Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From:
Jack Blandiver
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 06:54 AM
Don't you just know that your opponent is running out of ammunition when he or she reverts to 'folk police' and 'finger-in-ear' and 'purist'?
I am not an opponent. All I am trying to so here is to understand the nature of Folk Music with respect to what actually happens at festivals, in folk clubs, in forums etc. and how that relates to the 1954 Definition - the nebulousness of which remains simply because of the idealistic remove between those who came up with it and the music they were attempting to define. It might be said, therefore, that Folk Music requires an academic definition before it exists at all, which, according to the 1954 faithful, it doesn't. So the 1954 Definition accounts for an extinct phenomena - at least extinct according to a particular interpretation of the criteria. So the 1954 Definition effectively kills the very music it is attempting to define simply because it doesn't allow for its continuance. And yet, the evidence would suggest that Folk Music is alive and well...
Otherwise:
Other musical forms depend on oral tradition for their transmission, not for their evolution.
Transmission is evolution; it is in the very act of transmission that a music evolves. There can be no transmission without evolution. Oral Transmission is the fundamental way music is transmitted, received and evolved.
Links with the past or variation are in no way deciding factor with most forms of music. Originality, not continuity is often the aim of composers – and of the music industry.
Originality is founded on a reference to the past and a particular interpretation and understanding of that past. A pop song might be completely original in one sense, but it can only be said to be a pop song because of its traditional references and structures. This is true of all musical genres & conventions.
The pop industry depends on change for its existence and embraces and even manipulates those changes to sell its products.
A casual look at Myspace or YouTube will reveal countless extremely talented individuals and groups who are creating innovative pop music without selling anything. The pop industry does not manipulate change; change occurs as one generation of the musical community takes over from the other (which in terms of popular music can be a matter of months). Hip-Hop, Drum and Bass, etc. are forged in the white heat of communal musical experience and remain in a constant state of evolution.
A reggae number or an operatic aria will remain such whether a community takes it to it's heart or it is a bigger flop than Heaven's Gate – the community has no say whatever in what form the composition takes, that is entirely the decision of the composer and the performer.
A reggae number might be completely reconstructed by way of dub or else completely transformed by vigourously sampling thereafter. No two interpretations of an operatic aria are ever alike. Change is implicit in the experience and interpretation of the music; just as a record of Traditional Irish Music from 2009 will sound very different from one made 40 years earlier; so will a record of any given operatic aria.
On the other hand, acceptance of and adaptation by the community is a definitive factor of a folk song – if the folk reject it, it doesn't become a folk song – simple as that.
Who are The Folk Folk though? What makes them any different from the Pop Folk, or the Opera Folk, or the Country Folk? And surely such rejections occur all the time, whatever the Folk?
Folk is a process, not a style or form of composition.
I agree; but it is a process common to all musics.
No matter how a song begins, be it written or orally composed (have several examples of the latter, particularly from the non-literate Travelling community – happy to expound another time) whether it becomes a folk song depends on it being taken up orally.
Like a pop song being sung by our postman...
If it isn't and it remains unchanged, as the man/lady said, 'it ain't a folk song.'.
Change occurs all the time - it's an observable phenomenon of all music. And our postman might change a song beyond recognition...
Proof of this lies in the fact that, despite the strenuous efforts of many of SS's despised academics, the vast majority of folk songs continue to bear the 'Anon' stamp.
Sailor Ron's example of the Manchester Rambler is interesting in this respect; the variation came from someone who'd never heard the original, not yet of Ewan McColl. The song was only Anon as far as he was concerned.
It is somewhat ironic that, up to relatively recently the totally non-literate Travelling communities were the last to cling on to their folk traditions. If you wanted to hear a 20 verse versions of Lamkin or The Maid and The Palmer or Tiftie's Annie or Young Hunting or The Battle of Harlaw……. you were far more likely to find them on your local gypsy site than anywhere else (apart from the rarefied atmosphere of the folk club).
Fascinating stuff; but what does this tell us about the nature of those living traditions or else their value to the people who were so quick to forget them? What is more important here, the traditions or the people?
Even among the literate communities, reading played only a small part in the continuance of the folk songs and ballads (again, stacks of field information on this which I am happy….. etc).
Ballad scholar David Buchan suggested that not only did print play little part in the transmission of the ballads, but it was possible that there were no set texts. He proposed that the ballad singers took the plot of the ballad and, with the aid of a repertoire of 'commonplaces and conventions, (milk-white steed, lily-white hand etc,) he/she re-composed the piece at each singing. While Buchan didn't make his case fully (IMO) it may account for the fact that many singers have told us that they were able to 'learn' a long ballad or narrative song at only two or three hearings.
Such mastery is beyond dispute - but that could just as well be a description of a master Rapper free-styling or of Jazz Improvisation or the sort of roll a storyteller might find themselves on. Each is working within traditional frameworks and shaping the rest in real-time. DJs do this too; as do heavy-metal guitarists and classical continuo players.
This was particularly true of blind Travelling woman, Mary Delaney, who had a large repertoire of such pieces. It was our practice to record her's, and others' 'big 'songs up to half-a-dozen times. We noticed that textually, she NEVER sang a song the same way twice.
Jim - seriously, I'm drooling here; what I wouldn't give to have heard this woman!
Once a composer of a reggae number, a pop song, an operatic aria writes down or records his/her composition, it becomes fixed; a reference point to return to for a 'definitive version'. Any changes that take place after that are optional, not obligatory.
This isn't true; change is implicit in the nature of the beast. Even the original record is the product of an evolved and evolving musical process. The record can only be a document of a particular moment in time, after which the song goes on evolving - witness live versions of recorded songs, or other studio sessions, cover versions etc. There can be no such thing as a definitive version of anything. It's like Chopin piano music - all the notes are there, but each player will play it differently, and those nuances of interpretation will become part of a tradition of interpretation thereafter, if successful to The Community.
On the other hand, a folk song, because of its manner of composition (whatever that was) and its method of transmission, is subject to constant change – hence the 200 plus distinct versions of Barbara Allen, which was described by Pepys in the mid-seventeenth century as 'an old Scotch song'. Change and adaptation is a definitive factor in a folk song, not just a choice on the part of the performer.
I agree, but I don't see that as being any different from 200 plus distinct interpretations of any other song. All music is part of the same evolutionary process, and whilst we Traddies will delight in such evident diversity, it remains a somewhat rarefied delight; a specialism whereby any singer of Traditional Song must be, in part, an academic to appreciate such things in the first place. I'm a bit bi-polar in this respect; just as half on my wants the 1954 Definition to be true, the other half wants to question the very nature of that truth. If you read my blog The Liege, The Lief and The Traditional Folk Song you'll see what I mean.
As it stands at present, folk song proper lies in the public domain – it is the property of us all.
On the other hand a singer-songwriter piece comes into the world fully fledged with the owner's name stamped on its bum, (as well as a copyright label).
In practise, however, it would appear that one may sing anything one wants, even without bothering to mention the author even when one is known. Maybe this is how the traditional songs became Anon in the first place? Or is this another part of the Folk Process whereby, over time, the song becomes more important than the singer / composer?
|
sj
