Is this a folk song?

Subject: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Mikefule
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 04:28 PM

So of this song was written and performed by someone from a social background where the issues discussed in the song are directly relevant day to day, and who is still performing similar songs to mainly working class audiences in pubs and small clubs 30 years into a musical career, are these the lyrics of a folk song? If not, why not? Discuss. (I said "folk", not "traditional".



I get up at 8, I'm feeling so mechanical
I'm in a trance, I'm watching the time
There's no need to think what kind of a day it it
They're all the same, come rain or shine

Chorus
We're all here and we're working for the company
We have no minds as the day goes by
We're all here and we're working for the company
We have no minds till the day that we die

I go down to the gates, and into the factory
I take my card, number 49
I make my way through the jungles of machinery
I take my place on the production line

The same old job, the same old monotony
The same old faces, day after day
Is this career, is this insanity?
I have to work, and it's insane

"We just want to see you on the factory floor
We don't want to hear what you say
So shut your mouth, get on with your work
Or you will be leaving today"

I think that I should, I know when I'm happy
My mind is a dustbin, so full of insanity
I tried to believe in the fact that I'm leaving
I fight for my rights but I just can't be leaving today

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 04:42 PM

Nope,
Folk is traditional - otherwise, difine folk
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 04:50 PM

You can't write folk songs with a name like the Anti Nowhere League
imo

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 04:53 PM

No. Read the definition.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 04:59 PM

Mikefule, what you fail do understand is that folk songs were never composed by anybody.

They just came into existence mysteriously, ethereally, one day they didn't exist and the next day everybody was singing them.

It's a bit like the opening scene in "2001" when the apes wake up one morning and find this big black obelisk standing in front of them.

That's the same as folk songs, they didn't get composed, they just appeared out of nowhere.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Scoville
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 05:03 PM

I say "not yet; wait and see". The song itself is not traditional but could be part of a tradition of songs that complain about life in crappy jobs ("Diamond Joe" the cowboy version, "the Jute Mill Song" if you will accept it, Hedy West's "Cotton-Mill Girls", etc.).

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 06:06 PM

I didn't ask, is it traditional - obviously it isn't - but is it folk.

As the consensus is that it isn't, can someone explain to me why a working class person writing a sincere and meaningful song about the working conditions in the industry in their own working class community, and performing it to a mainly working class audience isn't "folk"?

And mentioning the name of the band spoiled the point I was making.

I write as the son of a time-served joiner, and grandson of a factory worker; and on the other side, the son of a farmer's daughter, and whose grandmother was one of 13 children who all worked on the farm before they reached their teens. I am horrified to think that I may be the first person in several generations of my family not to be "authentic".

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 06:15 PM

No it isn't. But it might become so.(my definition). Of course, it may well be already,according to someone else's definition.It's not classical either, according to my definition.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: skipy
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 06:15 PM

I,ve never heard a song written by a horse!
(quoted)
Skipy

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 06:19 PM

One thing is for sure! Those lyrics are far too obvious. Of course, a great tune could add to their impact.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 06:30 PM

Listen to Guest Mikefule's band Here and then say if this is folk music

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:02 PM

'Mikefule' has obviously decided that the song he refers to IS folk - now he wants someone else (preferably an 'expert' or 'authority') to agree with him and to take responsibility for his decision.

Please have the courage of your convictions, Mr 'Mikefule', if you think it's folk, you call it folk - but don't automatically expect that everyone else is going to fall into line and equally automatically agree with your decision.

Alternatively, if you're disatisfied with that outcome, why don't you do the research and read the books (you'll find them listed on this site as well as others)? It's ultimately down to you to decide.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:07 PM

It's a good start of a song that has meaning and a good subject matter. It won't be a folk song until the "folk" start singing it for a number of years.

I'd like to see the song developed by going somewhere as in a story line rather than a complaint repeated. It could be that the character singing the song has a history that could be shown. Also, you switch from "I" to "we" which is confusing. You might stick to an "I".

No, writing a contemporary song about working conditions doesn't yet qualify it even though the subject matter can be found in labor songs. It needs to be set in motion and people need to pick it up and want to sing it and perhaps tinker with it so that it has variants. Then it becomes a folk song.

I think that if you just write a song, it may or may not catch on. But until it does, it's not really a folk song. It doesn't need to hit the charts as a pop song but there has to be a sub-culture to keep it going such as a work crew that passes it on down to the next generation.

I'm in favor of writing these kinds of songs however because as is said in one of the famous folk songs about man vrs. the machine, "A man ain't nothin' but a man and before I let that steam drill beat me down, I'll die with a hammer in my hand."

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: stallion
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:08 PM

mmmmmmmmmmm I have issues labelling any music, anyway, sometimes music is of it's time and doesn't last, some does, so then we have the delivery (of the message)and I suppose the Genre of folk was set by Carthy et al and contemporary folk by Dylan et al. my view, for what it is worth, is that if people sing it in the pub or around the kitchen table it's what folk are singing, folk music.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST, Mikefule
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:08 PM

<>

Ah, so "It was pleasant and delightful on a midsummer's morn
When the fields and the meadows were all covered in corn" isn't "obvious"?

After 25 years in and around folk music I thought one of the endearing characteristics was that the words are often nonsense.

Must be the "great tune" bit I missed. I could listen to "Shepherd's Hey" all day, myself. I'm sure you're the same.

It is no wonder that folk music is so marginalised when many of those people who claim to care most about it so often make it as exclusive, elitist and as closely-defined as they possibly can.

Billy Bragg: accepted as folk (be it ever so grudgingly). Working class hero, sings some political stuff. Amplify the instruments and make it a bit louder: oh, it's dismissed as thump thump thump, no tune you can whistle and you can't hear the words.

Meanwhile, millions of ordinary people get on with their ordinary customs, music, and day to day life, failing to realise that they no longer qualify as "folk".

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,wordy
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:09 PM

In the 60's and 70's it would have been, but as you can see from the above posts the Puritan fundamentalists have taken over and will not allow it.
Of course it's folk music. It's a song about the folks that isn't aimed at the charts, isn't about "lurve" and can't be sung by Rappers, Divas, Pretty Boys etc because the media wouldn't allow it.
That's where these songs are stuck,, between the hard place of the folk fundamentalists and the rock of the controlled media.
We aren't supposed to carry on the tradition of singing about our lives by either of them. Both would deny us a platform.
Maybe it's best to not bother and sell-out to a vested interest.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Bee
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:14 PM

It would be more likely to become a folk song if, indeed, there was a story line. It seems to be just a complaint about being bored with a factory job. There are hints that the company treats the workers as robots, but no description of how. Up against many labour protest songs, it comes off as a bit of a whiner, really (What? No Black Lung, Shattered Legs, Trapped Miners, Dead-in-a-fire Factory Girls?).

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:15 PM

What I can't figure out is why so many singer-songwriters insist that they are writing folk songs. I suppose they figure that this gives the song some sort if instant "holy status" of some kind.

When someone at an open mike says, "This is a folk song I wrote on the bus yesterday on my way to work," then, no, they're wrong. It's not a folk song. It may be in a "folk style," but it's not a folk song.

If, over a period of time, a number of people hear it, like it, learn it themselves, and sing it a lot, then yes, it may very well be on its way to becoming a folk song.

But what's the bloody rush!?? And why does it matter so much whether it's a folk song or not?

Please tell me. Inquiring minds would like to know.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:17 PM

I was thinking maybe some slide guitar, harmonica .... add a little Dolly Parton.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:20 PM

Mikefule, why are you getting so worked up about whether your song is "folk " or not ?

I will tell you the best way to ascertain whether or not your song is "folk" (this only applies to the UK of course, but Mikeyfule is a UK resident)

Send a tape of your song to , say, twenty Folk Club secretaries and ask them if there is a chance of them booking your band for a performance.

If all twenty say "no" then you can rest assured that your song is not in fact "folk".

Doesn't mean it's a bad song, it just means it isn't "folk".

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 07:34 PM

incidentally, I would take Mikefule to task on the snippet he mentions in his post above.


the line he quotes is from the (notoriously unreliable) Digitrad

the preferred version is

"Twas pleasant and delightful one midsummer's morn
To view the fine meadows all covered with corn"

and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that imo.

plus, when it comes to the "Larks they sung melodious" bit, there are few moments in folk music to compare with the massed voices of everybody in the audience/singaround.

THAT my friend, is folk music.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,BruceMichael Baillie
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 03:48 AM

Having read this thread I've seen some very good points put forward on both sides of the argument but really kiddies, DOES IT BLOODY MATTER! You do love to have your little arguments don't you!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST, Mikefule
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 04:18 AM

I never said it was my song. It isn't. Someone earlier in the thread pointed out the identity of the band that released it.

I never said it was a particularly good song, or indeed a bad one. It chorus, and on the live version I have on CD, the audience joins in with some gusto.

I never said it was a folk song. I just wondered how the fundamentalists would justify it not being one.

I don't think it's a folk song - but it is something with some similarities to a folk song, at least lyrically, if not stylistically.

I do think it has more authenticity or relevance (whatever that is) than an East Midlands office worker singing about sailing round Cape Horn. (Speaking as an East Midlands office worker.) I have met and socialised with many bored factory workers; I have only ever met one person who has sailed around Cape Horn, and he was a "folkie".

It is interesting that the reasons given for it not being a folk song include:

"It's too obvious". There are some very "obvious" folk lyrics; some are dreadful. "She wore a bonnet, with ribbons on it."

It is fascinating that someone should "correct" the lyrics of the folk song I quoted - I learned it by ear from hearing it performed over many years, but it appears I should have checked the correct words in a book. How traditional an approach is that?

It doesn't tell a story. That excludes a hell of a lot of songs I thought were folk: most shanties, for a start.

The truth is, "folk" as we know it is of little direct relevance to most of the "folk" who make up mainstream society, and I find it amusing that so many people who claim some allegiance to "folk" like to distance themselves from the sort of music that is generated by modern society.

The song is by Anti Nowhere League, a punk band that has been touring for 30 odd years now. One of their distinctive attributes is that you can hear the words (fairly) clearly on (nearly) all of their tracks.   The words matter to them and they sell mainly to people who feel that they can relate to the subject material of the lyrics.

Anyway, I'm sorry that an attempt to stimulate an interesting conversation by approaching an old chestnut from a different angle did little but provoke irritation and reinforce some existing prejudices.

I'll get back to dancing, playing, writing the odd tune and the occasional song, enjoying the music on its merits, and leave you to it.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,teachers pest
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 04:23 AM

It reads like a blues song to me.Don't know what it means to be folk coz if it reads like folk or sounds like folk,then to me it is folk.A song does'nt take 200 years to become a folk song,either it is or it ain't.Then again,like you,i am just in the hands of the know alls.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 04:34 AM

You obviously differentiate between 'folk' and 'tradition' - please explain your definitions.
As far as I'm concerned we came into 'folk music', then retreated from the term when people began to use it as a dustbin to dump anything they couldn't be bothered to categorise. To me, the music I started to listen to is, was and always will be 'folk' until somebody gets up off their backside and produce a satisfactory new definition (rather than wandering round with a blank expression claiming they don't understand!). We even had some clown (apparently for commercial reasons) suggessting that we now abandon the term 'traditition' - sheeeeesh.....
I have never heard a horse sing either; nor have I come across one who has produced a half-decent alternative to the term 'folk'.
If we rely on dumb animals for our information we really must be in a bad way.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 06:16 AM

"We aren't supposed to carry on the tradition of singing about our lives by either of them. Both would deny us a platform."

No-one is denying you anything (expect, possibly commercial interests)! Just don't expect everyone to fall into line on your say so!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: stallion
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 07:06 AM

all the bickering really brasses me off it is really pointless and divisive, however tight the "spec." of the genre, and even then there are fuzzy edges, what really matters is the community involved in making music and singing. I know what I like and I know what i don't like, I hate dried fruit and positively baulk at a scone full of them but where the hell can you get them without, only a few places. Music is the same, and like scones it is economies of scale and its "who's bums on what seats". What labelling might do is point people in a direction that they would not normally go and there are gems out there and fair play to people who flag them up but part of that process also involves people not sharing their enthusiasm for that body of work that doesn't give a licence for those people to denigrate it because it is not to their taste, it might be the best scone in the world but if it has currents in it I will not eat it but I won't say it is a pile of crap. Oh rambled a bit, maybe their ought to be a thread assessing work and, with all the knowledge of the mudcatters experience, positive feedback on what venues might be open or appreciate the type of music flagged up.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: kendall
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 07:43 AM

If I like a song, I learn it and I don't care if it's a folk or a trad song.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 08:07 AM

IMHO a lot of folk music is a telling of the social history of ordinary people, tied in with the great events that touched them. Those songs were sung and handed down. The successful ones survived but I am sure that there were a lot that didn't.

In the past century there have been songwriters who have blended into the folk tradition, mostly writing songs about events, ancient and modern. I'm particularly thinking of Tom Paxton, Gordon Lightfoot, Gordon Bok and one of my favourites, Utah Phillips. Some of their songs have caught the ear of 'folkies' who then take the songs up and spread them around. Those songs actually say something about life as it is lived and are generally more than just a complaint about how hard it can be or how unfair it is.

If a song is contagious in folk circles it becomes part of the legend, whether it be 200 years old or 2 years old. The critical fact is that it must be a song that people WANT to sing. I think that is the difference, maybe, between folk and other types of music. How well does any song translate when sung without benefit of mikes and recording equipment? Does it need full on musical backing or does it stand alone, sung accapella, or in harmony?

I've sat in sessions where the 'singer songwriter' regales the audience with his latest gem. Unfortunately, all too often these 'gems' are unsingable and do not sit well upon the ears of those listening. They ain't going to end up in the tradition any day soon.

Anyway, that's just my personal opinion

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,wordy
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 08:08 AM

Actually, none of this matters really. The people don't listen to folk music, they've not listened for a century or more.
I was reading a diary yesterday about VE day 1945, London. Swarms of people were out in the streets celebrating and the diarist says;
"we sang all the old songs, "Roll out the Barrel", "Tipperary" and "Bless 'em all".
For everyone of us in our music ghetto there are thousands who aren't and it's only the "Folk" world that doesn't see that the people have already decided what their songs are and they are not Trad but they are written by people we know. There is some crossover ie The Corries Scottish anthem and Eric Bogle, but generally our people don't want to know the folk world. If they did there'd be huge hit folk musicals,audiences of thousands prepared to pay through the nose to see the great stars, magazines in Smiths with Vin Garbutt on the front cover selling like hot cakes...But it isn't happening and it never will.
It's been the same for three generations or more now and basically renders these discussions meaningless.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 08:11 AM

There's a difference between the process and the product. A song has to get into the tradition somehow. At it's start, it's a 'song'. Could be a pop hit, could be a show tune, could be one about your mind being a dustbin full of insanity, or any shape of song.

Folk songs - we can probably all agree on this at least - are ones the 'folk' sing. If you're the only person singing it, it's not really the People's song, is it? If you refuse to allow changes while you're alive, it's not the People's song.

There are enough songs out there, and enough good songwriters, that I just won't bother to sing a song if I have to live in fear of a songwriter's disapproval. Being somewhat of a songwriter, no matter how unknown, I know how it feels to let the song go play in the neighbor's yard. It's inevitably changed: sometimes it comes home covered in mud or the neighbor's kid taught it a dirty word, but you have to let it go unless you want it to never leave home. "If you'd love something, set it free..." and if it really WAS yours, you better have registered a copyright. Even if you do, some 'folks' are still going to claim it. The process starts with 'folks' getting their grubby little hands on a song, working their will upon it (complete with mondegreens and other bizarre changes) and passing it on.

The most fun singing times I've had are ones where people don't worry about categories. We sang old songs AND new. I suspect that's closer to how folks in the past did things than choosing committee-approved, certified folk songs.

Let somebody with less joy and self confidence worry about approval. Just sing the damned song.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: MikeofNorthumbria
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 08:44 AM

When a radio interviewer asked Terry Pratchet if he thought his books were "literature", Terry replied something like this.

"Whether you count as literature or not is decided by a vote taken about fifty years after you're dead. I just try to write books that people will enjoy reading."

With folk songs, the process is somewhat similar, although the status of any particular song is established by the people, rather than by the critics. And the vote may sometimes take place while the author is still alive.

Of course, anyone can attempt to write a song "in the folk style".   If they then choose to call the result a "folk song" - well, there's no law that says they can't. But for myself, I think that's a poor decision.

A better approach, in my view, is just trying to write a song that other people will really enjoy singing. If you succeed, and if that song gets sung so often that it becomes part of the shared culture of your community, then it will be a "folk song", by my reckoning. (Though I maintain that it won't be "traditional" until nobody living remembers who wrote it.)

Wassail!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,wordy
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 08:47 AM

If you succeed, and if that song gets sung so often that it becomes part of the shared culture of your community.

Fair enough, but if that community chooses an Elton John or a Beatles song rather than something sung in a club session are you happy to accept the people's judgement? Because that's what has taken place in the last 50 years.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: guitar
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 08:49 AM

what about contempary folk songs?

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 09:11 AM

"Fair enough, but if that community chooses an Elton John or a Beatles song rather than something sung in a club session are you happy to accept the people's judgement?"

What's the alternative? We can argue forever, but our opinions have little or no effect on anyone but us, and it's mainly our blood pressure they affect. Telling the 'folk' what they should and shoudn't sing is futile. They won't listen and likely don't care what anyone else thinks.

My mother used to drive a school bus. The little kids sat in the back and sang "We all live in a yellow submarine, a yellow..." every day. Sometimes several times every day. Now, we know it was a huge Beatles hit with a copyright and everything. We know that song is not a folk song. Those kids woudn't have cared. They just had fun singing it.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 01:14 PM

guitar, the oxymoron "contemporary folk songs" is what the disagreement is all about.

I think what Mike of Northumbria says just above is right on the button.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 01:32 PM

Sea Chanteys do tell a story. They have a progression. The sailors know the stories and that's why they sang them to accompany their work.

Beatles and Elton John Songs are not being sung by masses of people. They are being listened to but not perpetuated to any great degree because they rely on musical production values to carry them. Perhaps in the future some exceptions might include "Give Peace A Chance" or "Imagine".

Why? Because they might be re-written or changed to reflect new times but it could take a hundred years or more for this to happen.

Folk songs do make a difference and are not show, art, or pop tunes. The reason they are important as a distinction has to do with history and cultural background. The Beatles as great as they were (McCartney and Lennon were fantastic songwriters) are still a manufactured pop group put together with expertise by those in the music biz such as the remarkable George Martin. Elton John is an obviously gifted pop artist and entertainer.
But he is a stage personality and you are not apt to hear his songs sung that often in non-show biz environments. You will however hear many folk songs "off the stage" and in living rooms across the country, maybe not easilly discernable unless you happen to be in those living rooms, but they are there and alive.

The reason I became interested in folk music in the first place is because I recognized the distinction between a song created for show purposes and one that survives because it reflects history and culture. I never heard Barbara Allen or Streets of Laredo on the popular radio with exception of perhaps Burl Ives. When I first heard traditional folk singers I knew that they were never going to acheive the same kind of commercial success that a trained pop singer or performer geared to the business would have. The songs, themselves, were different because they informed about the human condition on a sociological, historical and cultural level that a pop song couldn't do. They talked about agrarian cultures, working-class people in their misery, historical events that were embraced by the public that were not instantly manufactured and the music sounded different. It wasn't slick or canned relying on a band to play it. It just was without trimmings and trappings and had its own vitality. Example: The Harry Smith Anthology of American Folk Music on Folkways. Son House, Texas Gladden, Hobart Smith, Vera Hall........... There will be those who say these songs are not important to distinguish but I am not one of them.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Scoville
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 02:14 PM

Good input, Frank. Thanks.

I don't necessarily agree that it's a "poor decision" to allow a contemporary song to be a folk song. The relevance argument fails sometimes even in the old standbys: "Barbara Allan" is a lovely song but doesn't have much more to do with "human condition" than most Victorian or even 1950's pop music (boy meets girl, girl snubs boy, boy dies of broken heart, girl dies of remorse, true love is cruel, boo hoo hoo), which is not really surprising since that kind of thing was pop music when it originated. Furthermore, there must have been many songs from the same era that did not survive in common "folk" reperatoires that would be hailed as rediscovered "folk" if they resurfaced today.

Second, while I think that content ought to supersede style, I think there is at least something of a stylistic element to "folk". I don't know about the UK music scene, but there's a heck of a lot of stuff in the U.S. that many people in this thread would swear up and down is not folk, but stylistically, it would not be at all marketable as rock, country, etc., and it doesn't really belong in any of those categories.

Lastly, there is a lot of new stuff that has at least as much to do with "human condition" and a lot less in common with commercial pop/rock/country music than some other things people would generally consider "folk". Most of the musicians I have in mind are living what they sing and are writing songs because they see stuff that needs to be said. So it's folk-rock or folk-country or whatever. Maybe this is an American perspective, but I don't think you should have to be dead fifty years to "count" if what you've got to say is legitimate.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 05:24 PM

Hi Scoville,

Thank you for your insights.

I don't think its about a decision to allow a song to be a folk song. It just is.

I think there is a qualitative difference in the genuine human emotion that you get from a folk song and a Victorian or 50's pop song in that the latter is more contrived to reach a specific audience and will tailor the emotion to serve that end.

I think that the folk songs that prevailed did so for a reason. Many did not have to be rediscovered because of their essential durability. I doubt whether you could rediscover a Victorian song and claim it to be a folk song without its undergoing adaptation in almost a Darwinian sense. Hence "I Will Twine Midst The Ringlets" by Maude Irving becomes simplified and has a wider appeal through A.P. Carter because the song speaks to a sub-culture of the rural South and at one time although it wasn't greatly played on the radio, you could travel through the Southern US in the Fifties and everyone would know it and request it if you could play it. I called it the unofficial national anthem of the South.

When we get into the discussion of content, then we are in murky waters. Style is apparent but content is open for interpretation. There are many songs that claim a "content" which others might find empty or devoid of it.

Although there are many jazz-oriented or Broadway show songs that don't find their way to the radio, these would not be folk. They may not be in today's market but their exemption from this doesn't mean they are folk songs.

The human condition as a characteristic of folk music is not to say that it doesn't exist in other forms of song expression. I don't agree that the new stuff has the same quality that the folk music has, but it can be good and often addresses the human condition. The difference is that it doesn't have the distilling process of time to make it accessible as does folk music.

Many people are writing songs that they believe are important as social commentary or emotional insights. I don't think many audiences think or care about what is folk because it doesn't seem to concern them. The songs that some write to day have a legitimacy about them because a minority of them are well-written and do convey genuine human emotion. Legitimacy, however, is not necessarilly a province of folk music. A song can be legitimate without being a folk song. Writing stuff that needs to be said doesn't make it a folk song.

Folk-rock, country and most "whatevers" are record company terms used to market music to specific groups of people. I agree that you don't have to be dead fifty years to be legitimate but I do believe that time must elapse before we determine that a song becomes a folk song. The durability of the song is part of the definition of the survival of a folk song. Thus, Stephen Foster's "Angelina Baker" becomes "Angeline the Baker" and a prominent fiddle tune. It goes through the necessary permutations (variants) and distilling process that keeps it alive.

I believe that this is important because the folk song tells us a great deal about the society from which it emanates. There is an anthropological, sociological or ethno-musicological aspect to all of this and if you have listened to folk music for a long time as well as other forms of music, the difference makes itself extremely clear. It just plain sounds different. It is a stylistic and cultural difference and sometimes has little to do with content.

There is a prevalent myth that folk songs must contain social topcial commentary. I don't think that is true. Some do, some don't. Also, it must be stated that those who claim that they know what folk music is are new to the field and have not studied it long or carefully enough.

The big problem I have with folk song academicians is that they are only versed in the folk music and are not aware of the other forms of musical expression such as pop or art or even the craft of songwriting. Their view is limited. They don't have the musical perspective.

Outside of this you have the new singer-songwriter who must defend their position as an artist because it's one of the hardest ways to become accepted. Writing your own songs requires a certain sophistication (even if the song is simple) that comes from experience and a certain kind of education (not necessarilly schooled).

The quality of songwriting as an art in my opinion has degenerated. This is a subjective appraisal but when you look at the output of the writers from the era of the musical theater such as Rodgers, Hart, Berlin, Porter, Gershwin et. al. or from the Eliabethan art songs of Dowland and Campion, the standards for the quality of songwriting today are lower. One reason for this is that not enough time has gone by to determine which songs of all of them written today will stand the test of time and will be shown to have the artistry of the past "masters"

The folk song though prevails. I don't agree that a Barbara Allen is comparable to a 50's pop song because they are "oranges and apples". Barbara Allen is a folk song. The 50's marketable song is not (not to denegrate the 50's pop song, I love lots of them).

The distinction is important because it's not just about the performer who decides what he/she wants the audience to hear. It's about preserving the best elements of a historical and sociological culture and appreciating them in that context.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: fat B****rd
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 06:26 PM

Well, what the Hell. I'll throw me hat into the ring.
Is The Poozies version of "Love On A Farmboy's Wages" Folk and XTC's original version Pop ?

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 06:33 PM

Oh shit.

When will people learn, and when will they learn that they need to know something of a subject before becoming experts on it.

When will they ever learn? (Which is not a folk song).

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Steve_Cooperator
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 06:57 PM

Adding my ten-pennerthworth (howoever it is spelt).


It is hard to say just on lyrics alone if a song could be accepted as folk, their is also the melody, phrasing, meter etc. which all have an effect on how the listener catergorises a song. In a way it is easy. You hear a song and you day to yourself - that goes with: folk, jazz, pop, rock, classical, music hall etc etc etc. In the end, it is in the ear of the beholder.

But....

If anyone has strong views on what folk is and isn't then it is up to them to bring this, through performance, educaton, exchange of opinion, and bring attention to exemplary works.

In the end, when I listen to something, it is up to me if I call it folk or otherwise. it is my right to have that opinion, and that opinion is shaped by 25 years+ on the folk scene. Again what I dont call folk, someone else may do. It's their right,....

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,teachers pest
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 08:48 PM

All i can say is that when i heard the great folk hero Richard Thompson do songs by Bowling for Soup and Britney Spears.I then ask myself what do all the trad folkies think of that.Then again like Richard,i don't give a toss.How far removed from folk is country music or blues,all tell stories of a similar kind.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Bruce Michael Baillie
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 02:53 AM

...and I agree with what 'Wordy' says!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 05:06 AM

"In the end, when I listen to something, it is up to me if I call it folk or otherwise. it is my right to have that opinion, and that opinion is shaped by 25 years+ on the folk scene. Again what I dont call folk, someone else may do. It's their right,...."

Yes, it is up to you what you call it (it's your responsibility). In practice you have a "right" to an uninformed opinion (there's not much evidence in your post that those 25 years have taught you very much) - but the informed have an even greater "right" to disagree with your opinion. As far as I am concerned insisting on your "rights", in these circumsatnces, just emphasises the weakness of your position.

Uninformed, 'off-the-top-of-my-head' theorising brings absolutely nothing to the debate. Although, of course, everyone has a "right" to invent such spurious theories.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,William the Conqueror
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 05:13 AM

Please define difine.

Nope,
Folk is traditional - otherwise, difine folk
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: guitar
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 05:38 AM

you just can't define it, because what isn't folk muisc now in years to come it will be.

tom

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 05:44 AM

I am with Mike of Northumbria. No academician can decide what is a folk song, and no definition helps. Only the people can turn a song into a folk song by taking it up and singing it themselves. And there's the rub: In a society that is more and more geared towards passive entertainment and listening rather than singing and participating, fewer and fewer songs written today will ever have the chance to become folk songs.

For me the issue is not what is a folk song and what isn't, and so what one should "allow" in the context of a folk club or not. No, the real issue is how do we get people singing again, whether in a club or at a wedding party, a wake or a birthday do. And I don't mean shows like X Factor or American Idol; the people going there are driven by their thirst for celebrity status, not the need to express themselves.

If only we could get people singing again, I honestly wouldn't give a toss whether they sing pop, grunge, garage, ballads, folk or whatever. Which is why at our club we encourage people to sing whatever they want; yes, even at Herga, which is still thought by many as the bastion of traditional song. And you know what - you should see that stalwart Johnny Collins nod appreciatively and encouragingly towards the next young lad with a guitar that sings us a page from his diary. Now, that's what I call "folk ETHOS".

But England has largely forgotten how to sing, and I cannot help feeling that this is somehow worse than losing part of one's language. Even at that seminal moment of recent years, Princess Diana's death, when clearly there was so much pent up emotion in the crowds, no song was heard. I can't help feeling that in Ireland or Greece or Spain or Italy it would have been different. Or in England of 50 or 100 years ago.

Today's England is a singing-impaired society. And therefore partially dumb. That's what we should be fixing, not the definition of folk.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 06:20 AM

'Please define difine'
How about a misplaced finger!
It's always been my experience that people who are obsessed with typos usually have nothing else to offer,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: MikeofNorthumbria
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 06:34 AM

George,

I share your concerns about the decline of singing (any kind of singing) as a social activity. As to what we can do about this - well, I wish I knew the answer. As an illustration of the difficulties involved, here's a piece of family history.

My two sons were exposed to records, radio, and live music from the cradle, and carted off to weekend folk festivals as soon as they were tent-trained. Both played instruments reasonably competently by the age of five or six, performed in the family band before they were ten, and were running bands of their own by their mid-teens. After graduating from university and starting out in "sensible" careers, both were getting so many gigs that they decided to quit their day jobs and become full-time musicians... but neither of them sing!

When they were kids, they refused - very emphatically - to sing, despite massive encouragement from parents, teachers and (adult)family friends). They always seemed unable or unwilling to explain why - but as far as I could tell, they found the idea of singing themselves deeply embarrassing. Moreover, they seemed to feel uncomfortable in the presence of anybody else who was singing live and unamplified - regardless of the genre of the song, or the quality of the singer.

This seems to be a fairly common phenomenon. 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?

Wassail!

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.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 06:59 PM

Perhaps if the folk process is still happening (and I'm certainly willing to admit the possibility)certain recent or contemporary songs will eventually become folk songs. But it could be, of course, that if I could move forward in time a couple of hundred years I might find that the songs that have been (are going to be ... oh, bugger - this is confusing!) 'elevated' by the community to folk song status are not to my taste. This does not mean that my taste is any better than anyone elses, of course (perish the thought!!), but I might find, personally, that the folk song genre is no longer of any interest.

What if, in the future (in, say, 2207) such songs as 'The Birdy Song', 'Imagine' and 'American Pie' have replaced the Child Ballads. I think I'd rush back to 2007 and take up knitting ...

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Snuffy
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 07:58 PM

"Old" and "traditional" are not interchangeable.

Many of the Child Ballads are not necessarily traditional folk songs - they are old texts. Many have never been found sung in the tradition, and many have no known tune. They had effectively died out - rejected by the "folk".

As songs they are a product of the revival of the 1950s and 60s, and have no more right to be judged traditional than anything written by Dylan, the Beatles or Leonard Cohen

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 09:13 PM

Yes! Someone agrees with me! That was my point earlier on. The emphasis is too often simply on how old a song is. Some people even seem to feel superior because they know an older version or even the 'original' (straight off a broadsheet, for all we know never sung). Then they have the temerity to talk about the folk process.

Shimrod, I haven't heard that particular recording, but I've listened to other recordings of other songs by old fishermen/labourers etc... They tend to be great historical documents if you like. The preservation of the songs is a great thing as far as I'm concerned and any nuances or bits of folklore or whatever. I'd much rather listen to someone with a decent singing voice sing the songs though and a decent arrangement, maybe the odd bit of harmony is nice too. Obviously you're of a rather different opinion and fair enough but I don't think I'll ever be a fan of croaky off key singing. If I know the guy and he's having fun and thereby raising the mood that's different but I would only really listen to those sorts of recordings to learn asong.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 04:49 AM

Hi Bardan,

I DO know what you mean ... and yet ... and yet. If I'm honest I used to think the same as you when I first got interested in folk song - give me a decent singing voice - not these croaky old geezers. Then, for my 21st birthday, I got a load of record tokens and bought Topic's 'Folk Songs of Britain' series (on vinyl LPs, of course - I'm showing my age here!). Soon I found I was coming back to them again and again because I found that once I got past the superficial roughness (and surprisingly few singers were singing "off key" by the way) I realised that there was something rather weird and wonderful going on. I just loved the contrast between the ordinariness of the voices and the strangeness (and occasional great beauty) of the material.

There's a theme that runs through this thread which suggests that folk song should be directly relevant to the lives of people living NOW and that old is BAAAADDD and new is GOOOODDD. I have to say that I find this way of thinking a bit alien. I suspect that many people rather like to escape from the humdrum nature of their day-to-day lives, now and then (I know I do!), and I suspect that the 'old people' who sang the 'old songs' often felt the same. I'm also not very impressed by new things unless they work (like digital technology - which works about 85% of the time!). Much contemporary music doesn't work for me - which is why I tend to like the old stuff.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 05:29 AM

Bardan,Not all traditional singers sing in a croaky off key manner,try the following, Phil Tanner,Harry Cox,Fred Jordan,Bob Roberts,BobLewis,Geoff Wesley,Holm valley tradition,Bob and RonCopper,to name but a few.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 07:17 AM

I'm not saying they all are. I'm simply saying that a lot of the recordings we have are of genuinely old people who's voices have more or less gone, and in some cases who can't even really hold a tune. They're important as repositories (nearly wrote supositories there for a moment-wouldn't that have opened a can of worms) but as music they're not great. That doesn't mean there aren't some great recordings as well or some great singers right now singing traditional songs well.

I'm certainly not saying old is bad either. I quite like a song with some archaic language, makes it more interesting. And I love a nice modal tune as well. Just think the tradition needs to continue and evolve or it'll stagnate and probably die.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 08:43 AM

ok.now Im a singer of traditional songs[ApparantlyIm not a traditional singer],.
I sing in tune,I have a vast repertoire of traditional and contemporary songs,Iam professional in my approach,and yet because Im a singer of Traditional songs rather than a traditional singer, I am supposed to be judged[dont ask me why] differently from a traditional singer,.
Whether this song is a folk song is not important to me whether I like it is,and I dont,noW hear is some traditional music that is not sung in an off key mannerHTTP://www.dickmiles.com

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:03 PM

The folk process is definitely ongoing, just as history never stops progressing. At any given time, of course, people living in the moment cannot possibly foresee how history will record the present time.

What makes it especially difficult to predict the future of "folk music,' or of any ongoing artisitic tradition, is the fact that audio and video recording technologies, among other similar developments, are so very new in historical terms. Not only is it impossible to forsee how this new complication will affect current and future development of our shared cultural memory ~ we are not even able to appreciate all the unconsious assumptions behind our own various ideas of "tradition" and "process," and how these assumptions are inescapably based upon information we have received through decidedly non-traditional channels: records and tapes, certainly, but also widely-available paperback books, contemporary universities and schools, computer-aided research, and even internet forums like this one.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:25 PM

I was thinking more of the field recordings/ stuff from archives etc... sorry for the misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 03:08 AM

To me folk music is about day to day life and things that we can all associate with, whether it be a couple of centuries ago or now.

What I find totally confusing is that if I go to any folk club/concert/festival, there are lots of different performers on and they are all classified as folk.

Would somebody tell me which of these performers are Folk or Traditional and why?

Martyn Whyndham-Read
Graham Moore
George Papavgeris
Vin Garbutt
Pete Coe
Anthony John Clarke
Jez Lowe
Duncan McFarlane
John Conolly
Bram Taylor
Bill Whaley & Dave Fletcher
Tim van Eyken
Napper & Bliss

There are many more people I could list. However I like all the ones mentioned above and consider them folk singers.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 04:03 AM

Cap'n
You are judged because you are - and have chosen to be- a performer, just as somebody who chooses to paint, write books, poetry or plays, act - whatever, has chosen to do what they do. All of these are judged, hopefully by people who know what they are talking about. If you are not happy about having your performance assessed, stay at home and sing in the bath!
In the time we have been collecting from field singers, I can recall very, very few of them who have regarded themselves as performers, but rather, as people who have remembered songs from an earlier period of their lives and are happy to pass them on to us. In virtually all cases, they have not sung, certainly not in public, for many, many years, and it would be totally unfair (apart from the potential damage it would have done to the task of persuading them to pass on their songs) to apply the same criteria as you would to a younger, healthier, and much more practiced and confident singer. Any judgment of their singing can only come from their peers and from within their own communities. I've seen up close (and not so long ago) the damage that can be inflicted on our access to the tradition by the arrogant and insensitive behaviour of some career folkies (and folkie-'academics') who have ridden rough-shod over the feelings of our traditional singers.
It is worth remembering Cap'n, now that you seem to have come round to the idea that you are not a traditional singer (no criticism - just an assessment of where you stand) that you, like the rest of us, have what we have, because of the generosity of the Walter Pardons, Sam Larners, Phil Tanners et al. As far as I'm concerned, that privilege carries with it a responsibility towards what we have been given, so that in the future others can get the same pleasure from the songs and music as we have. The 'thanks for the songs; by the way, your singing was crap' technique, far from being helpful, is, and always has been destructive. To say the least, it is extremely ungracious!
Despite the insistence of some people that we still have a living tradition and that some of the contributors to this, and other threads, are part of it, nobody has come up with a half-decent definition to substantiate these claims. A week ago, on the 'what is folk music?' thread, Richard Bridge gave an excellent summary of what goes into the making of 'folk' or 'traditional' songs, one I am happy to file and use whenever the need arises.
For me, the tradition, far from being on-going; is dead; what we are left with are the echoes of that tradition. I watched the extremely rapid demise of the singing tradition among Irish Travellers in the mid-seventies, when they acquired portable televisions.
Modern technology, canned entertainment and the fact that, rather than being active participants, most people are now passive recipients of our entertainment and culture; all these and other factors have put paid to a living tradition representing people and communities in general. Copyright laws have ascertained that individuals rather than communities 'own' newly written songs - and even songs like 'Scarborough Fair' and 'The Maid and The Palmer' which have been doing the rounds for centuries. If Comhaltas and the Irish Musical Rights Society over here have their wicked way, we'll soon be paying royalties for the privilege of singing and playing Irish traditional songs and music.
Some time ago somebody asked the question 'How do we honour the tradition?' As far as I'm concerned, we do so by recognising where we stand in relation to tradition, by acknowledging the debt we owe to those who have given us the songs, stories and tunes and by realising the responsibility that comes with that gift. This does not mean that we put what we have been given in a specimen jar and lock it away in a safe place. There are no 'rules' on how the songs and music should be performed (as much as people who use terms like 'finger-in-ear, 'folk police' and 'antiquarian' would wish to impose their particular take on the subject on us). Personally, I have got a great deal of pleasure from listening to the 'cowshit music' of Vaughan-Williams, Delius, Butterworth, Grainger, Bartok, and many others who have taken traditional music and turned it into something else.
If we make radical changes to traditional music, at least let us acknowledge that it is a self-conscious act on the part of us as individuals, and not the process of an on-going tradition.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 04:24 AM

dear jim ,as a matter of fact I sing in the bath as well.
individuals own arrangements of tradional songs,not quite the same trhing as owning the song,in the case of Scarborough Fair,Martin Carthy owned a particular guitar arrangement , Paul Simon was forced to acknowledge this,quite right too, the arrangement was Carthys work,even if ths song was traditional.
JIM,I make unconscious changes to songs over the years,some of them quite radical, eg the singing of The Greenwood laddie,in a different time signature[Ididnt realise I had done this until someone pointed it out]it just seemed thats the way it should be.
the tradition is far from dead, in fact in my opinion its very much alive,and will be all the time singers and musicians like myself,perform /or sing, whether its while im in the bath ,or milking my goats, or performing in a folk club.
my advice to you is to do some vocal exercises,and start singing again ,its great fun.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: dozy rozy
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 04:31 AM

Well said.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,edthefolkie
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:04 AM

Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein wrote a song for a musical. Many years later a chap called Gerry Marsden recorded it with his beat group. Football fans in Gerry's home town subsequently (or according to M Carthy, previously!) started singing some of the song on the terraces. Supporters of other football teams started singing it, sometimes with altered words. Eventually an enormous crowd sang the same song to the Queen in front of Buckingham Palace.

I refer of course to "You'll never Walk Alone". We know it came from a musical called "Carousel" - we can buy the sheet music - and yet it would appear to qualify as a folk song, because most of the singers probably have no idea of its source.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Grimmy
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:44 AM

Furthermore edthefolkie, football chanting in the UK meets all the conditions of the 1954 definition. It is truly a living tradition.

Cecil Sharp would have problems with some of the 'indelicate' words though. He would probably turn 'You're not fit to wipe my *rse' into some jovial hunting song!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 03:13 AM

Cap'n
Well done,
Once again you have managed to respond to all the points I didn't make and ignore the ones I did.
You really will have to make up your mind; one minute you are a traditional singer, the next, you are a singer of traditional songs - and if you decide you are part of the tradition, give us your definition and explain how you fit into it.
I might suggest that you go read a book - but I don't want to be accused of telling people what to do - anyway, I'm sure you've read one at one time or another.
Jim Carroll
PS The only thing unconcious changes are an indication of - is unconciousness.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:58 AM

Hi 'The Villan',

"Would somebody tell me which of these performers are Folk or Traditional and why?"

Have you ever thought of reading what's been written on this subject and having a go yourself? A lot of people who ask these sorts of questions seem to think that it's OK to give someone else the responsibility for research and analysis - but then seem to think they can pick-and-choose among the answers and casually discard those bits and pieces that don't fit with their particular prejudices and preconceptions.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 05:43 AM

GUEST(Jim),
to paraphrase you: I might suggest that with your last statement you are goading the good Captain, or trying to - but I don't want to be accused of criticising - anyway, I am sure you yourself have criticised others at one time or another :-)

The Captain did respond to at least some of your points, for example the one about unconscious or self-conscious changes to traditional songs. And I agree with him that at least some times unconscious changes can and do occur - without there being any cause for disparaging them in the way that seems intended by your PS statement.

In fairness, I don't believe that you are poles apart in your appreciation of the tradition, at least as expressed in this thread.
Perhaps some antagonism borne of the past is colouring the posts, and it can confuse the discussion, but OK, you believe that tradition is dead (your words), while the Captain believes that it is on-going. I confess to leaning on his side personally, even as I acknowledge your right to a different opinion. Perhaps you are both correct, even, in that the "existing" tradition is dead, but "new" traditions could be in the making as we speak, without us being able to identify them today, because we are too close - they will be judged in generations to come.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 08:58 AM

I shall treat Jim Carrolls latest post with the light hearted frivolity it deserves,but will refer back to one or two points that he made in his previous epistle.
I have never not treated singers such as Phil Tanner,Harry Cox with anything but the utmost respect.I do not think their singing is crap[and am not saying that you inferred that i had],just making my position clear.
Finally would you like to give us a precise time that you think the tradition died.
oh and I dont much like this song[Probably more to do with style]although I dont disagree with some of the sentiments,Ipreferred Mr President by PINK,,but does it really matter, whether their folk songs or Punk songs,a good song is a good song whatever its category

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 10:03 AM

Shimrod
I consider them all part of the folk scene and most of them do traditonal songs (or at least songs that deal with hsitoical issues).
I am not ducking the issue. I am genuinly confused about who of those are classed as folk and those classed as Traditional.
Until I started my folk club about 5 years ago I hadn't been in the folk scene as such for nigh on 30 odd years.
All I do see is a lot of people not able to explain what is what.
Incidentally, it didn't require your you to reply with attitude.

I can only improve my knowledge by listening to what other people tell me.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Steve-Cooperator
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:51 PM

Shimrod,

I really don't see where you are going any more with your argument.

You don't need a degree to be able to discern between different genres of song and music. There has been substancial research into traditional music for over a century which is available. Going by your suggestion that a song has to be traditional to be folk, I am interested to know what genre you class well crafted songs by writers such as John Conolly, Jez Lowe, Hughie Jones, even the Captain himself.... classical, pop, punk?

Toy Palmer, whio I am sure is impeccable in his research methodologies talks of the tradition in its making.....

Referring back to my original argument, new songs do find there m=way into the folk canon (I am no saying traditional, though many songs do wrongly get cited as such) those that do have a style that clearly identify them with the genre, conversely there are many songs that do not fit in with the style, and fall by the wayside.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 04:53 AM

Dear 'Steve-Cooperator',

Where, exactly, did I say that "... a song has to be traditional to be folk"? I think that there's a fair chance that you "don't see where I'm going any more" with my argument because you haven't read what I've written (?) Perhaps it's because I've written things which do not confirm your preconceptions?

I know that this is a futile exercise but one last time: A folk song is not a 'good' song or a 'bad' song, or a song that I like, or a song that you like. In addition it is not a song written in a particular style and whether or not it is 'well-crafted' is irrelevant - and it does not even have to be anonymous. It cannot be a recently written song because a particular song has to have undergone a PROCESS (involving selection, transmission and change) before it qualifies as a folk song. It is reasonably certain that most so-called 'traditional' songs have undergone this process and, hence, qualify as folk songs. If you look for exceptions to all this you will almost certainly find them, but this doesn't 'prove' anything.

Also bear in mind that the marketing category 'Folk' bears very little resemblance to the academic category 'Folk'.

Is the process that turns songs into folk songs still operating? Jim Carroll says "no" and I respect his opinion. I think that there is a possibility that similar or analogous processes may be operating now - but I think it's too early to tell.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 05:01 AM

>>I know that this is a futile exercise but one last time: A folk song is not a 'good' song or a 'bad' song, or a song that I like, or a song that you like. In addition it is not a song written in a particular style and whether or not it is 'well-crafted' is irrelevant - and it does not even have to be anonymous. It cannot be a recently written song because a particular song has to have undergone a PROCESS (involving selection, transmission and change) before it qualifies as a folk song<<

Well that answers it.

Almost all people who are currently singing folk songs aren't. No wonder the folk scene has got no chance.

How blinkered is folk.

The under current from contemporary folk singers at the moment is massive. I have seen that at my club. The number of great songs being written is massive. Keep it going, don't let the blinkered guide your course.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 08:27 AM

FOR CHRIST's SAKE - It's NOT a value judgement and has got nothing to do with being 'blinkered' or 'open-minded'! By standing by accepted definitions of folk song no-one is stopping you from singing anything you like or commenting on the quality of what you or others choose to sing.

Just reflect on the following quote from the great folk song collector, Mike Yates:

"...many people today want a world of certainties, a world where our every thought and desire can be seen in terms of black and white. But, of course, life is not like that, and kicking against this we so often find ourselves suffering from the unsatisfactory nature of things."

This is why you seem to be upset about the fact that, "Almost all people who are currently singing folk songs aren't."
And that last statement may not be completely true - I know plenty of people who choose to sing 'real folk songs'.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:12 AM

Villan: since you are firmly of the opinion that contemporary songs can be folk songs, are you going to tell us which contemporary songs come into the folk category? Are you all-inclusive(Sugarbabes, Arctic Monkeys and all), or a little bit more folk-policey. Or do you just mean"songs accompanied on the guitar sung in a folk-club". Because that is not really a defintion, it's a bit too circular. So come on, tell us. Which contemporary songs are folksongs,and which aren't, in your opinion?

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:18 AM

Shall we start with John Conolly and Fiddlers Green

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:30 AM

Well, that's one for the folk category. But what intrigues me is, which contemporary songs don't you allow into the folk list? And why? Bcause you must have some rationale that decides which are sheep and which are goats.
    And, not that this has anything to with the subject in hand, a Peacock butterfly has just flown in and sat by the computer.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:39 AM

We could then go on to

Graham Moore and Tom Paine's Bones

George Papavgeris with Empty Handed

Vin Garbutt with Storm Around Tumbledown

Jez lowe with Last Of The Widows

Duncan McFarlane with Bed Of Straw

Just a few - there are many

Who said I was talking about pop groups However I do like the ones you mentioned "Sugarbabes, Arctic Monkeys" and many more.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 09:51 AM

>>a Peacock butterfly has just flown in and sat by the computer<<

Thats me, I have just come to spy on you LOL.

Greg i could go on endlessly giving you songs written by people who have played at my club who are contemporary singer songwriters and you wouldn't have heard of the songs, more than likely. Howveer they have all been written about life.

Have a look at the lyrics of this one, which has only been written a short while ago about a Village not very far from where I live.

http://www.faldingworthlive.co.uk/new_page_1.htm

One of the songs I enjoyed and heard at my club that comes from a well known band called Guns and Roses and it was sung by a Ceilidh/Folk band called Byards Leap - the song was called Sweet Child Of Mine

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:48 AM

>>you must have some rationale that decides which are sheep and which are goats.
<<

I don't have any rationale. I tend to listen to a pop song and think "That would be nice done in a folkie style". Generally IMHO it would only be younger folk singers that would take modern pop songs and do them in a folkie style.

However on reflection, I suppose a true folk song would have lyrics that give a messge out about life in one way or another.

An example would be songs written about the demise of the fishing industry (very prevelant to the area of Grimsby (local to me)

But then, If I take John Conolly's Fiddlers Green thats about a fisherman who's time is almost up, and yet it is almost classified as traditional.

I don't know. You tell me.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 11:01 AM

All songs are about life, Villan(well that's a sweeping statement but it's probably near enough true). You'll have to do better than that.You've named some recently written songs that you think are folksongs. So, name some recently written songs that you think aren't folksongs, and let's see what sort of pattern develops.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 11:53 AM

LOL As I have already said I don't know , you tell me.

>>You've named some recently written songs that you think are folksongs<<
They are songs that seem to be accepted in the folk scenes.

>>So, name some recently written songs that you think aren't folksongs, and let's see what sort of pattern develops<<
Well teher starts the problem.
If for example we take Elton John who is not classed as a folk singer.

Candle in the wind which in some ways would be classed as pop. However when he used that song in relation to Princess Diana to some extent it became a song of the people and if you went to a concert of his, everybody would be singing it.

Likewise, I have seen Queen live 2 times who are definately not folk, but to be there live listening to everybody singing "We are the champions" is something to be seen. We are the champions in my opinion would not be classed as a folk song.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 12:16 PM

Villan,

You're making this up as you go along, aren't you? I'm certainly not going to abandon a perfectly good definition of folk song on the basis of your guesses, feelings and vague hunches. But if you want to do so, go ahead!
If you decide to do this please remember that if the word 'folk' becomes devalued and folk song becomes just another wooly-headed type of pop music (and blows away like a puff of pink smoke) please remember that you are responsible (along with all the other 'anti-intellectual-ain't-heard-no-horse-stamp-foot-everything-I-like-is-folk-throw-tantrum' brigade).

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Steve-Cooperator
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 12:40 PM

It is not down to one person to decide on what and what is not folk music beyond their own ability to discern. performers and presenters have some respibility to ensure that various aspects are availble to have an informed opinion. There is a wealth of published information, bulliting board, newsgroups, etc, from which one can draw futher information.

however, I don't see it appropriate to be dismissive about the revival which popularised folk.

talking of 'process' that raises the question of who decides that s song has gone through sufficient process. Also folk 'process' goes another way where the nuances of collected material have been lost through lack of care and attention towards the songs, and the ease of disseminating material in recorded form sometimes hastens this dilution.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 01:15 PM

Why should I make it up Shimrod. Greg asked me a question and I tried to answer.

I see so many people come through my club, who I book and they are all good and the majority are singer songwriters but all come under the classification of Folk.

All the people mentioned above apart from Elton John and Queen have played at my club and they have been really good. Oh sorry the only other one that hasn't played at the club is Vin Garbutt but that was when he was ill.

I get so much thrown at me about what is folk or trad, I wouldn't know anymore.

My attitude is if people enjoy what they hear then I must be doing something right. I get on average 40 people each evening which is not bad in this day and age for a very rural area.
Look at my diary for the club, you will see the type of people who are on Faldingworth Live Diary

Why are you being the way you are Shimrod?

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 02:36 PM

Shimrod, Les simply subscribes to a different interpretation of the meaning of the world "folk", and lord knows there are enough of those around. Don't be exasperated at this, to the point of calling him responsible for the possibility of the term "folk" being devalued. His opinion simply differs with yours, and no deeper meaning than that exists or should be read into it. It's like me and my wife calling the hue "aqua", "green and "blue" respectively. I still love her, reasoning that she can't help being wrong :-) But back to the definitions of folk, and the likelihood of the term "folk" being devalued - and let's leave "traditional" out of this for now. Witticisms and horse-talk apart, I can discern from this thread alone the following definitions, each with its subscribers and advocates:

a) A "folk song" must first undergo the folk process, and can only become "folk" through this. This gives rise to two options:
   a1) The folk process is dead, and so no more folk songs can be ever created; this virtually equates "folk" with "traditional" (not 100%, I know)
   a2) The folk process is on-going, and so songs written today can only become "folk songs" with the passage of time, with hindsight so to speak

b) A "folk song" must have "anon" composer (again, this almost equates "folk" with "traditional")

c) A song is "folk" because a recognised "folk singer" sings it

d) A song is "folk" because it is written in a certain musical "style" commonly accepted as giving rise to "folk music".

Shimrod, I believe you subscribe to either a1) or a2) above, and you worry that the anti-Christ anti-intellectuals will sully and devalue the term.

But can you see the incongruity of using that very term "anti-intellectuals" as being the danger to "folk", whose original definition (as in, centuries ago) is "of the people"?

Me, I like to go back to the origins of things - and the definitions above, from a) to d), are hardly more than 50 years old. Based on the original meaning of the world "folk" (outside the world of music) I would like to offer an alternative view, one that might sound a little like d), but isn't:

e) Consider that there is such a thing as a "folk ethos". This is like saying "style", but I am going well beyond the external cosmetics of type of tune or instrumentation, modal or bipedal scales, dialect or antiquity of language employed, plugged or unplugged, acoustic or whatever. It does however point towards a number of things:
   - A thematic relevance to the world and society at the time when it is written (i.e. for a new song, relevance to today), except when specifically setting out to describe historical events
   - An equivalent linguistic relevance to the same period
   - An emphasis on story telling or image-painting
   - Most important: A viewpoint belonging to the "masses" (as opposed to aristocracy, oligarchy etc)

Note that I said nothing about the music; that is partly to further emphasise the importance of lyrics (which puts the majority of pop and rock outside the scope); and partly to enable the freedom to embrace different musical styles, both chronologically and geographically, as indeed the people have done throughout the ages. (I know that some will immediately pipe up "how does this folk ethos apply to tunes, then?", and I have to own up that I don't know; I am more familiar with song than with pure music, but perhaps those with a tunes-only bend can offer some equivalent).

This would then lead us to term some contemporary songs as "folk" in the sense of "written with a folk ethos"; and suddenly, Jez Lowe becomes acceptable as "folk music", as indeed do all the examples that Les quoted above. Just as I we say that certain songs are written "in the tradition", without confusing them with "traditional" - and if we do, what the heck, it just shows how well they were written "in the tradition".

I would personally prefer the academics to use a "folk ethos"-based definition of "folk" rather than the current chronologically-, authorship- and technology-based ones, which I find to be too dry. But that is my view. You may not like it, and that is fine - but call no exorcists, this not the devil speaking.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: smileyman
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 02:50 AM

I just stumbled into this forum, but I found myself sucked in. In regards to the folk vs not folk debate currently raging, I have a couple of points that I'd like to throw out just for fun.

A. Is it the song or the performer that makes it folk? For e.g., I think most would consider Woody Guthrie a folk singer, but if a hardcore punk group like The Dropkick Murphys takes his song "Gonna Be A Blackout" and perform it, does it no longer become folk?

B. If a song must be attributed to "anon" before it becomes folk, where does that leave songs such as "The Black and Tans", or "Waltzing Matilda"?

C. If a requirement of a folk song is that it is taken by the people and changed, does that make "We Shall Overcome" folk (as has already been pointed out), or Bob Marley's "Get Up, Stand Up", or Bob Dylan's "Chimes of Freedom". (Personally I think that the only one of these that can currently be claimed to be folk is "We Shall Overcome", but give it another 50 years and I think the other two will make a case for themselves.)

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 04:31 AM

Smileyman, as you can see from the thread, different people will give different answers to these questions. But specifically with tegards to yout first question (is it the song or the singer), my personal view, following from my "folk ethos" argument in my previous post is:

The song can be folk because it is written with a "folk ethos", and if performed in a manner outside that ethos, this doesn't stop the generic song from being folk - but the performance is not folk. A folk song sung in a non-folk (pop, rap, whatever) manner, that's all.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 06:28 AM

"Why are you being the way you are Shimrod?"

I'm being the way I am, Villan, for two main reasons:

(i) Because I'm sick of going to, so-called, 'Folk Clubs' and sitting through an entire evening and not hearing any folk songs. I wouldn't mind if the 'nu-Folk' I'm forced to listen to was any good or bore any resemblance to 'real' folk song - but usually it doesn't (at this point I'm specifically excluding George Papavegeris from this - if everything was as good as his stuff, I wouldn't be as pissed-off!). If I hear one more song about how awful it is to be a fisherman/unemployed fisherman or a miner/unemployed miner and all to some mawkish - 'just-made this-up-in-the-bath-by humming-old-Neil-Young-hits' tune I shall f....ing well Scream!!

(ii) This thread poses a closed question ie. "Is this a folk song" and refers to some 'socially relevant' punk epic. There are only two possible answers to a closed question: 'yes' and 'no'. My answer is a resounding 'no'! But that is not the answer that the poser of the question wants to hear (you can probably guess which answer he actually wants to hear). There is also a subtext here that anyone who disagrees with the implied answer to the question is a 'purist' and 'fundamentalist' and must be attacked - and, sure enough, the 'anything goes in a folk club' brigade have come pouring out of the woodwork in support.
I find this whole approach to be basically dishonest and irresponsible. A more honest approach would be for the poster to state that the above epic is a folk song and to give the reasons why. I would still disagree, of course, but would have a bit more respect for the poster and his supporters.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 07:59 AM

There are folk songs and then there's folk singing. No matter how much some of us would like to make rules about what 'folks' are allowed to sing, they're going to ignore us in the millions and go about happily humming 'Feels Like Teen Spirit' and 'Hey Jude'. They're going to (and by the way, I love this) continue to write their essay answers to standardized test questions in the form of a rap. They're going to whip out the dead date songs such as 'Teen Angel' at the end of a singing session when the easily offended have gone off to bed.

The 'folk' sing for joy, and they really don't care about what other people don't like or what offends them. I love the traditional stuff, but the minute someone gets all shirty about it and wants to ban all new songs, it sure doesn't make me want to sing the songs they like.

Of course, it doesn't sound like you want to ban ALL new songs. Shimrod, the more you write here, the more I think you're talking about music you like vs. music you don't like. I don't think what George sings is 'folk', as in 'traditional', but I like it too. Other people sing the same generation of songs, and I may not like them. It's not about what is or isn't 'folk', it's about the way you believe everyone else should think. When you try to tell other people what to think, you wind up with and argument. If one uses a definition as a standard to judge what should be instead of describe what is, the word interferes rather than aids communication.

We sometimes refer to traditional music as 'roots' music If the tradition is a living thing, it has to have more than just roots.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 09:22 AM

Jeri, I am NOT telling anyone what they should sing or what they should think. And I have never advocated banning anything! What I am doing, and what I have a 'right' to do (although I tend to think that it is cowardly and stupid for people to attempt to stand by their 'rights' in a situation like this), is expressing my opinion and disagreeing with people. My 'crime' is to express a minority view which deplores the fact that the folk music that I grew up with is being replaced by an anodyne, inferior 'nu-Folk', comprising mainly dire, self-penned ditties which claim to be 'relevant to folks' lives today' (bollocks!), and, perhaps, 'Folk-lite' which is the pretty, bland, traditional-based commercial effusions produced by the 'Newcastle Prodigies' and their ilk.

But as I say, many people can't bear it if someone disagrees with their precious opinions - that someone is guilty of a 'thought-crime' and accused of all sorts of other crimes. I challenge you to go back over my posts and give me one instance of where I have advocated banning anything. You might also like to think of ways in which I could possibly enforce such a ban!
You might also like to reflect on the fact that there is a big difference between defining something and stating a preference. For example, I like George Papavgeris's songs very much but I don't think that they are 'folk' - I do not believe that this devalues George's achievement in any way. Furthermore, I would not dream of suggesting that George should be banned or excluded from folk clubs.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 09:55 AM

OK Villan, we're getting somewhere. You include John Connolly and George Papavgeris in the canon of "folksong", but not Queen and Elton John. So, two questions. What is about Fiddlers Green that is more "about real life" than Elton John's or Queen's songs(as that is apparently your crierion for choice)? And the most relevant question , you howl with rage at Shimrod for excluding songwriters from the category of folk,calling him a purist and folk-police or whatever and all that stuff, but you do exactly the same thing?
    And Jeri, you really are being extraordinarily unfair to Shimrod by accusing him of trying to ban George Papavgeris and all that sort of thing. When has the poor lad said any such thing? It's really bad manners to accuse people of things you know perfectly well they are innocent of. Shimrod, like Villan, and George P, and all of us, has his own defintion of "folk". These definitions may differ. That does not mean that Shimrod is trying to ban George, or that Villan is trying to ban Queen.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Rasener
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 12:08 PM

>>you howl with rage at Shimrod <<

Sorry Shimrod.

I will stay out of this thread from now on as I obviously seem to know FA about Folk Music. However I do know what sounds good and what sounds awful (which stops people coming to listen).

Just as well I am stopping running Faldingworth Live at the end of the year.Once less place to play at(If nobody comes forward and takes over). Don't suppose anybody will as it is too much hard work, and the crap you have to take from some prima donna's is unbeleivable.

Maybe some of you would liek to buy a yellowbellies 2 CD. Go to this link and follow your nose. http://www.faldingworthlive.co.uk/yellowbellis_2_cd.htm

PM me if you would like one.

Enjoy yourselves guys and gals. :-)

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 12:20 PM

Thanks to Greg for understanding my, somewhat stroppy, point of view!

and thanks to Villan for the apology.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 01:41 PM

"And Jeri, you really are being extraordinarily unfair to Shimrod by accusing him of trying to ban George Papavgeris and all that sort of thing. When has the poor lad said any such thing? It's really bad manners to accuse people of things you know perfectly well they are innocent of."

If I'd said that, I'd be unfair. Whatever. Wait, it's the 1st April, and you're accusing me of saying something I didn't say accusing someone else of saying something he didn't say? Haha -- very funny.

A person would have to be a complete moron to take the thought of any one person 'banning' music seriously. I am not that moron. I'm sorry if anyone thought that's what I really meant.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 04:28 PM

Jeri,

"Of course, it doesn't sound like you want to ban ALL new songs. Shimrod,..." (your post 01 Apr 07 07:59 AM).

This suggests that you believe that I would like to ban some new songs ... doesn't it, Jeri? Again I challenge you to find anything in my posts, in this thread, which suggests that I would like to ban anything.

But hang on! Oh, I see - it was an April fool's joke! Ah hah hah hah hah!! Good one! You really fooled me there, Jeri!



Let's leave it at that, shall we?

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 04:39 PM

Jeri: well I've read your reply so naturally I've gone back and reread your post closely, the last thing I want to do is to accuse you of something you haven't done. But I am afraid I can't interpret your letter in any other way but as an accusation that Shimrod is trying to ban certain songs. There are at least three perfectly clear comments to that effect. Go back and have a look.
    Shimrod seems to express his opinion a bit over vehemently, but, as they say, "cet animal est mechant. Quand on l'attaque, il se defend". All he seems to me to be doing is sticking by his definition, which suits him well, and arguing against Villan's(and other's, perhaps yours?) which he finds confusing. And he's right, redrawing old definitions(however flawed) can be very confusing. You spend years teaching kids that zebras are the ones that look like horses, only covered with black and white stripes; but elephants are the big grey ones with a trunk at the front. Fine, that's great, that works. But if someone else arrives and starts telling the kids they are both actually zebras, than you get a complicated situation. Shimrod's defining, that's what he's doing. He's saying zebras are this, but elephants are that. He's not trying to ban elephants, and it's just confrontational to accuse him of it, when he patently isn't.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 04:41 PM

OK, I finally re-read what I wrote, and I understand how people took my comment literally. I meant 'want to ban' as 'want the new songs to go away' as opposed to enforcing some sort of rule. It's poor communication on my part, and I'm truly sorry about that. I have to remember I'm speaking to people who don't know me and who like to argue. I think I was reacting to the level of anger and defensiveness I perceived in the thread, and I veered off-topic.

My last words in this thread. I have to question my own intelligence for getting involved in the umpteenth incarnation of the pointless 'what is folk' debate.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 04:58 PM

Jeri: yes it can be irritating, this age old topic(I think I am probably older than you, so I've had this and allied discussions longer than you have!). But let's face it, this a forum for discussing folk and blues, isn't it? So if there is considerable difference in what different members mean by these terms, it has to be thrashed out every year or so, so people can say where they stand. Folk music is not unique in this respect: classical means different things to different people. And think of the concept of R'n'B now, and R'n'B in the 50's.
    It wouldn't half take the heat out of these arguments if people would realise that saying "Richard Thompson's latest song is not a folksong" is by no means the same as saying "Richard's Thompson's latest song is rubbish" or "Richard Thompson's latest song should be banned". There is no value judgement whatsoever in saying which song you think is folk and which isn't. In making a statement like that, people are merely applying definitions, surely a morally neutral position in this case.
I would finish by echoing Ian Anderson, fRoots mazine editor, who pointed out recently that the "purists" he knows are the people with the most eclectic record collections.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Tootler
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:45 AM

I was browsing the Contemplator website when I came across this;

Before the printing press broadsides were written by hand. Before folk songs were written by hand there was a centuries-old tradition of minstrels and folk singers. As these declined and the printing press became more common, folk music transmission was channeled into broadsides. Broadsides contributed to the further decline of minstrelsy. Broadsides were, in turn, replaced by newspapers and printed sheet music.

Of course, this is a simplification but it kind of looks familiar. I think we are in a similar period of transition with the relatively recent invention of electronic media which has had a profound effect on the way music is transmitted. I have for quite some time now held the view that the invention of printing had a profound effect on the society of its day in a similar way that the invention of the computer is having on ours, though maybe it is not just the computer but the whole business of electronic recording and transmission of information in all its forms that is having the effect.

One of the negative effects is taking music making away from ordinary people and making it the province of "experts"

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 04:00 AM

Once again a 'what is folk' thread rides off into the sunset without anything significant (or even new) being advanced and leaving behind a trail of recrimination and bad-feeling. It always seems to me that the subject is always approached on the somewhat strange premise that no definition of 'folk' and 'tradition' exist and that we always have to start from scratch in creating one. This is, of course, not the case; perfectly sound definitions have been in place for a long time; oceans of ink and rainforests of paper have been expended in dealing with the subject. It is hard not to notice that once again, those uncomfortable with the old definitions have singularly failed to come up with alternatives. As far as I am concerned, the definitions accepted by Cecil Sharp, Francis Child, Bertrand Bronson, Bert Lloyd, David Buchan, Vaughan Williams, Frank Kidson, Gavin Greig, George Gardiner, Lucy Broadwood, Anne Gilchrist, Ewan MacColl, Alan Lomax, Gordon Gerould.......... and all those who have had a part in forming my ideas, and those of many others, and brought us into the music in the first place by putting pen to paper on the subject over the last century, still work for me. They may be, (are) in need of fine-tuning, but it is nonsense to ignore them. Perhaps these epics could be approached by those who have problems with those definitions explaining what those problems are, and perhaps it should be borne in mind that nobody is 'telling' anybody what and what not to sing. In my experience terms like 'folk police', 'finger-in-ear', 'folk fascist' and 'purist' are usually to be found on the lips of those who appear to have no workable definitions of 'folk' and 'traditional' and are invariably directed at those of us who have.                           
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 05:33 AM

I suspect that we keep having these fruitless arguments because of the existence of a peculiar mindset which is now lodged deep in the heart of our culture. In this way of 'thinking' nothing much of any interest or relevance existed before the lifetime of the 'thinker' - hence it's necessary to keep on (and on and on and on) re-inventing the proverbial wheel. This also leads to the view that any transient notion that pops into the head of our 'thinking' protagonist MUST be of great relevance and must be acted upon. But, because these airy notions have no strong intellectual or theoretical basis, someone else must be persuaded to validate them. Unfortunately, the putative validators are 'experts' - who often HAVE studied what went before and ARE armed with definitions and theories - and are not easily persuaded. Hence these intransigent 'experts' have insults heaped upon their heads by the frustrated 'thinkers'. And, let's face it, in contemporary popular culture education, study and analysis are despised; 'experts' are 'nerds' who should know their place and take responsibilty for the airy notions of the wilfully ignorant.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: s&r
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:00 AM

It all depends what sort of definition you use to define folk.
"A definition may either give the meaning that a term bears in general use (a descriptive definition), or that which the speaker intends to impose upon it for the purpose of his or her discourse (a stipulative definition). Stipulative definitions differ from descriptive definitions in that they prescribe a new meaning either to a term already in use or to a new term. A descriptive definition can be shown to be right or wrong by comparison to usage, while a stipulative definition cannot. A stipulative definition, however, may be more or less useful. A persuasive definition, named by C.L. Stevenson, is a form of stipulative definition which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an altered use, perhaps as an argument for some view, for example that some system of government is democratic. Stevenson also notes that some definitions are 'legal' or 'coercive', whose object is to create or alter rights, duties or crimes.[1]"

Quote from Wikipedia

Says it all

Stu

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Morris-ey
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:44 AM

Well, there's 20 minutes of my life I won't get back....

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Grimmy
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:38 AM

Are we discussing folk music here, or some esoteric branch of forensic science?

Frankly, I don't give a flying bab about definitions and I get rather suspicious about the motives of those who do. Imagine, joy of joys, that we came up with a definition with which everyone agreed - WHAT THEN?

In 100 years' time:

• If 'Little Musgrave and Lady Barnard' was to be heard at folk gatherings (and I believe it will), then I would be delighted.


• If songs by 50's/60's/modern-day singer/songwriters were to be heard at folk gatherings (and I believe they will), then I would be delighted.


• If 'We All Live in a Yellow Submarine' was still being sung on the back row of buses (and I believe it will), then I would be delighted.


• If 'The Birdie Song' was to be heard at folk gatherings (and I believe it won't), then I would be disappointed, but I wouldn't cut my throat over it either.

It won't be the 'experts' or the 'thinkers' or the 'scientists' who decide the future of this music we love - it will be the people (just as it's always been). That seems to worry some folks here. It doesn't worry me - I have every confidence in their good taste and judgement, both now and in 100 years' time. Even if their taste doesn't coincide with mine.

If some folks wish to become museum curators, with their 'Do not touch the exhibits' signs everywhere, then good luck to them - but I won't be stopping by.

Unfortunately I won't be around 100 years from now, so I'll say this now: I told you so!.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 09:57 AM

Grimmy: I think you are thinking of museuems where they keep dinosaurs and Egyptian stuff where they have "do't touch the exhibits" signs. In the museums containinmg folk songs of the past, anyone can touch the exhibits any time they like. That's what they are for.When did anybody last try to stop you singing a folk song? It's never happened to me(OK, it has, many times, when the landlord's throwing out, but you know what I mean).

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Grimmy
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 10:20 AM

Greg - if that's the only fault you can find in my post then I am more than content. However, remember that museums are not just places to keep old things in, they are also places to keep new things out.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 12:58 PM

Grimmy,

Perhaps we don't need to be reminded of new things because, in this particular moment, they are all around us. Eventually, of course, the new things become old things and then we need to be reminded that they once existed.

I suspect though that, in your world, there no place for old things at all. But there wouldn't be much point in a museum full of new things, would there? So, in your world, there wouldn't be a place for museums ... and we would have to go on and on and on re-inventing the wheel!

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Grimmy
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:18 PM

I suspect though that, in your world, there no place for old things at all

Nothing could be further from the truth, Shimrod (BTW I dig up old bottles, collect fossils and was a genealogist before my current job. On my desk right now, having arrived today, is a copy of 'Broadsides of the Industrial North' by Martha Vicinus).

I love old things, new things, and things yet to be. I care passionately about the old ballads and traditional songs and I will do all within my power to preserve them (though ultimately, as I have said, the people will decide), but I care equally passionately about new songs which, in turn, will become old. And so it goes on - as it always has.

Unfortunately, it strikes me that some people only start to care about songs when they (the songs) have become old - and that is sometimes too late. I care now - that's the difference.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 06:30 PM

I can't find a lot to argue with there, Grimmy.

If I'm honest I prefer old songs because I find them more exciting and and stimulating to my imagination. On the other hand I find much of today's popular culture banal and stupid in the extreme (ie. 'dumbed down') and many new songs that I hear are not much better. Nevertheless, there are some good song writers around and I would be the first to applaud their achievements.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 07:50 PM

It seems like this argument becomes intensified in England or Ireland because of the nature of the culture being more in touch with its roots than America, which has so many roots and diversity stemming from its citizen's immigration.

In England, Ewan and Peggy seemed to highlight this in their "folk club" where certain songs were not permitted. Here in the States, the only similar exclusionary musical attitude is in the area of bluegrass. In a way, you might say that the bluegrass contingent is in touch with a certain folk style that emanated from unaccompanied ballad singing to old time string band music. This exclusionary attitude prevails in jazz circles as well.

I've noticed that here in the States, Blues seems to be thought of as separate from American folk music which seems odd to me since it has such a strong African-American history.

The point of this is that without a historical and cultural context, folk music wouldn't exist.

That's the point of it. The stories it has to tell of the people who created it at one time in history and their feelings expressed for posterity.

This is something that is hard to emulate by current singer/songwriter standards. Although there are some great writers today who are conversant with a folk-style in their writing and composing, they can't have the history because they are not that old.
However, that said, I think, for example, that Jean Ritchie brings to her songs the historical and cultural perspective that reflects more of what a folk song is because of her association with her family and the traditional musical aspects that she inherited. John Jacob Niles, the same. Does this mean that they write "folk songs"? I'm not sure that they do, but I do believe that their material reflects a genuine understanding of what this cultural process is and their songs are closer to those traditions than the contemporary singer/songwriter who "has something to say".

Why make this distinction? Because there is something of value in a folk song that can't be measured by any other form of musical expression. It has to be appreciated in its own right for what it is and other good music shouldn't be banned or denegrated in any way.

Contemporary folklorists understand the difference between folklore and that which falls out of that category because it doesn't meet the criteria.

If we go down the road that anything is folklore, than maybe Hollywood is folklore. I don't think most of the Mudcatters would accept that.

The same with folk music.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 03:07 PM

I wonder when people will come to terms with the fact that Ewan and Peggy never prevented any form of song being performed at the Singers Club.
Speaking as an ex- Singers Club organiser, as with any club in existence, the songs that were performed by the residents there where those in line with the policy of the club (arrived at by an audience comittee) - i.e. traditional songs and contemporary songs created on traditional lines. That was a policy FOR THE RESIDENTS.
Singers from the floor sang what they chose to sing and if their performance impressed whoever was residenting that night, they were booked as guests there.
I know of no club organisers who encourage singers to perform material that is not in line with club policy.
If people feel that it is wrong for a club to have a policy, that is a different argument.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 05:39 PM

Jim,
you say "I know of no club organisers who encourage singers to perform material that is not in line with club policy."

Herga is such a club. Its reputation and the vast majority of its residents lean towards traditional, but we encourage everyone to sing whatever they like, and we enjoy some excellent jazz guitar and contemporary songs from Chris Flegg, the occasional contemporary duet from Moses and the Ref, other contemporary singer/songwriter stuff... And yet, when we want to put on our "best face", the club is unmistakably traditional, with the likes of Johnny Collins, George Clarke, Kitty Vernon, Mike Sparks, Graeme Knights, etc. I am a permanent aberration, in that respect, yet one the club encouraged and fostered and helped. Which is precisely the reason why "Friends like these" was written for those very folks I just mentioned: traddies, but welcoming everything.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 02:55 AM

George,
I have attended Herga on several occasions (Royal Oak?) in the distant past and it was invariably to hear traditional (or traditional-type) performers - Kevin Mitchell springs to mind (and we brought Walter Pardon there to perform). This fact was, I am sure, due to our tastes in music; I do not doubt what you are saying (though your 'best face' comment does indicate a policy preference.
Personally, I believe the idea of setting up a club in the first place is to promote the music you like, and believe important enough to make an effort for - otherwise, why bother?
Over the years I have been in clubs where musical instruments were forbidden, that would not allow newly written songs to be performed or where, say, bawdy material was openly disapproved of (and on occasion, talked down). I have been in clubs with Ewan and Peggy where they have been asked not to sing political songs.
None of this was ever part of The Singers Club Policy - ever.
As far as I am concerned Ewan was a key figure in introducing me, and many like me to folk music- a fact that has dominated my life for over 40 years and will (I hope) continue to do so until I run out of puff.
I doubt if there would be many of us speaking to each other on forums like this if it hadn't been for Ewan, Bert, Lomax, and I believe the least we owe them is to recognise their contribution and, at least, get the facts straight and not continue to peddle the myths as reality!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 04:59 AM

Jim,
I agree about the debt owed to Ewan, Bert, Alan etc by you, me, and countless others. Also, for clarity, neither was I inferring with my statement about Herga anything with respect to the Singers Club.

You were lucky to have been part of that, and part of an earlier Herga too. I just wanted to point out Herga's openness to all styles of music today, despite its undoubted traditional origins.

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 01:50 PM

I think it was Shimrod wrote that he was fed up turning up to 'Folk Clubs' and not hearing a 'folk Song' all night.
I totally agree with that; it's why I (and thousands like me) stopped going to clubs - and thereby hangs the problem that 'anything goes clubs have yet to solve.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: BB
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 03:58 PM

Jim said, "I know of no club organisers who encourage singers to perform material that is not in line with club policy", which you seemed to refute, George, in talking about Herga. But Herga's policy is not necessarily the same as its residents' preferences. In fact, you say, "We encourage everyone to sing whatever they like", and that, surely, is stating the club's policy, so you are simply proving Jim's point.

By and large, we do the same wherever we are, but one has to accept that people like Jim and Shimrod may well be put off from attending such clubs. The scene is ending up with very few clubs catering for those who really only enjoy 'traditional' folk music, thus has to accept that it is losing some very valuable people completely, although hopefully it gains others who may discover the value of traditional music.

Barbara

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 04:39 AM

Hi Barbara,
I don't think I said "We encourage everyone to sing whatever they like",
If I did, that is not what I meant. I believe singers should choose for themselves what they sing; where they sing it and what they/we call it is a different question.
It's been my experience that club audiences for all types of 'folk club' have plummeted, not just for traditional song.
If club organisers don't run clubs to promote their own music - why do they run them - as a social amenity - maybe.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: BB
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 04:05 PM

Read what I said again, Jim. *George* said, "We encourage everyone to sing whatever they like". I was agreeing with what you said.

Personally, we run our club in order to encourage people to perform - what they perform really is up to them. But that's our club (which isn't a folk club although quite a lot of 'folk' material, including traditional, is performed there), and it was something that was called for in our village - it's not necessarily what we would be running if we were elsewhere. You can call that 'a social amenity' if you wish - it's also a darn good night out!

I think you're right, Jim, in saying that audiences generally are down for folk clubs, although not necessarily for folk music, and there are many reasons which may contribute to that - but I think that's drifting even further from the thread subject, so I'll not go there.

Barbara

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 03:34 AM

Whops - sorry Barbara.
Jim

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 03:37 AM

Whoops - that was meant to be whoops.
If I'm not careful I'll get another visit from the 'typo-fairy' who stalks this thread,
Jim

Subject: RE: Is this a folk song?
From: Scoville
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 12:25 PM

Question: Are y'all talking about British folk clubs, and, if so, what the heck are they all booking if everyone is complaining that there is no folk being performed?

The two venues I visit here that I think would roughly equate to "folk clubs" have been known to book the following: Paul Geremia, Battlefield Band, Old Crow Medicine Show, Slaid Cleaves, Nancy Griffith, Tom Paxton, Clandestine, Eliza Gilkyson, Sara Guthrie, Beppe Gambetta, Ian Tyson, etc. How do those stack up? (I'm asking as a point of reference. I don't necessarily consider all of these to be folk myself.)

I've noticed that here in the States, Blues seems to be thought of as separate from American folk music which seems odd to me since it has such a strong African-American history.

The reason for this is because they are both such huge genres that it would be an organizational and definitional nightmare. Blues is folk, and folk is sometimes blues, and both are roots of rock, country, zydeco, and a lot of other things. However, two groups that have as many subgenres as "white" folk and blues don't need to be combined into the Mother of All Music Genres. You'll note, though, that there is not a hard line dividing them and that they often travel parallel tracks.