Does it matter what music is called?

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:23 AM

If it doesn't matter what music is called, why get mad if somebody says somebody isn't folk?

Good point. I don't think anyone here's really indifferent to definitions. Some people seem to be saying "don't define music" but meaning "don't define the music I like as not being folk".

I can see both sides, I have to confess. I got into folk in the first place through Steeleye Span in one of their noisier periods, so I completely understand kids watching Seth Lakeman shredding his bow and thinking this is how folk ought to be. (Although I'm sure Peter Knight used to play actual tunes. Tsk, kids these days...) Even when I got into performing (much more recently) I only had a very hazy idea of which bits of my repertoire were echt Trad and which came from earlier folkies; one of the first songs I did in public was The Snows, which I introduced as an old song by Bert Jansch*. And when I started writing and singing my own stuff, well, that was when I felt like I was getting somewhere with this folk music lark. Most of the younger performers I hear seem to think the same way - 'singer-songwriter' is the goal, the traditional repertoire is just another source of cover versions.

But I've moved, just within the last few years, to a much greater appreciation of traditional songs and tunes. The thing is, it's very largely thanks to my exposure to a handful of performers, floor as well as pro, all of whom I've seen at the local club (in between the singer-songwriters). I think it's tremendously important that more people get that opportunity - and the more 'folk' becomes synonymous with 'someone playing an acoustic guitar', the less likely that is to happen. Unless we can collectively do a Tom Bliss - settle on 'traditional' for what we do and leave 'folk' to the acoustic-contemporary crowd. (A fine and talented crowd - I'm not dismissing that kind of music, I still write it myself from time to time. But traditional music is different.)


*I know, I know, I know. If your toes are curling think what mine are doing.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: theleveller
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:07 AM

It was interesting to hear John Conelly talk about how he enjoys looking around music shops when he goes to Ireland to find books where Fiddler's Green is listed as Trad. He says that one day he might write to the publishers to demand his royalties – but he never has.

To be honest, Jim, Trad., Anon. or whatever is fine by me. I think it's a compliment that anyone wants to perform one of my songs.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 04:23 AM

Leveller -
I tend to think that the songs need to be taken up and re-made outside the 'folk family' before they can be considered folk songs.
It might be claimed (though never by himself) that some of MacColl's Traveller songs 'passed into the tradition'; we recorded numerous versions of Freeborn Man from Irish Travellers. Jeremy Sandford in his 'Songs of the Roadside' even suggested (totally without substantiation), that MacColl had 'adapted' them from traditional Travellers songs; - one Scots 'academic' once claimed at a conference (again, without evidence) that he 'stole' Freeborn Man from a Traveller.
Even among Travellers, the song tradition seems to have disappeared, (we can almost put a date on it - sometime between August 1973 and Easter 1975), when they got portable televisions and stopped singing round an open fire.
Are you even 'anon' - virtually all the songwriters I know put their names to their compositions, many even hang a price-tag on them by copyrighting them, thus limiting their free currency.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: glueman
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 04:21 AM

"However, Gresham's Law applies. It gets harder and harder to hear traditional music at "folk" venues. Or on "folk" radio."

An interesting point Dick and probably true. You have to ask why? Some people on this board might claim there's a conspiracy by corporate music/pop radio/the maaan. Other's would suggest it was just folk (and real folk at that) finding a way to continue the music that wasn't only past tense.

A recurring theme is that enthusiasts buy their music, unheard, by the label and they're being conned when they open the box and put the CD on the turntable. Can this be true? Is there a straw filled barrel nestling with recordings where a lucky dip will guarantee you'll like the music? Do people see a folk header in a catalogue and a picture of a cute girl in a floaty dress with a guitar and think, yup, that'll be folk? I have a soft spot for the first wave of English punk but even that narrow title would mean that as well as Buzzcocks I'd enjoy Eater, Slaughter and the Dogs and Eddie and the Hotrods none of whom I'd touch with the proverbial folk bargepole.
If you haven't heard it before musical titles are a notoriously unreliable way of getting satisfaction whatever the genre.

'Traditional' is the only word that comes close to suggesting unattributed music and I commend it to label johnnies on both sides of the counter. Incidentally, quite some years ago I went to see a low-key Maddy Prior tour on the back of her work with Steeleye Span and more especially Silly Sisters. I expected traditional but I got stuff about low flying aircraft in whatever idyllic vale she inhabits and other light music. Not my cuppa but who was to blame, MP for trying something different or me for not doing my homework?

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: theleveller
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 03:40 AM

Interesting point that, Jim. At a singaround a few weeks ago, I sang a song that I had written and have sung on quite a few occasions at clubs and festivals. Someone came up to me afterwards and asked if I had really written it as he had heard someone else sing it recently and claim it was a traditional song. So, is it a folk song? Have I taken the first step to joining that great songwriter Trad. or am I still just Anon.?

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 03:16 AM

Ron Olesko
"There is a large community that shares contemporary songs and use them in the fashion that earlier generations shared their songs.   You do not have to agree, that is your choice. Folk music is a living tradition".
Where?
As far as I can see, 'folk' or 'tradition' required extensive participation in its creation, selection and performance, none of which the general population have any say in   - we have now become recipients of our culture rather than participants in it and creators of it - unfortunately our oral and musical traditions are as dead as Monty Python's parrot.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 12:01 AM

I would not call it "Gresham's Law" because I don't think there is "bad money" involved. I certainly do not consider contemporary singer-songwriters to be "bad money". They are just as important to perpetuating the tradition as the old song.

I would certainly not wish to be restricted to only playing music by a set of ancient rules that go against the spirit of folk music, a living tradition. Music is not meant to be a museum piece.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 11:34 PM

However, Gresham's Law applies. It gets harder and harder to hear traditional music at "folk" venues. Or on "folk" radio.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 11:06 PM

Of course, folk music and folklore reflect a study of "common usage".

Sorry Don, you are missing the point of what I, and others, have been saying. You have blinders on and won't accept that definitions can, and should, change with the times.

I am not disagreeing with you or anyone on what constitutes the so-called "folk tradition" and how the oral tradition enabled folk songs to be shared from generation to generation. I know, and respect, the scholars who study this - but it does not change the facts that the situations that they were studying and the methods that they used to collect 100 years or more ago have changed. There is a large community that shares contemporary songs and use them in the fashion that earlier generations shared their songs.   You do not have to agree, that is your choice. Folk music is a living tradition.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:38 PM

". . . you are trying to say it only means what you want it to mean."

Not any more than you are, Ron.

By the way, I rescind my surrender. I don't have time to pursue it now (getting late here), but, dictionaries reflect common usage, and common usage is often quite imprecise. Unacceptable to specialists within a particular field. So dictionary definitions notwithstanding, I have several more points to make that I think will put the current trend into perspective.

Not that you will necessarily agree, but that's the way it goes. I will put it out for others to consider.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:52 PM

Merriam Webster -
Main Entry: folk song
Function: noun
Date: 1847
: a traditional or composed song typically characterized by stanzaic form, refrain, and simplicity of melody


Random House:
folk music
–noun 1. music, usually of simple character and anonymous authorship, handed down among the common people by oral tradition.
2. music by known composers that has become part of the folk tradition of a country or region.

(a great case can be made for contemporary folk songs having entered the tradition of a country or region - or a community)

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:46 PM

Who uses old dictionaries anymore? Life changes everything.   

Sorry Don, but that is the way it goes. No one is saying that folk means anything we want it to mean, but you are trying to say it only means what you want it to mean. Life goes on.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:41 PM

By the way, that must be a fairly recent edition of the American Heritage dictionary. The second definition reflects the revisionist idea that came into vogue in the 1960s.

Okay, I surrendered. I disagree, but I surrender.

On to other things.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:36 PM

I disagree, but there is no point in continuing this.

"Folk" means anything you want it to mean. All the same, grunt.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:31 PM

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can pick apart your analogy simply because it does not make sense to reality. YOU have missed the point!!

Pick up a dictionary. You are creating your own definition now.


American Heritage -

1. Music originating among the common people of a nation or region and spread about or passed down orally, often with considerable variation.
2. Contemporary music in the style of traditional folk music

Many of the songs that I hear fit both catagories quite nicely. The way music has been "passed down" in the last 100 years is not just using the "oral" tradition, and hence the second definition.

Sorry Don,your arguement no longer makes sense.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:03 PM

Temper, Ron. Anyone can pick an analogy apart and I think you're the one who's missing the point.

I don't see what is "folk" about a song that was written within the past year or two, has been copyrighted by the person who wrote it, and which no one else sings or is particularly interested in singing. And should there actually be someone, the writer of the song gets very upset if that person either accidentally or intentionally changes a word or alters the tune a bit.

I'm not talking theory here. This happens.

You're buying into the "just plain folks" idea, which is one step removed from the "horse" definition.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Peace
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 08:50 PM

In these days of cloning, an apple just MIGHT be an orange.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 08:39 PM

"But you're taking an apple in one hand and an orange in the other and saying that it's perfectly all right to call them both "apples." "

THAT'S THE POINT - NO ONE IS CALLING THEM APPLES. WE ARE CALLING THEM FRUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   AN APPLE IS AN APPLE AND AN ORANGE IS AN ORANGE!!!

Sorry Don, you are interpretting this all ass-backwards. No one is saying that an apple is an orange!!!!!!

Folk music is to fruit what apples are to sea chanteys and oranges are to contemporary singer-songwriters.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 08:32 PM

Certainly there is room for both. But you're taking an apple in one hand and an orange in the other and saying that it's perfectly all right to call them both "apples." They're both fruit, and they both grow on trees, but they are not the same thing.

I see neither logic nor common sense in that. It certainly leads to nothing but confusion. As we have seen.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 07:26 PM

"Ron Olesko suggests that meanings gradually change...and so they do - but the older meaning meant something, and just because 'some' people (51%?? how do we count?) don't care to follow that older usage, it doesn't follow that the older one is now 'meaningless' or obsolete!

If 'folk' or 'trad' meant a narrow set of referents originally, and now some consider the words 'convienient' to mean a much broader set.....what, I ask for the 27th time, are we to call that older set when we WISH to refer to the narrower meaning? "

I think we call the older set folk, and we call the newer set folk. There is plenty of room, no matter what definition that you use, for both. I don't think anyone has suggest that the "older usage is either meaningless or obsolete - it has simply grown.   Grab a dictionary and look up the definition.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: greg stephens
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 06:25 PM

BUt what do you mean by "popular" in that context?Are you going for "of the people", or "liked by a lot of people". Two radically different meanings of the same word.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 06:13 PM

We? you mean you, don't you?
I'm not interested in 'covering all the needs'. Popular music, not to be confused with modern day pop music, was what the so-called 'folk music' was. But argue it out with John Tams, I'm merely passing on what he said.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 06:11 PM

"Each of us are free to develop our own terms and it really doesn't matter if someone else agrees."

There is an interesting allegory in, I believe, Genesis 10 and 11.

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off building the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth.

For your amusement and contemplation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 06:09 PM

"...the music.."???

**WHICH** music? That is what we are trying to sort out.

'Pop' or 'popular' music sure doesn't cover all the needs.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 06:01 PM

Someone, I think it was the English singer, John Tams, refered to the music as popular music, which would be a good definition, if you need one. It sure as hell wasn't called folk music.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:55 PM

Go back and read Crane Driver's post WAY back up there. He said it just fine. I have had many sad experiences spending money on something and finding stuff I was not expecting...or wanting...hiding behind a slippery new usage.



Words are important....but there must be some basic agreement among users as to what the referents are. The old Alice in Wonderland exchange between Alice & Humpty Dumpty needs to be quoted more often:

" 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a
    scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean --
    neither more nor less.'

    'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make
    words mean so many different things.'

    'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to
    be master -- that's all.'"

Ron Olesko suggests that meanings gradually change...and so they do - but the older meaning meant something, and just because 'some' people (51%?? how do we count?) don't care to follow that older usage, it doesn't follow that the older one is now 'meaningless' or obsolete!

If 'folk' or 'trad' meant a narrow set of referents originally, and now some consider the words 'convienient' to mean a much broader set.....what, I ask for the 27th time, are we to call that older set when we WISH to refer to the narrower meaning?

Why should the careless and lazy folks determine that THEIR broad usage is all anyone needs?

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:34 PM

whatever you say greg stephens, whatever you say....

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Gene Burton
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:34 PM

Nowt so queer as folk.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: GUEST,Rich
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:30 PM

Leveller, what about:

not-folk
old-folk
old-folk(s)
this-folk
that-folk
shit-folk
not-your-kind-of-folk

and when you're sure they won't like it:

I'll-get-me-cloak-folk

p.s. loved your Sir Patrick Spens on the 'nice but dim' thread yesterday.

Just waiting for the responses from the people who think 'they' refers to them (it doesn't by the way).

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Gene Burton
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:23 PM

Does it matter what music SOUNDS like??

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:42 PM

Greg - that is a very good point. I'm guilty. Thanks for pointing that out and giving me, at least, something to think about. Each of us are free to develop our own terms and it really doesn't matter if someone else agrees.   Thanks Greg, I think your post was the best one yet!!

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: greg stephens
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:18 PM

If it doesn't matter what music is called, why get mad if somebody says somebody isn't folk?This seems to be the paradoxical dilemma that a lot of people sem to have got thewmselves stuck in.They swear blind that classification means nothing to them, but actually it gives them apoplectic fits. Curiouser and curiouser.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 03:31 PM

John,
In your fairly accurate description there you used several adjectives,
good, folk, 'serious', current, old-man, jazz, good again. I got a pretty 'good' idea of what you had listened to, for which you could perhaps have employed words like 'fusion', 'cross-over', I don't know, I'm not an expert, but the point I'm making here is that many many people (I nearly used the word 'folk' here) use the adjective folk in a similar way and it simply helps to give them a rough idea of what someone might have been listening to, as opposed, say, to jazz, or classical or even 'serious'.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 03:13 PM

I don't know whether it matters what music is called, as long as it's good. Vaughn Williams, Copland and others take folk themes and turn them into 'serious' music.

Last night, I went to a concert that featured Willie Nelson with the Wynton Marsalis Band. Not a pairing I would have expected (Natalie Cole was supposed to appear). Nelson sang some of his hits in his current old man style, the band did jazz riffs...and the whole thing was good. But I don't know what to call it, or even if that matters.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 02:59 PM

'1954' has never carried any weight with me, right, that's that out of the way!

JackCampin is one of those people who simply has to have everything labelled, see, he get's confused otherwise.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: glueman
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 02:57 PM

The point is does a 54 year old definition hold weight? The answer of course is yes and no - yes, it provides an accurate analysis of where traditional music was in the post-war years and no, events have undermined it, like the word 'gay'. People who use the word meaning bright and joyful are either very old or making a social point.

To be meaningful any musical definition would need a committee to monitor history (formally removing any song whose provenance was revealed) and pass judgement on current issues pertaining to the music such as amplification. 1954 offers only certainty and unequivocation where nuance and discussion might shed more light. In that sense insistence on 'folk' as only orally transmited, unattributed song makes as much sense as the campaign to re-claim gay; fun in a cranky sort of way but largely irrelevant to what's going on in the world. And completely denying any future to what made folk folk in the first place.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 02:56 PM

Don,
What you say is simple logic. They're winding you up!

Here's a bit of background history. The earliest uses of the word 'folk song' a book of self-penned material c1860 that turns up pretty regularly on Ebay. c1880-> the early collectors started to use the term following the relationship with folk-lore. The main reason 'folk song' has gathered a much wider meaning is largely because of the ordinary punters, people who follow the music around and PAY to go to folk festivals, folk clubs and buy the merchandise. Many of the performers are folk singers singing folk songs who largely perform at folk festivals and folk clubs, whether they write their own or sing the older stuff. IT DOESN'T MATTER ANY MORE.

As Sue Allen said on the previous thread the 54 lot stopped using the word 'folk' a while ago and used something else instead, so why do we need to get our knickers in a twist over it? It's now been hi-jacked by the 'folk scene'. So what!

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 02:53 PM

"He could never tell if he was going to get beans or pineapple.

I take it some of the posters here cook that way on purpose. "

Suppose you find someone who has never tasted a bean or a pineapple. How much of a difference does the words have on a label?

The point is, a word matters very little.   It is the experience with the content that determines.   We do not have blank discs in front of us. We have CD's with words and pictures and we can find out the information. If you go into a supermarket and buy something that you are not familiar with, you take your chances.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 02:48 PM

"Language has a function. And if one can take a word and make it mean anything one wishes, then that function is compromised."

I agree- to a point. Language evolves. It is not a matter of MAKING a word to mean anything that ONE wishes, but it is how PEOPLE evolve a word to take on new meanings.   

I do not agree with rigidity that prevents or stands in the way of natural changes in language, music or culture. Sort of like "not seeing the forest for the trees". Imagery and symbolism require a flexibility.

When it comes to a phrase like "folk music", it becomes obvious that there is more than one ACCEPTED definition. People can piss and moan, but that does not change reality. Arguing over what bin to put the music in loses the beauty of the music.   To say that we need a definition in order to attend a concert defies logic in my book.   Take a look at concert listings for any type of music. How much detail do we need?

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: GUEST,Jack Campin (on a cookieless computer)
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 02:35 PM

When I was kid I was impressed by John Caldwell's "Desperate Voyage". It's still in print and available here:

http://www.smallcraftadvisor.com/books.html

While trying to sail his small yacht solo across the Pacific, he was hit by a typhoon and reduced to a jury rig. The water destroyed much of his provisions, and what survived was in tins with the labels all washed off. He could never tell if he was going to get beans or pineapple.

I take it some of the posters here cook that way on purpose.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 02:28 PM

Yes, I get it, but I disagree with it. No nonsense.

Language has a function. And if one can take a word and make it mean anything one wishes, then that function is compromised. My comment about about "pointing and grunting" is very much to the point.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 01:44 PM

Don, you get the point I was making. No need for nonsense.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 01:31 PM

Well you go for it, Densewood, fill your boots, as it were.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 01:30 PM

I think you need to take another look at the definition of "definition," Ron.

It is not predetermined, it is determined by the nature of that which it defines.

Genus, the broad category, followed by differentia, the characteristic that differentiates from other members of the broad category.

[Formal definition of "definition" by Aristotle.]

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: GUEST,Densewood
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 01:23 PM

ok, for the next 7 days I'm going to call music

"Crotchless Underwear"


So lets see what difference that makes
in any conversations I have with other musicians,
friends, and strangers ?

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 01:14 PM

a new genre generally created by a major record label. May those that like their music categorised should apply for jobs with EMI, Universal, WEA, Sony etc..etc..

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 01:07 PM

People seem to have some innate need to categorize or compartmentalize things in order to more efficiently process and store information in their cranial computers for later retrieval. Apart from the appropriate classifications of the scientific arena, I have always detested "labels," whether for people, art, music or politics. Still, when most people hear a new genre of musical expression, they simply have to call it "something." I take songs one at a time; liking, disliking or being ambivalent about them as they happen to impress me. I really don't give a mouldy fig what you may call them.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 12:48 PM

"the time served folkie"
glueman I LOVE this, and Mudcat has more than few of the "I've been a folkie for x number of years so I know better than you!" sort...

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:41 AM

"Interesting credit on the song playing when you open Tom's site."

Credits are usually expressed as: Author / composer.

In Mary's version ('Oh No My Love Not I') she "extended/amended and rearranged the constituent parts (two highly amended verses from Lucy White, a verse from Peacock's Newfoundland collection and part of a verse from Mrs Overd, plus bits from the Newfoundland Sailor broadside with the sexes reversed. The rest is pure Humphreys. Cecil Sharp's tune from Lucy White, has only been ever-so-slightly fiddled with, so I have declared it as Trad."

So the author is Humphreys, the composer is Trad.

I rearranged the words and added a new last verse, and arranged a new accompaniment for solo guitar. So the arranger is Bliss.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:29 AM

"Question:   the difference between definition and content?"

Definition is a group of predetermined words to describe what is expected, content is the description of the actual item. There can be a huge difference between what is expected and what is.

I agree with Dick too - "folk" as a label should give a rough idea as to what the content might be. However, the problem is defining the term. Pigs will fly before that gets settled.