" is cruelly denying deserving singer-songwriters the exposure and esteem to which they are entitled seems slightly crazy to me. And yet … and yet… perhaps there is a crumb of logic in this apparently ridiculous grouch.

Here in Britain there's a shortage of venues where aspiring musicians of any kind – Classical, Jazz, Rock, Pop, Punk, Funk, Folk or whatever – can hone their skills in front of a live audience. For many musicians, singers and songwriters, the most accessible option (sometimes the only option) is their local folk club.   But – and here's the rub – to get in there, they have to define what they do as "folk".
   
Over the years, some clubs have embraced this definition so enthusiastically that the kind of songs some of us used to think of as "folk" are rarely heard there. Well, that's democracy. Meanwhile, other clubs have chosen to exclude songs which fall outside what their membership thinks of as "folk". That too is democracy. And there are also clubs where you can hear many different sorts of music and song, some of them "folk" in the old sense of the word, and some not. Democracy yet again.

If you are a contemporary singer-songwriter whose only local venue happens to be a "traditionalist" folk club, that's tough. But the answer, IMHO, is the provision of more venues for new music, rather than a redefinition of the word "folk".

Wassail!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 07:58 AM

Have just read through this thread. the traddies have a point - our culture must be respected, but I wish they would take aboard some of the concerns many of us feel about what we hope is an ongoing artform - to which many of us (mad fools!) have donated the major part our lives out of no great self interest.

Bout a couple of years ago I was in the green room at at a festival in one of my usual untermenschen roles. And there were two of big hitter folk families on the bill.

The conversation was frankly incredible - it was like Noel Coward meeting the Lunts at a Broadway soiree.

-Oh yes they wanted us for sidmouth this year but I was determined to fit in Ontario and Brisbane folk festivals in this year, and its a couple of years since we did the san Francisco thing....etc!

And of course when they get up on stage, its all this 'I'm a poor little collier's lass load of cobblers....

The guy who wrote the song that startted this thread will probably have a year or two of success - he will almost certainly get ripped off by the gangsters of the English music scene, and when his youth and energy have been spent - he will wind up on benefits. He will hear his song occasionally down the local folk club - Mike read will take the piss out of him for wearing a on tank top totp2.

Try not not to be too disparaging of the people who spend their passion on trying to write about their lives as lived, in folksong form.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 09:14 AM

OK, all you "THEY'RE-so-horrible-to-us-THEY-won't-let-us-call-it-folk"
whingers. Go ahead and have a go at creating "the folk songs of tomorrow" - I challenge you! And if you're successful, I'll be the first to applaud you (although, of course, I may not be around to see the fruits of your efforts).

Arguably, the most successful attempt at doing something like this was by Ewan MacColl (Boo! Hiss! - right, that's got that over with!). But MacColl was steeped in the Tradition, used traditional tunes, or tunes based on traditional tunes, and even based his texts on the speech patterns of the people he celebrated. Now, it may not even be strictly necessary to go to those lengths (?) in order to complete the project that I've set you, but at least it shows that MacColl had a deep knowledge and understanding of what folk songs were all about, before he set out on a such a massive undertaking.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Grimmy
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 09:18 AM

In 1819 (or thereabouts) Joseph Lees of Glodwick, Oldham, wrote a song.

Hi did it to raise some beer money.

He went straight round to the local ballad printer with it and persuaded him to print it.

The local people liked it. Joseph and his cronies, realising they were onto a good thing, came up with over a dozen variants, all of which were printed.

It is still sung today.

So, despite the fact that it breaks just about every rule in the folk rule book (even to the extent of its being written for profit) - IS THIS A FOLK SONG?

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 09:32 AM

..and it has given rise to at least 17 known variants, with the same tune and different lyrics to reflect the social and political changes of the 19th century. And the original author was not only forgotten, but someone else usurped the rights and the glory, the guy who made it famous by singing it around as a travelling entertainer.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 09:41 AM

Actually it was 1815, Grimmy, that the first Jone O'Grinfilt song was written. According to the academics, with a known author, the song has no chance of being "folk", let alone "traditional". It's "that other thing" instead. But call it what you will, the people took the song and made it their own anyway.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Grimmy
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 10:03 AM

George, I know the song was written soon after Waterloo (Joseph Lees and his mate Joshua ?Wood flogged copies to the soldiers). Joshua it was who claimed the credit for a time, but later confessed that it was Joseph's work. He also admitted that they penned many of the so-called variants "to reflect the social and political changes" (but mainly to make more money).

Anyway, enough of the history - it was later 'collected' by Frank Kidson, amongst others, and is sung at folk gatherings to this day.

I put it to you that it is a folk song.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 11:17 AM

You'll have no trouble persuading me.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: guitar
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 11:22 AM

"All music is folk music. I ain't never heard a horse sing a song", and it was said by Louis Armstrong.this is the real quote. as I said we ca ngo on arguing about this until the world ends, we all have diffeernt ideas what folk music is

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 11:28 AM

Vive la difference!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 11:34 AM

call it what you want - of course its not us who decide what makes a folksong, and thankfully its not the academics.

the original song we were asked to look at, at least has the virtue of unselfconsciousness.

Dylan, MacColl, MacGowan, Leonard Cohen - they all write to some extent, in what Raymond Chandler characterised as 'art' writing. they write using language that draws attention to itself, rather than simply telling of the situation. Of course poeticisms and lyricism are part of many well known undisputed folksongs

and thats not to say these people didn't write folk music, or that their approach won't go down as folksongs - there really is no way we can predict that.

what is surely important -is rather like George says - that we as a nation reconnect to our folk singing roots. folksinging is ultimately not what academics say, its what the people sing.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: guitar
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 11:35 AM

i think the orginal song is a folk song

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Grimmy
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 11:40 AM

Sorry, George, now that I've read my own post, it looks like my challenge was aimed at you personally. Definitely NOT my intention! Thanks for responding

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 12:34 PM

No worries, Grimmy - I didn't take that way.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 01:57 PM

"According to the academics, with a known author, the song has no chance of being "folk", let alone "traditional"."

Oh, George!! I would have thought you would know better than that. It's perfectly possible for a song to have a known author AND to be folk/traditional. The classic example (as I have stated many, many, many, many, many times on this board) is 'The Famous Flower of Serving Men' known to have been published by Laurence Price in 1656 ('A Book of British Ballads' by Roy Palmer, Llanerch Reprint, 1998). The source of the song is IRRELEVANT (how many more times!!!!) - it's the PROCESS that the song has been through that is important. That's why some punk dirge cannot be accepted to be a folk song until it's been selected by 'the community' and changed by them. A key question (to which I do not have an answer) is do the relevant communities still exist? I'm interested in the answer to this question, by the way - but don't expect me to be too impressed by guesses.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 02:27 PM

well this the whole point - the unknowns and variables are almost infinite.

Quite why Famous Flower of Serving Men, should be thought more of a folksong than We Shall Overcome eludes me.

One song we have seen whole communities rally round and take to their hearts, the other is Martin Carthy's greatest hit - but its relevance to anything or anybody outside of a few dodgy characters in fishermans smocks and of course the academics would mystify many.

You want it to be Famous Flower of Serving Men to be a more valid folksong, because of your emotional needs - not for any logical reason.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 04:58 PM

My favorite quote from this whole mess:

I do think it [the song mentioned in the first post] has more authenticity or relevance (whatever that is) than an East Midlands office worker singing about sailing round Cape Horn.

Thanks to whoever wrote that. Sorry, I didn't make a note of your name ~ but I suppose that's just one more example of the folk process at work, innit? ;^)

A few more isolated reations to various points that have come up:

In the 1960s, in the US, the song in question wold definititely have been a folk song, or more specifically a folk protest song. Perhaps not so today, expecially not in England (where there seems to be much more worry about this issue than elsewhere).

On the question of self-consciously "literary" phareology: I don't think the argument holds water that, to qualify as "folk song," a lyric must be simple to the point that it's less-than-impressive from a literary or poetic standpoint. As someone else pointed out, many old songs that we'd all agree upon as qualified folksongs include unique and impressive lyrical passages. Why?

~ Whoever wrote them (and, of course, every song was written by somebody, albeit in many cases several somebodies) was talented and, in fact, deserves credit for having created something memorable.

~ In many cases, English usage that was common in some long-gone time and place may now carry an exotic flavor and thus seem more impressive than it did in its own time. I'd venture a guess that more than a few lyrical formulations that we currently find greatly quaint and charming were not only less impressive in their own time, they may even have sounded awkward and forced to contemporaries.

~ This degree of exotic quality or unfamiliarity can develop over long periods of time, but songs of fairly recent vintage can have this quality if their origins are sufficiently alien to the listener. I'm thinking mostly of rural Southern blues from the 1920s/30s, which come from a society comepletely unknown to us today, not only to middle-class white folks born after WWII on either side of the ocean, but even to African-Americans, young and even old, living in today's cities. I think that many blues lyrics resound in an especially poetic manner not only because their language of origin is a variant of English largely unknown to most of us today. but also because the form enforces an extreme economy of style, with much more left unspoken than explicitly expressed.

And, my "final" (for now, anyway) word on "tradition" and "authenticity":

Singing that holds my interest is honest and expressive of the singer's own -personality and experience. I'm willing to allow that a singer can give a valid, honest, and deeply expressive performance of material that may not literally coincide with his/her real life, that requires an act of the imagination much akin to what a skilled actor does to craft a "true" stage or film performance.

Most of what I've learned to love as "folk music" meets this standard, but not every performance that claims "folk" status earns my approbation. Certainly, while I may feel a real connection to one or another early field recording of some traditional gem, I am not necessarily going to enjoy a pale imitation of that song put forward by someone who wasn't born when the recording was made ~ whether said singer is the mythical Midlands office worker mentioned above, or a profesisonal "folk" entertainer working the festival circuit (also mentioned earlier in this thread). That does not rule out the possibility that someone else ~ myself. maybe,or perhaps even you ~ might not be able to sing a version of that same old song that adequately captures its true feelings and intended message.

To extend the analogy from trad folk to trad jazz: there are highly skilled but wholly soulless ensembles all over the world who play perfect note-for-note recreations of classic recordings; many of them make annual pilgrimages to New Orleans and put on performances, and I very rarely find anything very moving or compelling about what they have to offer. This is not to say, however, that contemporary players cannot possibly recreate a true and authentic experience of this music. Every night, living breathing humans do a very nice job of it at Preservation Hall. (Many are native-born locals, of course, but there are plenty of honest and empathetic players who come from around the world to play old-style New Orleans jazz exactly the way it should be played.)

I'm not saying that a person who happens to believe that "folk" must be defined in a tightly restricted manner is necessarily going to be a mediocre, unfeeling musical performer. I'm sure that some can translate the same passion they bring to their academic arguments into some positive, passsionate feeling that comes across to the listener. But I'm equally sure that for many others, the restrictiveness of their outlook is clearly reflected in a lack of expression and, yes, even of musicality, in what little they have to offer as performers.

I believe that ~ all else being equal~ the best chance for a listener to experience authentic feeling and musical inspiration is by listening to a performer more interested in fun, love, and self-expression than in laying down rules and definitions.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 05:22 PM

"Quite why Famous Flower of Serving Men, should be thought more of a folksong than We Shall Overcome eludes me."

Hmmmm - you almost got me there, WLD! But isn't 'We Shall Overcome' more like an anthem than a folk song? Has it been altered by the communities that sing it? Or isn't it reproduced, each time it is sung, more or less word for word? If 'WSO' is a folk song so are the hymns in 'Ancient & Modern', so is The National Anthem and so is 'Happy Birthday' (haven't we been here before?).

"You want it to be Famous Flower of Serving Men to be a more valid folksong, because of your emotional needs - not for any logical reason."

Well, I admit to being human and to having emotional needs - but I'm not sure how relevant they are to this debate. Nevertheless, there seem to be several contributors to this thread who appear to be absolutely desperate to having their favourite music admitted to the category 'folk song' - but do you know, I have absolutely no idea why! Now that's what I call illogical ...

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 06:30 PM

I was being sarcastic in that message, Shimrod - I agree with you that it's the process that is important. Yet there are many who will insist on defining "traditional" based on known authorship (or not). Me, I'm more relaxed about this. And by the way, I also believe that the folk process is not dead, but it continues working (see related thread of a couple of months ago) and in time it will produce more "folk" songs.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 07:50 PM

Shimrod, I'm sorry for my abrasive comments earlier in this post. You've actually answered fairly civilly and logically while I posted with less self control than I normally would expect of myself. Still don't necessarily agree with you mind (I need a sticking out tongue smiley- anyone know how to make em?) If you are part of the 'folk police' at least I haven't fallen down any stairs yet.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 01:02 PM

On the subject of the rounding of the horn,this song contains a wonderful peice of poetry,take this verse
While beating off magellan straits,it blew exceeding hard
Two jolly tars we did lose, blown from the topsail yards.
by angry seas the ropes we threw,from their poor grasp was torn
we had to leave them to the sharks that prowl around cape horn.
Powerful stuff,you dont have to sail around cape horn,to appreciate the message ,of being unable to rescue friends from death.thats why somgs like this[Rounding the horn]are still relevant.
That is why the song is relevant to midland office workers,or anyone else, it expresses feelings that most of us are likely to come across at some period of our lives.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:46 PM

Hi Bardan,

Thanks for your apology! I must say that I wasn't really expecting one - because this forum can be a bit rough at times - but it is sincerely appreciated, all the same. I also hope that I didn't upset you too much either.

Just to provide a bit of perspective, you've probably gathered that I'm a bit passionate about traditional song and it's been an important part of my life for more years than I care to remember. Through my interest in this musical form I have met many fine people, over the years, and I can assure you that none of them remotely resemble policemen! None of us really wants to stop anyone from listening to anything and couldn't do so even if we wanted to.

I wonder if I could recommend something to you? See if you can find a recording of a singer called Enos White singing a song called 'George Collins' (it's on a CD called 'O'er His Grave the the Grass Grew Green - Tragic Ballads' Topic TSCD 653 - it's Volume 3 in Topic's 'Voice of the People' series). Enos was a 75 year old Hampshire farm labourer when this track was recorded in 1955. He was just an ordinary bloke (and sounds it) - but the song is extraordinary! It's about a man who meets what is possibly (and it's the ambiguity that I love) a water sprite or fairy - and she uses enchantment (possibly) to kill him. Not only is the text weird but the tune is as well - and all this issuing from the mouth of an otherwise very ordinary, elderly country man. Also note that the ballad is unlikely to have anything to do with with Enos's actual life - but it may say a lot about his inner life and his imagination.

Now I don't expect you to like this track - and I will think none the less of you if you hate it - but it might give you an inkling of where I'm coming from. You see once I got hooked on this sort of thing it changed my perspective on music completely (for good or for ill!). It also made we realise that we, in this country, have an amazing musical legacy which is at best too often derided and at worst too often ignored.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:57 PM

Sorry, George - I was probably being a bit dense there!

"And by the way, I also believe that the folk process is not dead, but it continues working (see related thread of a couple of months ago) and in time it will produce more "folk" songs."

You could well be right but, with my sceptical scientist's hat on, I think it needs more study and observation to be sure.

By the way, did you write that song called 'Johny Don't Go Walking in the Sea' (hope I've got the right person)? Now that is a cracking song - not a folk song yet, of course, because it hasn't been through 'the process' - but brilliant, all the same!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:33 PM

Yes, I did, Shimrod - thanks!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:48 PM

I've been running singarounds at Sidmouth and Chippenham festivals, and going to singarounds at other festivals. I've noticed that we sometimes have more than one song in one session that was written by Keith Marsden, Dave Webber, Roger Bryant, Mick Ryan, Stan Rogers - because they are good songs that people enjoy singing and joining in with.

One year at Chippenham, a lady sang a Martin Graebe song without knowing that the author was sitting unassumingly in the singaround waiting for his turn to sing.

I think folk music is about people making their own entertainment, not the academic preserving of historical tradition, which is academic and historical, not folk, which is organic. Great stuff and worth preserving - and also a source of inspiration for new generations to give a different treatment to.

The Child ballads, after all, come from the days when peoople entertained themselves by singing and telling stories.

Kitty

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,spb-creative
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 04:03 PM

Shimrod,

As someone who hasn't learned much in 25 years:

My opinion (again)

(1) Music genres like folk, jazz, rock, classical can be defined in terms of style, idioms, etc. It isn't rocket science to work out which is which in many cases, and as such it doesn't need a rule book.

(2) There will always be grey areas and cross-over between styles, e.g. Go and Enlist For a Sailor, On Board the Kangaroo, but music hall songs written by Harry Clifton, mid 1840s, the formaer collected by Hammond or Gardner in Basingstoke at the time Clifton was performing in provincial venues.

(3) Having too rigid definitions, what happens to songs like Fiddlers green, do we define it as "Sounds like folk music but it isn't really because it was written".

In my childhood I used to watch the Spinners Christmas Concerts, and for me personally, it was what defined folk music for me, even though not every song was traditional.

On the other hand, I have been to folk clubs and heard offerings by singer-songwriters which would take a phenominal stretch of the imagination for ME to define it as folk. I have also heard lots of what I would call Jazz, but a jazz expert probably wouldn't.

So I am not saying that somethiong is folk because someone wants to call it that. Those who know me also know that in some areas I am a purist, particularly maritime song, and that I define a shanty as a song that can be used to carry out the job for which it was made, and the words are relevant to the perspective of the shantyman, i.e. the correct or sailorised use of technical language, otherwise it would be a sea song (not necesarily folk, but there are some dodgy parlour songs!!!).

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: chrispin
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 05:57 PM

So are we saying that "It's a long way to Tipperary.." and the like are on their way to becoming folk songs because people have enjoyed and do enjoy singing them? Is "usage" the ONLY criteria

If so, then I fear in the next century, we (I use the term hopefully) will be singing folk-songs that sound remarkably like "I just called to say I love you" and "American Pie"...

Heaven forbid!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 06:03 PM

Weelittledrummer,

I think that We Shall Overcome does qualify as a folk song. It's gone through changes, lyrics added, interpretations to fit different occasions, extended from other antecedents such as the Tinsley song "I'll Overcome Some Day" to other variations. It's a good example of a folk song that is contemporary and will be sung years from now maybe in new forms. Already, there is a Spanish version and it's becoming internationally known.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,wordy
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 06:19 PM

Yes chrispin, it might not necessarily be those songs but it will be their equivilant. The people will have spoken.
The clock cannot be turned back, the people will sift what is given to them by the media and they will find the nuggets.
It's the folk process, but adjusted to modern times.