Is traditional song finished?

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 09:45 AM

""Don's "what we are doing is giving present day audiences enough of what they want to get their bums on seats, and then including as much of what we, and you, want as they will accept, and pay to hear" seems a reasonable approach to that, provided nobody is misled about what's what.""

AT LAST! Thank God for somebody who can understand that evenings with some non traditional music may be a means to the end we all desire. Next step is to achieve a measure of respect for what I (for lack of any better description), call "contemporary folk", which, for me covers writings "in the folk idiom", as well as "revival folk".

Now, I hope that some at least will understand that I do not count these as "traditional folk". However, I do sincerely believe that the appellation "folk" is not inappropriate, notwithstanding the 1954 definition, which was introduced before either of these forms existed.

Finally, for those who believe that I am part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, I would strongly suggest that you consider the following:-

If you visit an evening with a mixture of traditional folk and other music, and walk out in disgust, you are in fact negating any good effect I might be having. I bring in ten new potential devotees of traditional music, and you remove the very thing I am trying to showcase to them.

Who, in that case, is the problem?

To rebuild takes time, and that time is considerably extended if there is somebody standing by, removing bricks as fast as they are laid.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Banjiman
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 09:52 AM

Common sense breaking out? It will never last!

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: MikeL2
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 10:42 AM

Hi banjiman

lol .......I am sure you are right...but it's good to see some sense talked here for a change.

Thanks Don you made my day.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 12:17 PM

Bryan;
"Retracting the accusation that I was deliberately misrepresenting you is a good start"
You said I drew my conclusions mainly, if not completely, from SO'Ps suggestions – that is blatantly untrue.
I have been debating the state of clubs from the time I first found Mudcat, even when I posted as a guest.
During that time I have discussed what goes in the name of folk at clubs, whether standards should be applied to public performance, and if so, how they should be applied, whether audiences should be encouraged to sing along with solo performers uninvited, whether or not 'crib sheets' should be used, whether ballads are too long, whether an evening of folk songs is "boring"... a whole host of subjects to do with the running of folk clubs. During these discussions I have been told that standards should not be applied and are not only unnecessary, but are undesirable as they might put off the 'less talented', that audiences should be encouraged to join in with the singer, whose responsibility it should be to request that they don't (and if they made such a request, that is indicative of arrogance – I think the term was – "the must think they are better than the rest of us").
One of the underlying suggestions throughout was that if you are required to 'work' at singing you cease to enjoy it.
These discussions were all a year or so before Sean Sweeney, (sorry Sean, sometimes these forum names make me feel as if I am part of Noddy in Toyland) and I went head to head. Sean and my differences are relatively new on the scene. I use Sean's list because, it is, I believe, a fairly representative sample of what goes on in some folk clubs, from my own experience (now limited, admittedly) and from many arguments put up by others on this forum – trawl though some of the threads and they are all there for the looking. So it was grossly misleading to suggest that my conclusions came either solely or mainly from Sean.
While we're here, perhaps I can add something else about Sean and my differences. My arguments with him have been long and bitter not because I don't respect him; on the contrary. He, compared to most people I have disagreed with on the definition of folk song, is one of the few who have attempted to take the existing definition and suggest a workable alternative. I disagree completely with his conclusions and I find his (IMO) dismissive manner irritating, often infuriating and have reacted badly on occasion, but at least he has never relied on the Humpty Dumpty philosophy of "Words mean what I want them to mean"; for that at least, he has my admiration.

"and you, whose opinion does matter...."
Why should my opinions matter any more than anyone else's? As you have pointed out, my experience of clubs is now limited since we "swanned off to Ireland"(which apparently bars me from holding an opinion on English clubs, it would seem).

"Feels like blame if you are on the receiving end."
My arguments are based around your statement that the basic requirement for encouraging anybody to sing is that they should "want to"; a statement I disagree with entirely. You have chosen to take this as a personal attack and one on your club; I remind you again that it was you who dragged your club into it by stating it was their official policy. My argument is solely aimed at the statement, which I believe, if applied widely, would damage any club that adopted it. You say that you don't get bad singers, so your recommendation is aimed at other clubs, not your own, which makes it more damaging to my mind.

"I can't recall you acknowledging that there were....." (any good clubs)
Then this seems like a case of 'voluntary dyslexia' on your part. I have constantly acknowledged that there are good clubs and included your own in that acknowledgment; I question whether there are enough of them to continue to present folk song so that future generations can continue to enjoy it as we did.

"Why do you brush aside the evidence of me, Dick Miles, Brian Peters and many others"
I don't brush aside their/your evidence, but I consider it alongside all the other information available; through friends still involved (some of whom have become disillusioned with the scene and are considering dropping out), through this forum, through what I've read and heard elsewhere and through my own experience, fairly extensive in the past (up to ten years ago), and less often more recently. Isn't that what you would do if our positions were reversed?
Some time ago you suggested my attitude was based on hearsay evidence – why should I accept your statements, which are hearsay evidence to me, above that of others?   

"while giving so much credence to SO'P's discredited statements....."
Are his statements discredited? There is enough evidence from this forum (from this thread even) that suggests that what he has claimed applies elsewhere. It seems that dismissing him out of hand shows disrespect for him on your part, not mine.

".....They will do that of their own volition not because someone like me is standing over them telling them to do so"
Who has ever suggested that anybody should be 'stood over'?
MacColl, above all singers, was the one who insisted that the work be put in before anybody stood up in front of an audience; his contribution, far from being an empty statement, was to help it to happen. He set up The Critics Group at the request of singers who needed help. He did not tell them to go off and practice in public at folk clubs, but devised a method of work which he believed would assist them improve their singing. I was involved in singing workshops based roughly on the 'self-help' principle he devised for more than 20 years from 1968 to the demise of The London Singers Workshop.

"My experience bears this out."
My experience has always been that new singers readily accept assistance if it is tactfully and sincerely offered. It also suggests that people thrown in at the deep-end without assistance are more likely to be put off than to be encouraged to become better singers. 'Standing over them' is a loaded and extremely misleading term is 'turning them away' which you have used in the past.

"At the Lewes Saturday Folk Club, we have quite a large core of residents all of whom perform traditional or "in the tradition" songs and music."
So you have said and so I believe.

" We have many regular floorsingers who share the same philosophy, Perhaps not all of them achieve it but nobody is unlistenable."
Once again, lucky old you – what about the club members on this thread who have claimed the opposite; me included; did we/they make it up?
Where does making 'wanting to sing' a basic requirement fit in with all this? 'Wanting to' is only a start to being able to – it's than that you put the work in.

This has again been far longer than I intended; while I fully intend to respond to things I disagree with and distortions of my opinion; I really don't want to be part of a discussion of this sort with you, interminably going over old ground again. If you cannot accept my views in the spirit they are offered, I have asked that we agree to differ rather than foul up worthwhile threads with our eternal bickering - I hope you will respect that request.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 03:45 PM

Amen!

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:59 PM

Steve Gardham

Amen!

Now that, I find worrying.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,raymond greenoaken
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 04:19 PM

anybody still here? It feels like I'm loping onto the pitch just after everyone's gone home for tea. But...

This "when I go to a folk club I expect to hear folk" line stirs mixed feelings in me. I agree, I think, that what it says on the tin should be a trusty guide to what you'll find inside the tin. And given the choice between an "anything goes" evening and a session of hardcore trad I'd probably go for the latter nine times out of ten. That's me talking as a listener. As a performer – well, I've been singing Eng Trad in folk clubs for about 35 years because that's what I like singing more than anything else. And I'd need three lifetimes to sing all the songs I want to sing. But I seem to have reached a sort of climacteric in my life in which I feel a need to engage with a lot of other stuff that feels part of my DNA as a singer. Mostly it's stuff that I absorbed in that highly absorbent stage of life between about age 9 and 19. Stuff that I never consciously learned for performance but which nevertheless feels somehow part of what I am.

Trouble is, of course, most of it isn't trad, however elasticated your definition of the term. But if I can't sing it in folk clubs, where can I sing it? Because I play anglo concertina, everything I sing comes out in what some here have identified as a "folk style", whether it's Jamaica Farewell, Sun Arise, Times They Are A-Changing, Lilly The Pink or Jumping Jack Flash. Pop dross, some of you might say, but they have a high emotional voltage for me. But I get the impression that Jim C would flounce out of any club in which I presumed to stand up and sing anything of this sort, even if I had a finger in both ears and a t-shirt declaring McColl For Pope.

Now, just like Walter Pardon I can tell the difference between this kind of stuff and traditional song. (Not that I'd compare myself to him on any other level.) But Walter's ability to discriminate between genres didn't stop him from learning music hall ditties, union anthems and other bastard children of the common muse. And singing them too (otherwise we wouldn't know about it).

So would Walter have got a gig at Jim's folk club only if he'd signed a contract in triplicate that he'd stick faithfully to his trad repertoire? And if the answer is no, doesn't that mean that Jim's shibboleths are those of style rather than substance? And if the answer's yes, doesn't that mean that Jim's definition of "folk" is essentially "music of which I approve"? Just wondering...

Enjoying the debate! Don't stop.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 04:22 PM

Blimey! Hello Raymond - I now sing one of your songs care of Sedayne.
Folk Process? Maybe not, but it's fun anyway innit?

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 04:24 PM

Make that *two*

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 04:43 PM

"doesn't that mean that Jim's shibboleths are those of style rather than substance? And if the answer's yes, doesn't that mean that Jim's definition of "folk" is essentially "music of which I approve"?"

Having (just) come to the realisation that JimC is partial to contemporary folk (in the traditional idiom) I've found it harder to understand his position, or rather I've found it much harder to appreciate the sustanability of his position when he opposes others of the revival in the debates we see here.

If he were a hord-core Traddy with no time for contemporary compositions in the folk idion (jeesh it takes so long to type!) it'd be far easier...

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 06:07 PM

"but at least he has never relied on the Humpty Dumpty philosophy of "Words mean what I want them to mean"

As, Jim, you have twice accused me of doing this in previous debates, I take it you are referring to my arguments here. (And if you are not, then my rebuttal will stand for whomsoever you were thinking about).

I would dearly love you to take a deep breath and try to understand this one thing..

The arguments I have carefully set before you have nothing to do with that famous Lewis Carroll quote.

To claim it does (over and over and over again) is to suggest that I am both very stupid and also that I have no respect for, or understanding of, the English language, or the way it is made and remade by democratic evolution.

The point I have tried to get over to you on many occasions is that if you want to be understood, you sometimes need to speak your interlocutor's language in preference to your own - or at least to adopt their vocabulary.

When (to simplify the argument) I speak to anyone older than 65 (or who has given me some other relevant clue) about folk and traditional music, I should guess that they may use these words the way you do, Jim, and temper my argument accordingly.

When I speak to someone between, say, 65 and 40 (actually this is not about age, but age will do as a cypher for now), then I need to be careful because a number of interpretations may apply, and I'll probably have to check as I go that we understand each other.

But when I speak to anyone younger than 40, or to anyone who is interested in 'roots' music but who has little knowledge of 'heritage' music, then I can assume the Wikipedia definitions will usually hit the mark, because that IS the 'correct' language for that demographic.

This is not dishonesty or self-delusion, it is plain common sense.

I've been filming around London and the South West all week. I read quite a few contemporary music magazines while I was there, and noted the bands that were called 'folk' in these publications. None of them were what you'd call 'folk', Jim.

To say that they have chosen this term themselves just to cheat their way into the traditional music sector is just plain stupid.

They use these words the way they do because everyone around them does - and has done so for decades.

Music magazines have millions of readers between them, and they have been using the word folk to describe acoustic music of all types, along with a lot of other ill-defined applications, for about 40 years, and it has become the norm everywhere apart from, ironically, within the 'folk' world.

The message has been reinforced again and again over time ever since the Americans decided that contemporary music could be called folk in the 1960s. We see the evidence in dictionaries, in the categories of music competitions, on file sharing websites, and on the shelves on record stores as well as in newspapers and magazines. And I hear it in everyday conversation among musicians and enthusiasts of all ages in city, town and country up and down this land - not to mention in other parts of the world (specially the USA).

Hundreds of millions of people are happy to use the word 'folk' to mean almost anything they like as long as it's folky to them.

So.

This is not me, (or anyone else), being like Humpty Dumpty.

This is me being a professional communicator who wants to be understood.

Do you think you could give it a rest now?

Tom

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 07:09 PM

Traditional Song may be finished, but I have noticed that the Traditional Singers do go on.... :-P


I'll get me hat....

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 03:41 AM

A clarification on this bright Sunday morning.

I make no complaint about anyone arguing for or against the 'academic,' '54,' 'original,' or 'continuing' meaning of terms like 'folk song,' 'the tradition,' 'folk singer,' 'traditional song' and so on.

There is nothing wrong with debating these definitions and the issues behind them, and in the case of the word 'traditional' it's actually very important that the legal and musicalogical issues are kept in the public consciousness.

The debate may seem tedious and cyclical to some, but there are important issues at the heart of it.

But it's important that everyone understands that the only one of these words with a 'fixed' meaning is 'Traditional,' and only because of it's quasi legal definition.

All the other words and phrases, regardless of how they may be defined in books, or in popular usage by any number of groups or sects, are - to coin a phrase - in the public domain, and may be interpreted by different people in different ways.

We all use words in the ways we have learned them, from parents, teachers, peers, books and other media.

We learn new (old) words all the time, and the meaning of these words may be different to the way they were originally defined. Language is not carved in stone. Dictionaries and academic works need to up-dated from time to time to allow for the changes that naturally take place. (Vis the change in the 54 definitions from 'folk' to 'traditional').

Pronunciation

It is morally wrong to suggest that someone who uses a public-owned word in a slightly different way to your own preference is being deliberately obtuse, dishonest, fraudulent or whatever.

Argue for your own meaning by all means. But accept that others have a right to use words they way they have learned them, and that to them that meaning is as correct, true, honest, natural and real as your own definition.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom again
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 03:59 AM

The mac went bonkers and posted while i was typing!

Ignore the above.

________________________________

A clarification on this bright Sunday morning.

I make no complaint about anyone arguing for or against the 'academic,' '54,' 'original,' or 'continuing' meaning of terms like 'folk song,' 'the tradition,' 'folk singer,' 'traditional song' and so on. Or for newer wider meanings of these words.

There is nothing wrong with debating these definitions and the issues behind them, and in the case of the word 'traditional' it's actually very important that the legal and musicalogical issues are kept in the public consciousness.

The debate may seem tedious and cyclical to some, but there are important issues at the heart of it.

But it's important that everyone understands that the only one of these words with a 'fixed' meaning is 'Traditional,' and only because of its quasi-legal definition. (Luckily this defends the musicalogical one, but it's not forced so to do).

All the other words and phrases, regardless of how they may be defined in books, or in popular usage by any number of groups or sects, are - to coin a phrase - in the public domain, and may be interpreted by different people in different ways.

We all use words in the ways we have learned them, from parents, teachers, peers, books and other media.

We learn new (old) words all the time, and the meaning of these words may be different to the way they were originally defined. Language is not carved in stone. Dictionaries and academic works need to be up-dated from time to time to allow for the changes that naturally take place. (Vis the word change in the 54 Definition from 'folk' to 'traditional' - and the way on-line dictionary definitions differ from older printed books). If they are not updated or footnoted they will eventually become opaque and very difficult to access (like Chaucer, for example).

(Pronunciation suffers a similar change - vis the recent loss of the 'r' in the word 'brought' - everyone seems to say 'bought' now, and if this becomes normal, then it will only be like 'walk' and 'talk' and 'golf' - or a word now in transition back to the original phonetic; 'vulnerable').

It is morally wrong to suggest that someone who uses a public-owned word in a slightly different way to your own preference is being deliberately obtuse, dishonest, or fraudulent. They are using it correctly, the way they have learned it, and they have every right so to do.

Argue for your own meaning by all means. But accept that others have a right to use words the way they have acquired them, and that to them that meaning is as correct, true, honest, natural and real as your own definition.

It is not ignorance, stupidity, or some deceitful trick for their own convenience, (or even madness - as expressed by Humpty Dumpty) for musicians to call their new songs 'folk.' It is correct in their terms in their world.

Seek to change their minds by all means, but respect their integrity - or else they will think you worse than foolish.

Tom

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,raymond greenoaken
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 05:30 AM

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 04:22 PM

Blimey! Hello Raymond - I now sing one of your songs care of Sedayne.

Make that *two*


...
Phew! Are you sure you're not mistaking me for Tom Bliss? Or Bert Lloyd...

Actually, I knew about one of them (Down The Ragwort Road). What's the other?

Not even I sing my songs any more...

Sorry - I know this thread isn't all about ME, but I'm curious...

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 05:43 AM

Tom Bliss ~ I think I see what you mean in your conclusion to your last post. But, if these putative young people you cite will 'think me worse than foolish' if I object to their misuse of a precise term, would you consider that they will in turn be respecting my integrity?

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 05:51 AM

MtheGM. Please read again.

I specifically didn't say you (actually I was addressing Jim) would be 'worse than foolish' if you objected to someone's use of a precise term. I said "Seek to change their minds by all means."

I did say that if you failed to respect their integrity that they might consider you worse than foolish.

The reason the Humpty Dumpty anology is insulting is because HD is being deliberately obtuse.

Those who use the words 'folk' or 'traditional' in ways that differ from your own are not. They are using the words correctly as they understand them.

So call them wrong by all means, but don't call them liars or fools - they are neither.

Tom

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 06:51 AM

Actually, I knew about one of them (Down The Ragwort Road). What's the other?

Why, Go into a Hare of course! Your masterful setting of Grave's Allensford Pursuit. I balled 'em up into the one song a wee while back (it's even on YouTube HERE) & CS extricated them with rare cunning.

I'm not sticking around today - it's so cold my toes are numb, and my head's aching from a 160 mile drive last night listening to Tim Westwood broadcasting live from Newcastle, featuring the amazing Skepta. Today all I'm listening to is the ringing in my ears...

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,TB
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 06:52 AM

PS

I would say exactly the same to anyone who sought to oppose your's or Jim's definitions.

Academics can define words till the cows come home. But only those who agree to abide by those definitions, such as kids sitting English exams, need to do so.

Others merely have to make sure they're understood by the person they're talking to.

If they choose a new unique and totally personal meaning (as HD did), they will fail and probably be laughed at.

But if the word has acquired some new folk-meaning (sorry couldn't resist that) within their community then they have every right to use the word in this new way.

There are millions of examples of this - such as 'wicked' for 'good'.

'Folk' and 'traditional' (small t) have done this - and the evidence is there in spades for those who are willing to examine it.

'Traditional' (big T), when used to attribute ownership, has not.

It's a mess, but such is life - and it's a boon for us poets.

Some words are just poorly defined and mean different things to different people.

We can seek to clarify and streamline those meanings, but - assuming they have a genuine usage by a significant community - we can't deny them.

To do so is to risk being thought 'worse than foolish.'

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 07:55 AM

Maybe shifting sidewise for a second will help.
When did my understanding of the term R and B (Guitar/Bass/Drums/Harmonica etc) mainly played in pubs, morph into what Kids consider to be R and B (Mainly Black soul/pop crossover music)?
Who started that one...they could have warned us!!
So I'm in agreement with Tom Bliss. Different strokes for different folks (pun intended1)
And don't get me started on Txt Spk....

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 05:16 PM

Sorry, still tied up too much to take part in this.
In the meantime:
"But it's important that everyone understands that the only one of these words with a 'fixed' meaning is 'Traditional,'
Perhaps you might elucidate on this extraordinary statement Tom.
Of the two terms, 'traditional' is probably the most ambivalent.
'Folk' has an established, widely accepted definition used globally by those working in the field ' (researchers, collctors, educationalists eg. - those who record, document, write up and teach - those who make permanent). Among these it has something that the present day revival totallly lacks - consensus.
A thought - any legal challenge to the present definition is quite likely draw the attention of the PRS and IMRO jackals to the 'public domain' status that folk music enjoys. Already, immeasurable damage has been done by claims of payment by PRS from folk clubs 'in case copyrighted music is perfomed at them'. Legal challenges could well bring the whole pack of cards tuimbling to the ground.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Tootler
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 06:07 PM

'Folk' has an established, widely accepted definition used globally by those working in the field ' (researchers, collctors, educationalists eg. - those who record, document, write up and teach - those who make permanent).

That is it is an academic definition. I do not mean that in the pejorative sense that the term "academic" is often used, but that it is a definition by and for academics - those engaged in scholarly work - in this case, in the field of folk music and folklore.

As a retired academic (in engineering rather than folklore) I would caution care in using academic definitions outside the context for which they were developed because all sorts of misunderstandings start to creep in as a result of the "adopters" not being fully aware of the original context. The result being the the outside world's meaning of the term becomes different from that of those who originally defined the term.

Much of what Tom Bliss wrote earlier makes perfect sense to me and I can see where he is coming from. As I understand it, he is describing what happens to a term when it becomes adopted outside of its original context - in this case the world of the folk music collector. An example of what I described above.

For the, admittedly limited, time I have been involved again with folk music more recently, it has become clear to me that the term "folk" generally encompasses more than the 1954 definition and that it does not seem to have a precise definition. This is largely because working musicians and folk music audiences one way and another do not have the same need for a precise definition of the term "folk" that academics do.

For the most part the term folk seems to be used in the big wide world to refer to both traditional music and to more recently composed music in the folk idiom. The term does not have precise boundaries and some would take it wider and others narrower.

One of the problems with most of these discussions is that there is a variety of sets of assumptions being made which are not made explicit. As a result misunderstandings occur because the various parties to the discussion are not always really discussing the same thing and because they take their underlying assumptions for granted and assume that others share the same set of assumptions which is not necessarily true. This ultimately leads to the kind of bickering which so irritates many people - myself included.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 06:29 PM

"For the most part the term folk seems to be used in the big wide world..."
On the contrary the 'big wide world' has not seen fit to comment on the definition of folk song - certainly not the 'talking horse' one.
The general misuse of the term comes solely from the clubs, where no consensus exists and can cover anything from Chevy Chase to "Jumpin' Jack Flash".
Would you term ' The Penguin Book of English/American/Canadian Folk Songs "academic" works?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 07 Mar 10 - 07:18 PM

"The general misuse of the term comes solely from the clubs, where no consensus exists and can cover anything from Chevy Chase to "Jumpin' Jack Flash".

Various Consensi do exist, some in clubs and some elsewhere, but these consensi are not universal because people are free to use words as they choose, and people have chosen - through natural linguistic evolution - a number of diverging uses for these terms.

The 'misuse' of the term (only it isn't misuse, it is correct usage because no-one has any right to police any definition except a legal one) is widespread, and in popular parlance far beyond folk clubs.

Your (and that of the authors you mention) appropriation of the word 'folk' is 'correct' Jim, but it is no more 'correct' than that of, for example, the many thousands of contemporary artists on MySpace, who check the 'folk' box, but play not one traditional song or tune.

I don't know why you seem never to hear this, but I'll say it yet again: Please, go listen to some popular radio, read some newspapers, browse some contemporary music magazines, eavesdrop on some pub conversations, bug some teenagers' bedrooms, go to some open mic nights, look at the Mercury nominations, (or the Radio Two Folk Awards), read this very forum - the evidence is overwhelming and staggeringly so.

""But it's important that everyone understands that the only one of these words with a 'fixed' meaning is 'Traditional,' Perhaps you might elucidate on this extraordinary statement Tom."

With pleasure.

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't read posts very carefully before replying.

I wrote: "But it's important that everyone understands that the only one of these words with a 'fixed' meaning is 'Traditional,'and only because of it's quasi legal definition."

I also explained, above and many times in other threads to which you were a contributor, that Traditional (big T) has a legal meaning in the UK and, I think, in other jurisdictions around the world.

It means 'in the public domain.' So when it is being used to denote published ownership (or lack of) its definition IS fixed in civil law, so cannot evolve. The courts have the power to fix language, no-one else does.

'Folk' and 'traditional' when not applied to ownership are not legal terms. So you can write as many books as you like on the subject - you still won't be defining the term for anyone who hasn't joined the club.

Tootler has explained it very well (thank you Tootler).

Tom

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 02:11 AM

How many times.....!
Have you heard Bob Dylan described as an American Folk Singer by lazy journalists, Jim?
As Tom says, You can make as many erudite points as you like, but if some oik turns up on "Britains Got Talent (!)" with an acoustic guitar and is introduced as "Here is Tim Bloggs...He's going to do a folk song".
2 Million viewers will get the impression that a bloke with an acoustic guitar is obviously a folk singer.
Now you and me I (and Tom, no doubt!) can sit, squirm, throw things at the TV, etc. The only consequence will be to raise our collective blood pressures.
Jo Public out there, don't give a toss. They think James Blunt and David Gray are folksingers...
We get your point Jim, and mainly agree with it. You go and tell that to the 56 million inhabitants of Great Britain.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 03:46 AM

Tom:
"I'm beginning to suspect that you don't read posts very carefully before replying."
Sorry - I'm doing this on the hoof at present; if I have misread your point, I apologise.
As I see it, by giving a title to what you do - 'folk', 'classical', 'jazz'...., is, as far as I can see, entering into a commitment to provide a specific type of music - that is the basis on which you draw in your audience (or sell a certain flavour of soup, or whatever business you happen to be involved in).
As far as folk music is concerned that has worked fairly well up to comparatively recently.
While it is true that circumstances or added information can alter our understanding of what we do so the definition evolves, the prevailing situation is that clubs now honour no commitment to provide any specific type of music, thereby depriving any audience member to choose the type of music they wish to listen to - they/you have ripped the label off the soup tin!
As far as any public misconception surrounding the term folk (in my experience, not a term in general currency) - language is based on concensus, on which communication is dependent - take that away and we cease to talk to each other, the existing state of affairs in the revival.
As far as 'sloppy journalists' and 'Britain's Got Talent', you would no more give these people the right to misuse and manipulate our language than you would give Heinz the right to call their tomato soup Mulligatawny - or would you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 03:55 AM

"As far as 'sloppy journalists' and 'Britain's Got Talent', you would no more give these people the right to misuse and manipulate our language than you would give Heinz the right to call their tomato soup Mulligatawny - or would you?"

It's very important that we use the same words that everyone else uses, otherwise it sounds like people talking in an exclusive code which no-one else 'gets' which ends up leaving traditional material completely swallowed beneath contemporary folk. I would give "these people the right" to simply know traditional material (as they are 'everyone's songs'?) is there, by using the same language they speak.

I'm under forty. Until last year "Folk" meant acoustic singer / songwriter to me - that's what I grew up believing it meant. Traditional material needs to get out from under the suffocating 'folk umbrella' or more people like me - who don't know better - will never find it.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 03:57 AM

Yes, I was still in short trousers when my big sister brought home Freewheelin' and told me it was folk music because that's what they were calling it on Radio Caroline.

Now it may be that this blurring of definitions was a deliberate ploy by Dylan's team, or it may just be that he'd been a folk artist before he started writing songs, and no-one understood or cared about the difference. (So I wouldn't call those journalists lazy, Ralph - they're also part of the democratic process)

The term has been applied to every singer-songwriter since, as well as to a plethora of other music with some association with or resemblance to traditional music - and now it's universally vague. Just look at the play list of Radio 2'd flagship 'folk' programme over the last how many years. Joe Public is not sitting at home going, folk, not-folk, folk, folk, not-folk, not-folk.

Sean's suggestion that anything that takes place in a folk club is folk is as valid as any other, as is the 'modern /revival tradition' argument.

These phrases are now so vague as to be almost useless, but that doesn't mean any of their uses are wrong. They are right if a community thinks they are right (and that's NOT what Humpty Dumpty was saying - he was only referring to himself).

Tunng call themselves "Experimental / Folk / Electronica" on their MySpace site.

This is not deceit or ignorance. It is a a legitimate and correct use of the word.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 04:02 AM

"As I see it, by giving a title to what you do - 'folk', 'classical', 'jazz'...., is, as far as I can see, entering into a commitment to provide a specific type of music - that is the basis on which you draw in your audience (or sell a certain flavour of soup, or whatever business you happen to be involved in)."

Yes.

And that is EXACTLY what these artists do.

They DO provide folk music. THEIR folk music.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:16 AM

It seems to me Jim, that you are fighting the wrong battle. You have a perfectly good, legally based, word for the music...."Traditional".

"English Traditional" tells us exactly what we will be getting, without the slightest possibility of misunderstanding.

To clutch to yourself the second word, "Folk", the meaning of which, for those outside of your academic circle, has become (whether rightly or wrongly) blurred, is to cause the very confusion you seek to avoid.

All language evolves, or dies, and changing circumstances dictate the nature of that evolution.

The 1954 definition was promulgated before the revival, and before the arrival on the scene of composers writing "in the style of the tradition". The one term that can never apply to their work is "Traditional", so it seems to me logical to expand the second term to encompass their work.

I have never been able to see the logic behind insisting that both "traditional" and "folk" are required to describe the same thing, as the former is both accurate and explicit.

As to the folk club situation, once again you show your antipathy by using the same old hectoring tone and pejorative language.

""The general misuse of the term comes solely from the clubs, where no consensus exists and can cover anything from Chevy Chase to "Jumpin' Jack Flash".""

I venture to state categorically that there is NO folk club in the British Isles that fits that description. It is simply another example of your vitriolic denigration of those people who are making the effort to keep venues alive.

As you are obviously under the impression that we folk club organisers are either fools, or liars, why not conduct your own poll among the professionals who perform in our venues.

Ask people like Tom Bliss, Dick Miles,

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:23 AM

Pardon me! Itchy trigger finger.

That should finish

Ask professionals like Tom Bliss, Dick Miles, Martin Carthy, Norma Waterson, Dick Gaughan, June Tabor, and dozens more, if they would prefer an archive of their work, or more places to perform it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:56 AM

I think we'd all answer that we want to see both - as well as a the most comprehensive and accessible archive of 'heritate' music possible.

I agree, Don, that those who fight to re-instate the unique '54' meaning of the word 'folk' are making things worse not better, and I've tried hard in the past to convince Jim of this.

99% of the population are happy to use Traditional (big T), but even that word, though partially legally protected is not infallible. (It might have been if it had been adequately defended in the past, but that's academic now).

I refer you to my first post on this thread.

Spelled (metaphorically) with a small t, 'traditional' is not definitive either, because it can refer both to the older mainly (but not exclusively) orally-shaped material, and to more contemporary material which is going through a modern equivalent.

Unfortunately, both side of this debate are also correct, but here we do still have a chance of forming a consensus - if only they would each understand where the similarities and differences between the pre- and post-revival processes lie.

The only peg in the cliff is the 'legal' consensus of Trad = Public Domain.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,tb
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:57 AM

sorry 'heritage'

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:01 AM

"I have never been able to see the logic behind insisting that both "traditional" and "folk" are required to describe the same thing, as the former is both accurate and explicit."

Absolutely! I never even realised before that Traditional has a fixed legal meaning. I can see no problem with 'contemporary folk' or even 'psychadelic folk' or 'folk rock' as descriptions of folk-derived or folk-inspired musical styles. And I think what people want to put on in clubs for a paying audience who might enjoy it, is completely up to them. The fortunes of traditional music should not be the responsibility of club owners or performers. It's bigger than that. We don't resign responsibilty for public awareness of Shakespear to local theatres! English (or Scottish/Irish etc.) Traditional is a large body of material that represents a not insignificant part of our common heritage. Fighting over the word 'folk' or criticisng 'folk clubs' isn't going to help less clued up and/or younger people (who might possibly find it of relevance and interest) to discover and explore it.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:05 AM

From: GUEST,tb - PM
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:57 AM

sorry 'heritage'

I think the 'heritage' word might be a useful term. Arguably though any definition needs to be really unweildly sounding so it doesn't get borrowed! Preferably something with lots of syllables!

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:06 AM

Gosh this thread has transformed into yet another "What is Folk" debate while I've been trying to digest Jim's post of 05 Mar 10 - 12:17 PM. I can only manage a few lines at a time.

I just thought I'd make a minor contribution to the new subject -

The Almanac Singers

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:17 AM

Yes, the Protest Song continuum is another legitimate argument, and the Almanacs is an even earlier example than Dylan of new songs being called folk songs by very influential players. I think this is a US thing, where history is seen differently to the UK, with US influence on the UK folk scene being the force majeure.

Crow Sister, I'm sure some of our resident lawyers will correct me when I fail to say 'quasi-legal' every time. 'Trad' is accepted by PRS and other licencing bodies as meaning PD. This is not statute law, but a legal precedent in civil law, which is almost as good.

That said, if an individual falsely claims ownership of a Trad work, the claim is (eventually) overruled. If an individual falsely claims a copyright work is Trad it will, however, probably stand - so its not fool-proof.

Also, there are plenty of 'Trad,' Public Domain works with known writers. Plenty of 'trad' works still in copyright (specially tunes). Plenty of unofficial 'creative commons' works. Plenty of 'anon' works which are not 'trad.' And so it goes.

But not very many still uncollected 'heritage' songs.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,tom bliss
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:20 AM

sorry

should say:

if an individual falsely claims ownership of a Trad work, the claim is (eventually) overruled.

If an individual falsely claims someone else's copyright work is Trad, the claim will usually be overruled - and they may be sued into the bargain.

If an individual falsely claims HIS OWN copyright work is Trad, it will, however, probably stand.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:11 AM

in my opinion,folk clubs and particularly those folk clubs that are part of the local community are very important.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:32 AM

"folk clubs that are part of the local community are very important."

Yes, as a part of the community, as venues for socialising and entertainment. But they shouldn't be burdened with the onus of sole public duty of being responsibile for informing the general population about traditional music. Traditional music - as a part of our common cultural heritage - belongs to everyone, not only folkies. And I don't mean that in a bad way, I mean it in an inclusive way - this music belongs to kids from inner-city London as much as it does to dedicated folk revival enthusiasts. They have a right to know it's there, and they can draw upon it and do with it whatever they want to, or indeed leave it entirely alone! But so long as traditional music remains effectively exclusive to the folk revival world, the music of the people will never truly belong to the people.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:42 AM

Umm, I think that last post must be my cue to go macrame myself some banners with suitably irate slogans on them, to accost poor unsuspecting councillors with!

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:44 AM

Still on the move:
I understand that public domain is applied to folk not traditional music. It certainly was the case when Leslie Shepherd and all others who were debating it under such titles as 'Who Owns Folk' in the folk magazines - I was not aware that this had been altered - I could be wrong.
".....if they would prefer an archive of their work, or more places to perform it."
Tough - there is, as far as I'm concerned, no contradiction, nor should there be. Anybody who has put their mouth around a folk song has in one way or another, taken advantage of the work of collectors, archivists, researchers and anthologists who have gathered the raw material - certainly in the case of Dick Miles, Martin Carthy, Norma Waterson, Dick Gaughan, June Tabor. Martin, Norma and Dick G have been in the forefront of acknowledging this fact.   
"English Traditional" tells us exactly what we will be getting, without the slightest possibility of misunderstanding."
Not the case; this has been a bone of contention throughout the revival. History is littered with the corpses of clubs that have tried to book MacColl or others who write and sing non-traditional songs using folk forms on the understanding that they only sing traditional songs. That is why the Singers Club was so named and never identified itself as 'traditional'.
"re-instate the unique '54' meaning of the word 'folk'...."
The word is not in need of reinstatement - it never went away and remains the only consistently accepted definition (if there's another one - let's have it.) It is only on the club scene that any problem arises with its use.
"Sean's suggestion that anything that takes place in a folk club is folk is as valid as any other,"
Which leaves the lady who walks into a folk club with her cello and plays Dvorak - where exactly? This serves perfectly to underline the nonsense of the 'anything goes' approach.
To answer an earlier point, it is utter nonsense to separate the academic (I'm really not sure what that means - I ask again, are enormous numbers of collections of songs that have been and continue to be published as 'folk' 'academic' works?) definition and its practical use for the purposes of attracting audiences, especially as the current use seems to carry no clue whatever as to a cohesive meaning.   
By insisting on the use of the term folk for the various musics you play I believe you have placed a huge question mark over the chances of future generations listning to folk music for pleasure, and I don't believe you have done your own music any great favours either.
Nobody has addressed my right as a potential audience to arrive with an expectation of what I'm going to pay my pennies to hear. By removing that right you have driven me, and many like me to no longer use your shop.
What commitment, if any, do you make to your potential audiences?
Jim Carroll
PS 'Acoustic (as far as this discussion goes) = Not using electronic amplification'. Doesn't this limit the term to how your music is projected rather than a definition of that music?

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 08:04 AM

"History is littered with the corpses of clubs that have tried to book MacColl or others who write and sing non-traditional songs using folk forms on the understanding that they only sing traditional songs. "

Why did they not ring up the artist and ask them? I can have no sympathy with this argument.

""re-instate the unique '54' meaning of the word 'folk'...." The word is not in need of reinstatement"

You missed my word 'unique.' For the word to have only one unique meaning again would be a reinstatement.

"Which leaves the lady who walks into a folk club with her cello and plays Dvorak - where exactly?"

In the club with a cello. It is down to the club regulars whether she plays - or comes to play again. The word 'Folk' now refers to a performance/participation ethos just as much as it does to a repertoire of old songs. Anything does go in some clubs. It's called democracy.

"it is utter nonsense to separate the academic (I'm really not sure what that means - I ask again, are enormous numbers of collections of songs that have been and continue to be published as 'folk' 'academic' works?) definition and its practical use for the purposes of attracting audiences, especially as the current use seems to carry no clue whatever as to a cohesive meaning."

Academic is a loose application here - let's assume a small 'a.' Yes, there is a problem - but only if we use the word Folk in both cases. If we use Traditional for the former, and for the latter it that is what is on offer, and Folk for the latter if we are 'selling' something more 'anything goes' there is much less of a problem.

"By insisting on the use of the term folk for the various musics you play I believe you have placed a huge question mark over the chances of future generations listning to folk music for pleasure, and I don't believe you have done your own music any great favours either."

Are you not listening Jim?

I am not insisting. I am assuming an almost universal usage by a wide population. I am speaking The Queens English. I have not placed a huge question mark over the chances of future generations listning to [TRADITIONAL] music for pleasure, though I might have brought a few new people to it (remember that I sang and played about 50% pure Trad in my career).

As for this, well I have to laugh:

"Nobody has addressed my right as a potential audience to arrive with an expectation of what I'm going to pay my pennies to hear"

Have you no telephones in Ireland Jim? I don't think you'll see a flier or a poster or an advert without a telephone number, email or website.

Just ASK them!

(And if you're buying a CD, just play it first)!

You are creating a problem and causing conflict where none is necessary.

Tom

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 08:04 AM

People don't seem to have picked up the main point of my reference to The Almanac Singers -

"Almanac Singers, The, political American folksinging group. Although they existed only from 1941 to 1943, The Almanac Singers profoundly influenced the development of topical songwriting. Their impact was felt especially in the folk revival of the late 1950s and early 1960s."

The 1954 conference didn't define the word, it re-defined a word already in use to mean something different.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 08:05 AM

That's exactly what I meant, Bryan

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 08:33 AM

"PS 'Acoustic (as far as this discussion goes) = Not using electronic amplification'. Doesn't this limit the term to how your music is projected rather than a definition of that music?"
no it does not because much electronic music and music that requires wah wah pedals and tremolo arms can not be performed acoustically,one other difference is that most acoustic music can be performed on cheap home made instruments[skiffle was a prime example of this].the music can then be the music of the people because it does not require economic wealth to perform.
Crow Sister,your post could possibly suggest that folk/traditional music should not be part of socialisation, Folk clubs are clubs,places where people have a good time meet other people,interact,they only differ from jazz clubs or country and western clubs in the fact that the shared common interest is a certain kind of music[folk music ]
Crow Sister you say :duty of being responsibile for informing the general population about traditional music. Traditional music - as a part of our common cultural heritage - belongs to everyone, not only folkies.
no it doesnt it belongs to those people who are interested in it,you cannot force it on people ,you can make people aware of it ,that is all you can do,
furthermore if you commercialise it too much,it loses something of its essence,yes, you might draw people in to it,by commercialising the music,but there still has to be people who are not producing a commercialised form of the music,side by side with the commercialised pop folk vendors,these are the people who play the real thing,and [imo]undertsand what the music is about ,it is about experessing yourself through song[]in the same way blues is] ,it is not about how much money can be made from it.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: glueman
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 08:53 AM

The broader use of the term folk is not a recent phenomenon. Mary Hopkin was described as a folk singer in the 1960s and few of her recordings were of traditional material. I'm sure the OED would turn up far, far, earlier uses of the same word to describe contemporary ballads accompanied by acoustic instruments.

Neither are 'folk clubs' responsible for the re-definition, it's a media and popular phenomenon. 'Traditional' gets nearer but still wouldn't stand up in court. There are no exclusive legal definitions of either term that a barrister would waste his time upholding.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:00 AM

"Crow Sister,your post could possibly suggest that folk/traditional music should not be part of socialisation,"

Not at all Dick - to clarify what I meant: I think the PRIMARY function of any club or venue for *entertainment and socialising* is simply that, and not 'education'.

Education/information at such a venue may happen incidentally. But no club should feel burdened with the responsibility of educating the public. That'd be like demanding amateur dramatics clubs bear the responsibility for educating the public about Marlowe or Shakespear or whatever. What I'm saying is that folk clubs are a phenomena of the revival and popular with folk revivalists, but enabling broader public knowledge of and access to the vast body of Traditional material that is 'the music of the people', shouldn't be the sole responsibility of folk clubs and revival enthusiasts. What I'm saying is that the modern cultural phenomenon we know as the revival, should be gently teased apart from Traditional music as a body of material which comprises a part of everyone's cultural heritage. The two things are not identical, and aught not to be treated as such - IMHO.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:04 AM

"Sean's suggestion that anything that takes place in a folk club is folk is as valid as any other,"

This is not a suggestion, or a definition, it is simply an OBSERVATION based on what happens in the name of folk in Designated Folk Contexts. Only a very small minority of that would pass for folk according to a orthodox reading of the 1954 Definition, which is why I've suggested an expanded appreciation of it based on recent developments in Folkloric Research as detailed in Bob Trubshaw's Explore Folklore (Heart of Albion, 2003). Here Trubsaw demonstrates the mutability of the Folk concept especially in academic circles.

Personally, I feel it's all so much reactionary horseshit anyway and would sooner be living life than observing it, but the Folk Myth continues at some remove from the glorious realities of the situation. Thus Folk is a Faith, and the 1954 Definition is a Shibboleth of that faith, and what happens in the most Traditional of folk clubs has SFA to do with the glories of Traditional Song & Music however so persuasive the potency. Hell, I might be moved to tears by a Catholic Mass but it doesn't mean I'm about to start believing in God. I do believe in the human necessity of faith - but not the truth of it, far less the righteousness that that truth engenders.

*

Which leaves the lady who walks into a folk club with her cello and plays Dvorak - where exactly? This serves perfectly to underline the nonsense of the 'anything goes' approach.

Not quite because the lady playing Dvorak on her cello in a folk club will only be there because there's nowhere else for her to play. I've heard her, and many like her; enthusiastic amateurs who come in fulfillment of the 1954 Definition by giving such otherwise composed music an idiosyncratic folk character in the the context of a community; and - well, empiricism is the key to all this and THERE'S NOTHING EVEN IN THE MOST ORTHODOX READING OF THE 1954 DEFINITION TO SAY DVORAK CAN'T BECOME FOLK MUSIC even in a revival context. The 1954 Definition is not about GENRE, it is about the Human Context of Music; it is about FOLK as an adjective, not a noun.

That said, ultimately I fear the 1954 Definition is utterly meaningless UNLESS you buy into the functionalist rhetoric in which it is couched and which justified the bourgeois plundering of traditional working-class culture in the first place. It is a relic, an anachronism, born from cultural patronage and the domination of a hierarchical social elite which saw fit to remove such treasures from their traditional cultural context and reinvent it elsewhere for fear of it dying out. For the vast majority of people it is dead anyway, but the culture from which it sprang is alive and well, just that it sings different songs now, and dances to different music. Otherwise, in the words of Kipling, I perceive no change - unlike others around here who pour their reactionary scorn on popular musical idioms that have a greater claim on being Traditional Musics than 90% of the dross that goes down in the name of Folk Music.

No language, just sound, that's all we need know,
To synchronise love to the beat of the show.
And we could dance!

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:08 AM

The revival and Traditional music *overlap* but are not the same thing. And this is where I feel there comes much confusion in some of the discussions. They are no more the same than am-dram clubs or local theatre productions, are the same as a library full of classic dramatic texts.