What IS Folk Music?

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:54 AM

On a point of information, I should inform those of you who have never actually read Sharp's English Folk Song: Some Conclusions that those conclusions were based on only a short (though pioneering, and very intensive) study of one part of England only, and that Sharp himself made it clear that they were provisional conclusions only, and subject to re-assessment in the light of new information. Had he lived longer, we might have other conclusions to consider.

He also did not say that folk song 'had to be anonymous', and I do wish people, some of whom at least ought to know better, would stop claiming that he did. The point he was trying to make was that original authorship was essentially irrelevant; it is what happens to a song after it has been written that determines whether or not it can be considered a 'folk' song.

Unfortunately, Sharp is always being mis-quoted and mis-interpreted. Most objections in discussions of this kind to what he said seem to be, in reality, objections from people who have not read what he said to mis-representations of what he said made by people who either have not read what he said, or have not understood it.

The problem with discussions of this sort is that people come to them with very different understandings of the term 'folk music'. Some prefer the careful definitions formulated by people who have studied the subject in depth (the 1954 formula has, you may be sure, been subject to continual re-assessment and modification over the years; though it is still a useful starting point for anyone genuinely interested in learning, and understanding, more) while others prefer the more recent and more elastic terms promulgated largely by the major record companies.

In the same way, some will understand a 'ballad' as a narrative song of the kind studied by Child; others will think of any romantic song recorded by Frank Sinatra or Tom Jones. That's the difficulty; without agreeing at the start what we are actually talking about, much of the debate will continue at cross purposes and achieve the same results it did last time, and the time before; not very much.

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 02:17 AM

Surely Arthur Lee and Love recorded Hey Joe before Hendrix, or have I go tthe dates in the wrong order? I would have thought, however, that there was a difference between a cover, which is intended to evoke the performance covered, and a further recording of the same song, in which the intention differs.

"Come away Melinda" is a good example, perhaps, with maybe the three best known versions being Tim Rose, Uriah Heap, and Clannad - and the three are so different that at first listening one would doubt whether they were the same song. If I "cover" one of those versions I am surely not "covering" another.

Scrump, frankly, you seem to wish, unlike some of the other contributors to this thread, to have an uninformed discussion.

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Scrump
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 05:12 AM

Re. Hey Joe - as well as Love, didn't the Byrds also record it before Hendrix, on an album? My memory could be playing tricks on me, but I thought I'd heard theirs before his (and I did hear his version pretty early on, as it was plugged on Radio London, to which I was a keen listener in those days).

Scrump, frankly, you seem to wish, unlike some of the other contributors to this thread, to have an uninformed discussion.

I'm not saying that, Richard. I'm simply saying I wish that those who would like to have a discussion about this subject, are allowed to do so, whether informed or not, without being insulted or berated for not having read document X or previous Mudcat thread Y.

I wish also that 'informed' contributors like yourself could contribute with resorting to insults. Failing that, I would prefer you and others of like mind to simply ignore the thread. It would have been more helpful, as I said in response to your first posting in this thread, if you could have referred us to the document in question, preferably with a link to a source.

It's not as if previous discussions have answered the question to everybody's satisfaction - if they had, then perhaps you may have a point (even so, you could have expressed it more politely).

I don't want people inhibited from contributing to the discussion for fear of having their heads bitten off by people like yourself who think they are talking rubbish. As for me, I am trying to keep an open mind on the subject, and want to see what other's views are, even if I don't agree with them personally. As I said, there are many people here who weren't party to the original consensus, and you never know, some of them may have valid contributions to make.

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Scrump
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 05:33 AM

Yes, I think that this is a very interesting question and it is my personal opinion that Shakespeare's song would still qualify as a folk song (I like to think that I would have the courage to argue this point with C# - but I'd probably 'wimp out'! "Of course you're right, Mr Sharp - you are, after all a leading authority - sorry, THE leading authority!").

Fortunately, you won't have to put that to the test :-)

From what others have said since your posting, there may be some doubt he actually claimed anonymity as an essential requirement anyway.

As for moving on from the 1954 definition, I suspect that this definition is still correct IN ESSENCE if not in every detail. In the same way we may have moved on since Darwin's day but that still doesn't negate the pioneering work that he did on the Theory of Evolution.

Point taken.

As for "blinkered bigots", yes, there may be a few of those around - on both sides of the argument! You may think, Scrump, that I am a blinkered bigot (?) and I do admit that I was rather churlish towards you in a previous thread (for which I sincerely apologise. The trouble is that I am rather passionate about the subject of traditional music and can get carried away when discussing it. I also think that, in this forum, if you don't make your points 'robustly' you can get ignored. And, let's face it, in real life I am a sober, law-abiding, upright citizen but here I can get away with being just a bit anarchic (Shimrod is, if you like, my wicked alter-ego - and he's beginning to get out of control - AAAAHHHHH!!!).

Thanks for your apology, Shimrod. I would like to apologise too, for my own 'robust' response to your comments in another recent thread. I haven't done anything like that before (at least, in Mudcat) and it was out of character for me, but I felt goaded into such a response at the time (it was late at night when I posted that response - not usually a good time to do that sort of thing. I probably should have slept on it). Anyway, I hope we can agree to put that aside and air any future disagreements more amicably from now on.

If I get a bit outrageous, now and then, just ignore me
Did somebody say something? :-)

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 06:13 AM

The problem, I think, is that a new term is needed to describe whatever it is that is now performed as we are discussing. I have just made a suggestion to the "our club" thread. Ventilating the depths of one's ignorance is not the same as a discussion, and when relevant information is readily available, is not helpful either.

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Grimmy
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 07:07 AM

Had he [Cecil Sharp] lived longer, we might have other conclusions to consider.

It's unfortunate that practically any discussion about folk music history eventually lapses into 'the Gospel According To Cecil Sharp', the man revered as a god, whose every utterance is taken to be the unquestionable truth.

Let's explode a few myths here - most of the famous collectors were educated 'gentlemen' who went amongst the 'plebs' to collect songs in much the same way as their peers collected fossils, butterflies or Egyptian artifacts. They were treated with suspicion and even, in some cases, hostility by the local people, to the extent that many songs/ballads were withheld from them.

Their methodology was far from scientific; Baring-Gould butchered many of the songs he collected, that's if he bothered to record them at all (it is well known that he would note only one verse of a song if he thought it crude in either its poetical merit or its 'indelicate' content), he would subsequently 're-write' or compose his own verses if he thought fit.

To his credit, C# did at least attempt to trace the ancestry of the songs he collected and in that sense he was a pioneer - and he conceded that there was much more to be done.

Well, here we are 80 years after his death, with a wealth of information and research at our fingertips/keyboards that C# could only have dreamed about - and yet we still hang on his every word.

As I have stated in earlier posts, the folk music tradition is an evolving one; it has evolved since its pagan origins, it has evolved since C#'s day, it has evolved since 1954, it will continue to evolve after we are gone.

Those who fear this evolution can cling to the writings of Cecil Sharp and his ilk if they wish. But any definition of what folk music is or is not, that is more than one day old, is out of date.

Since I am likely to be burned as a heretic, this weekend will be a particularly boozy one. I'm going to listen to Hendrix playing 'Hey Joe' (which, according to Colin Harper's bio of Bert Jansch, was written by two Scottish folksingers in Edinburgh). I reckon C# would have approved (eventually) ;-)

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:13 AM

"Let's explode a few myths here - most of the famous collectors were educated 'gentlemen' who went amongst the 'plebs' to collect songs in much the same way as their peers collected fossils, butterflies or Egyptian artifacts. They were treated with suspicion and even, in some cases, hostility by the local people, to the extent that many songs/ballads were withheld from them."

I think that myths might be being piled on myths here!

If you want an up-to-date view of Sharp's relationship to his informants try Vic Gammon's excellent introduction to the equally excellent song book, 'Still growing: English Traditional Songs and Singers from the Cecil Sharp Collection' (efdss in association with Folk South West, 2003). Dr Gammon considers the written evidence and concludes, "...some of Sharp's informants would speak very warmly of him. No doubt, once over the initial shock [of being approached by a middle class folk song collector?], many people enjoyed the interest he took in them and their songs."

Much of this 'myth' that Edwardian folk song collectors were JUST callous robbers of plebs' cultural heritage comes from, what I consider to be a mischievous, biased and misleading book, Dave Harker's 'Fakesong' (Open University Press, 1985).

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:52 PM

As an American, I'm more familiar with the collecting work of the Lomaxes, et al, than with Cecil Sharpe. But I can still have an opiion, quite possibly valid, about his project, or that of any such pioneering collector, in any country at any time, but especially during the era when recording technology first became available

I have the general impression that this kind of project always, inevitably, would have to have involved some barrier to complete communication between the educated and sophisticated collector and the less worldly subjects. Whether one portrays this problem as crippling and even hostile, on the one hand, or virtually insignificant on the other, depends almost entirely on one's own preconcenptions (political opinion, class origin, etc.)

I think that the actual songs and performances that were collected contitute the most important contribution, and that any accompanying subtext (theory, interpretation) is certainly interesting, important for learning as much as possible about the collector and his intentions and strategies, but surely to be taken with a grain of salt, especially as the years go on.

I have no problem with those who adhere to a narrower definition of "folk music" than I do. On the contrary ~ I fully recognize their right to mark off a given well-defined bit of musical territory and to concentrate their efforts upon its study. All well and good, and in fact, truly deep study is only possible by concentration upon a relatively restricted database.

I simply refuse to seriously consider any argument that my own interest in a wider field is "wrong." I try not to be offended, because many of those who hold to tighter restrictions than I find tolerable often have very interesting and valid things to say, and I often enjoy applying their insights to subject matter that they themselves would never consider.

My one "bugaboo" or "hobbyhorse," something I can't help but repeat, is my utter impatience with the assumption that songs and styles that were accidentally current at the time Mr, Collector arrived ~ with his notebooks or wire recorder or reel-to-reel tape gizmo or whatever ~ that these particular versions and approaches to these particular sets of lyrics and melodies are somehow sacrosanct.

How can we possibly know that the folksong of, say, 1921 (or 1892, or whenever, if discussing written rather than recorded research) may not have been entirely different from what was being sung and played in 1903, or 1850, 1690, or whenever? Why should the state of things at the time of a given researcher's arrival be any more deserving of respect than what's happenning today?

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 01:15 PM

Poppa, Sharp collected in America, too.

Just sayin'.

The moment of collection is just that: a moment in time; a snapshot. However, those collected versions, especially the recorded ones, are our link with the heritage of the song. Imperfect it may be, but I always feel that if you're going to sing these songs, it's nice to be aware of where they came from (or at least what we know of that history). That's because of the very nature of traditional song.

I like Sam Larner and Harry Cox and Fred Jordan a lot. If I sing songs from their repertoires, I certainly don't try to copy them, but I like it that I know their version. Especially if I know a more recent version as well, as I can see what different singers have brought to the song.

And then I'll sing my own interpretation, which may be influenced by those other singers, or it may be all my own - and sod anyone who doesn't like it.

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: GUEST, Mikefule
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 01:20 PM

I am firmly of the opinion that "folk music" has nothing to do with rhythm, chord structure, subject matter, the instruments played, the age or source of the material, or any stylistic details. It is to do with context.

Thin Lizzy singing Whiskey in the Jar to an audience of thousands was rock music.

Me singing Ace of Spades unaccompanied in a pub session is folk music. Ditto when one of my mates sings "Delilah" and everyone in the pub joins in the chorus.

The context is this: that the musicians and singers are participating for their mutual pleasure in the music. The songs and tunes are ones they all know or in styles they all recognise. It is an activity, not a performance.

That's "folk music".

A "folk song" or "folk tune"defined by its source and is still a folk song or tune if performed in a rock style (e.g. Whiskey in the Jar, House of the Rising Sun) but it is not "folk music" if it is performed in a non-participatory context.

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Charmain
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:55 AM

Thanks to everyone for chirping in with their opinions on this one - despite the impression I may have created with my starting this thread I have been immersed in folk music for my whole life - I really just wanted to see what people out there thought as I had read many times on the forum of this or that not being "folk"
Thanks also for the links to previous discussions some of them make quite interesting reading...
I have to say though - Mikefule - I like that - I like it a lot - I think you're on to something there!

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:44 AM

poppagator, excellent point,Music other than classical music[where the composer has stipulated certain interpretations]evolves and changes.,and as you say just because it was sung in a certain way in 191O,it doesnt mean it was performed the same way thirty years previously.
an intersting remark that Alistair Anderson made,is that the styles traditional musicians play in, is affected by their geographical environment,someone playing and living in the fens of east anglia will play very differently from someone living in northumberland.

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:49 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_music

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 03:25 AM

I've never really understood the (apparently self-imposed) confusion that surrounds the term 'Folk music'. I can go to my bookshelves and take down several hundred books that use the term in a way I recognise it. Though there are a couple that might question that deninition, I can't think of one that challenges it seriously - can anybody? Dave Harker and Georgina Boyes have made their names as 'folk dissidents' but I find their work deeply flawed and poorly researched. Apart from them, is there anything else?
If anybody asked me 'what is folk?' I would hand them Lloyd's 'Folk Song in Engand' and 'The Penguin Book of English Folk Songs' and tell them to start there.
It seems to me that, until a better one comes along, the definition as recognised by Sharp, Vaughan Williams, Lucy Broadwood, Lloyd, MacColl, Lomax, Joyce, O'Neill, Bronson, Sheilds, Buchan, the IFMC et al, is the one we are stuck with.
I've never heard a horse sing - I've never known a horse come up with a half-decent alternative to the term 'folk music' - though some people seem to be quite happy to take their knowledge from horses - and other dumb animals.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Scrump
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:15 AM

And then I'll sing my own interpretation, which may be influenced by those other singers, or it may be all my own - and sod anyone who doesn't like it.

Well said, Ruth. That's my approach too.

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Scrump
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:20 AM

A "folk song" or "folk tune"defined by its source and is still a folk song or tune if performed in a rock style (e.g. Whiskey in the Jar, House of the Rising Sun) but it is not "folk music" if it is performed in a non-participatory context.

Very interesting comments, Mikefule. But if you sing a folk song (say one without a chorus or obvious lines for others to join in), unaccompanied, and no-one but you is singing it, does that make it "non-participatory" , and therefore not folk music? I assume you don't mean that, but can you clarify what you mean by "non-participatory" in this context?

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Charmain
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 05:27 AM

Ah-Ha - a very good point Scrump...

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:55 PM

"I've never really understood the (apparently self-imposed) confusion that surrounds the term 'Folk music'."

I've said this before, Jim (probably in this thread), that it's all about people who want 'experts' to take responsibility for their choices. It works something like this:

Singer A doesn't (a) particularly like Folk Music and/or (b) know much about it, but likes some other category of music and wants to perform it in a Folk venue. He/she then conceives the notion (being a great original thinker) that "all music is folk music" and hence his/her favourite musical form can safely be played in a folk venue. Nevertheless, Singer A doesn't really have the courage of his/her convictions so demands that an Expert B validate his/her 'great thought'. When Expert B fails to do so he/she is demonised as a "Folk Policeman".

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:50 AM

A "folk song" or "folk tune"defined by its source and is still a folk song or tune if performed in a rock style (e.g. Whiskey in the Jar, House of the Rising Sun) but it is not "folk music" if it is performed in a non-participatory context".

So when classical singer Peter Pears sang 'The Lyke Wake Dirge' or Anthony Newley sang 'Strawberry fair' that continued to be 'folk'?
Likewise, if the London Symphony Orchestra played Beatles numbers, 'Yesterday' then could be considered a classical piece?
Try telling that to the punters on the South Bank.
In performance, folk music is much more than notes or words divorced from their style, origin or intention.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: MikeofNorthumbria
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:17 AM

Hi Folks,

In the long run, definitions tend to change as our culture evolves - that's the wonder of language.   Meanwhile, in the here and now, all definitions are debatable. The debate running through this thread has been quite interesting, but we still seem to be a long way from a consensus.

Perhaps instead of asking "is this or that definition right or wrong?" we might do better to ask, "is it helpful or unhelpful? - does it clarify or confuse our understanding of the the thing we're trying to define?"

I think that Mikefule's point about context does clarify the discussion - but it might work even better with a further refinement. Suppose we try opening up a little more space between the concepts of "folk song", "folk singer" and "folk singing"?

With folk singing, it's relatively straightforward. If we sing for fun, let's call it folk singing - if we sing for money, let's call it show business - whatever the kind of songs being sung.

If we call something a folk song (define it how you will), then let's accept that it remains a folk song, even when being sung in a showbiz context.

And finally, let's agree that folk singers (define them as you wish) are doing folk singing when they sing non-commercially within their own community - but accept that when they get paid for singing to an audience, they have moved (temporarily) into show business.

This would not solve all our definitional problems - but it might help us to see more clearly which problem it is we are trying to solve.

Wassail!

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 05:28 PM

Jim carroll,your remarks as always are interesting.
you suggest starting with the penguin book of english folk songs,why.
I would take a more international approach,
I would send off some of the posters on this forum to collect songs from the Borneo head hunters.

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: GUEST,Sparticus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 05:57 PM

"I would send off some of the posters on this forum to collect songs from the Borneo head hunters."

Interesting point, Captain Birdseye! I wonder, if some of the posters here were sent back in time to express their views to the source singers, would they be told to "folk off"????

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:38 PM

Hi Cap'n,
Why 'The Peguin Book! Because I believe it to be the best 'general' collection of English songs in existence, covering ballads, lyrical, humourous, narrative - etc. - a good, representitive survey of our national repertoire.
If (highly unlikely) there are still headhunters in Borneo, (apart from those working for recruiting agencies), I doubt if there are many of us who would be able to make head nor tail - (is that too obvious?) of their songs. On the other hand, the songs in P.B. speak pretty much for themselves to anybody genuinely interested in discovering what the term Folk (as most of us know it) refers to. I would guess that most of us of my generation used it as a jumping off point - I certanly can't think of anything as comprehensive.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 04:11 PM

but why England JIM,Folk music is more than english folk songs,Why not the penguin book of Australian or Canadian folk songs,or the Scottish folksinger,OR alan lomax book of american folk songs,allof them comprehensive,
The question was what is folk music,notwhat is the best collection of English Folk Music

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 03:58 AM

Cap'n,
If somebody new comes asks about Indian food you don't introduce them to the whole menu - from biriani to phal, but you choose something that will ring bells with them - and not put them off.
With folk music, surely you give them something that they might be able to relate to.
Different cultures have different musics with different origins,. disciplines, styles and objectives.
Sure, you can point them to Ninon Leader's 'Hungarian Classical Ballads and their Folklore' or Jan Ling's excellent 'European Folk Music', or Willard Trask's 'The Unwritten Song', or the works of John Blacking or Ruth Finnegan - and a whole host of other important contributions to our understanding of folk music.
It is my opinion that you start your definition as near to home as possible - would you feel competent enough to explain the music of the Russian Steppes, or the ritual dances of the Cherokee Indians, or Mongolian throat singing - I wouldn't!
There was an excellent series of 13 programmes in the 70s by Bert Lloyd - 'Songs of the People', which covered the whole international gamut of world music, from Pygmies imitating the sound of bees in order to gather honey, to the magnificent complexity of Joe Heaney's singing. Anybody who wishes to take their understanding of folk music further would certainly do well to seek those out (I know there are copies floating around). Or Lloyd's 'Folk Music Virtuoso' -well worth getting hold of.
But I repeat, in my opinion, to anybody asking the above question I would have no hesitation in pointing them to 'Folk Song in England' for a down-to-earth, extremely readable and entertaining answer, and to 'Penguin' for examples of the genre.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 04:11 AM

People may have noticed I have stopped contributing to this thread.

You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Scrump
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 09:32 AM

Well said, Richard. There's no compulsion to contribute to this thread, or even read it, if people don't wan to.

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:34 PM

The most significant aspect of folk music is that it is represented by a sub-culture who carries it forward into subsequent generations.

The other vital importance is that it reach people on a simple and straightforward level and impel them to want to participate in it.

If people don't want to be a part of it, then it really doesn't qualify as folk music. There is the human element which is part of it that has to do with identification. Alan Lomax called it a "security blanket" because it was recognized by a community or sub-group that felt comforted and unified by it.

I think that the impelling aspect of folk music is that it somehow leaps off the page of a songbook or from the mouth of a singer and says "sing me" to enough people. The deal with pop music is that it requires a production value to make the song happen. Folk music doesn't need that. The song's "got legs" and it will perpetuate itself in spite of itself.

There are songs that have traveled through the ages and are recognized because they live in variants with themes that are universal. They are songs that are in motion and not frozen to a copyright or a specific manner of doing them.

All you have to do is look at any particular folk song and it will make itself clear from its history. Streets of Laredo has its antecedents in The Unfortunate Rake and there are clear routes of travel from Ireland to the US cowboy. St. James Hospital is another variant of this song. "When it's chittlin' cookin' time in Cheatham County" uses a tune that becomes a vehicle for the St. James Infirmary lyric which is a variant of what we are talking about. I use this as an example to indicate the history of a folk song in its travels which defines it pretty well I think.

Are there songs being written today that will become folk songs tomorrow? We'll see if we stick around long enough.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:37 PM

I thought to myself, "Richard Bridge has stopped contributing to this thread "

Then I refreshed the thread and realised I was mistaken ...

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Rog Peek
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 08:09 AM

I'd say that when it comes to Music genre, there's an awful lot of snobbery around.

I believe it was Louis Armstrong who said:

"All music is folk music, I ain't never heard no horse sing a song!"

I'm not sure I would agree with him entirely, but I think I can see whwere he's coming from.

(apologies if this quoitation has already been posted I must have missed it.)

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: Tootler
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 04:38 PM

This post from another forum makes interesting reading. Just read the last paragraph.

It helps me explain why I have always felt dissatisfied with the 1954 definition. I did not feel there was anything wrong with what the definition said, but I always felt that there was something missing but never could put my finger on what.

Subject: RE: What IS Folk Music?
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 05:17 PM

What is folk music,it is international,the songs and the tunes get carried from one country to another.,by traditional singers or by singers of traditional songs or by song carriers[who cares,is the terminology as important as the doing].
in my opinion folk music is home grown music,rather than mass produced commercial pop.
Jim Carroll,I dont believe your not competent enough to explain Scottish and Irish music.