 sj |
||
|
||
In Praise of Traddies!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jack Blandiver Date: 25 Feb 10 - 07:29 AM That is exactly what folk music does not do (remain unchanged in versions) Further idle musings... Once a variant has occurred, it remains unchanged. If another variant is made, that does not, as a rule, change the variant it derives from, nor yet preclude other variants being made from the initial variant, or yet earlier variants. The learning and shaping of songs in an oral tradition across isolated communities with poor communications would lead to a greater fluidity by way of comparison, but not necessarily with any given variant or singer thereof. Thus folk songs exist in many variants, but each variant is an entity in and of itself, and each variant is the consequence of exacting craftspersonship on the part of the song maker, who is working within the idiom of his or her tradition. Getting back to my final point above, when a variant remains unchanged in & of itself then does this not preclude it from being a Folk Song according to the 1954 Definition? * I've never sang Karaoke, but from what I've heard I'd say that whatever the backing track does, it's the singers determine the essential folk character of the music. How does the 1954 Definition work when applied to musical genre rather than specific compositions? How could we, for example, apply it to the development of pop music from, say, Louis Jordan to Bat for Lashes taking in everything from The Animals, Zappa, Soft Machine, The Fall, Neu!, Henry Cow, Art Zoyd, Spherical Objects, Young Marble Giants, This Heat, Univers Zero and It Bites along the way? Could we do a similar thing with reggae & jazz? All of these things are included in the remit of the International Council for Traditional Music after all... * I mentioned Folk Songs and Crop Circles a while back. Interesting that the makers often hide away too to help propagate the myth of alien process. I love the Crop Circles Tradition, not least for the fact of what a bunch of blokes with sticks can achieve on so vast a scale in so short a time. This is Folk Mastery at work! |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 10 - 03:59 PM That is exactly what folk music does not do (remain unchanged in versions) but exactly what karaoke seeks to do (for example I will ask the operator if he has the Chuck Berry version of "Down the Road Apiece" rather than the Rolling Stones version) |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 10 - 03:53 PM 300 |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jack Blandiver Date: 24 Feb 10 - 03:53 PM Oh pullleeezzzeee! We've been through all this and I don't think you had any takers for the idea that all songs were folk then. Then I suggest you look at all the Mudcat threads and see the diversity of music spoken of here as being Folk; go into any Folk Club and hear what people of singing and playing in the name of folk. Mr Fox - classic Folk, but they only recorded one traditional song on two classic albums. Like I say, I'm not making it up - it's out there & it's happening. * For example there is a specific exclusion for composed music that is retained in its original form - which is precisely what karaoke seeks to achieve. Likewise classical music retains the "dots" and merely alters the performance, not even the key, and any changes of language are limited to translation. Musing idly... Here I resort to the organic principles of the Tao, or maybe it's some of that Folk Character that the 1954 speaks of. There will always be intention, there will always result, perhaps Folk Character is measured by the shortfall between the two. Whatever Karoake & Classical music might seek to achieve, fact is there will always be change & variance in the sonic experience of what remains an empirical event. One wonders to what extent Traditional Singers & Song Makers changed their performances; Jim has spoke of improvised ballad renderings, but is that likely? Ultimately no two performances of anything are identical - this accounts for the innumerable recordings of classical favs on the market: Purcell's Dido & Aneas (of which I have 4 audio & 2 on DVD), Vivaldi's Gloria (RV 589) (of which I have 5), Orff's Carmina Burana (of which I have none) - all of which are very differet corporeal realisations of what is essentially a concept for performance. And what of 4'33" which Cage envisaged as a demonstration of performance variance & listening, rather than the fatuous silence people generally take it for? The dots may not change (although performance editions do change), but like Karaoke, each performer will bring to the thing their own character & interpretation and other random elements which will defy exact reproduction but will be a unique & an integral part of any performance of any piece of music. I don't think is is any different from what we have in (so-called) Folk Music. The crux is in the mechanism of variation that is known as The Folk Process. Like Global Warming and Crop Circles - the evidence is right there, but the jury will be out regarding the cause. Here's a thing - if one thinks of Folk Song as being made (and therefore composed) and each variant remaining unchanged in & of itself with respect to its composer, does that not exclude Folk Song from being Folk according to the 1954 Definition? |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Folkiedave Date: 24 Feb 10 - 01:30 PM Not getting into a fight about this. There are no reliable statistics and would be extremely hard to do it anyway with the problem of definitions. And being in Sheffield we get a lot of people who play in the local pubs when they want to have a jam or a practice. Hard to define. I think also the definition wpuld be edgy since many professional performers aren't in the sense that they make money in other fields too. That wasn't the way when folk clubs started. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: glueman Date: 24 Feb 10 - 01:14 PM More professional musicians are choosing concerts and festivals than clubs but there are more playing and recording opportunities for 'career folk music performers' at present. There is a difference between CFMPs and club members singing old songs. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Folkiedave Date: 24 Feb 10 - 12:11 PM The problem is that most folk music takes place in folk clubs. Sure about that? I would guess that around Sheffield it would be sessions and concerts, then folk clubs. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: glueman Date: 24 Feb 10 - 11:44 AM The problem is that most folk music takes place in folk clubs. Now I don't have anything against folk clubs, though I admit to having attended a few crap ones long ago, but their remit is not by and large to explore the limits of what folk might legitimately be, nor to chart the transformation of popular songs but to give the regular punters what they expect to hear with some liquid refreshment. Over time this has compounded a historical resistance to the new and modern, which was one of the reasons clubs began originally, into a kind of reactionary musical stance - enthusiasts for a music defined by change resisting the very change that defined it. That's one of the reasons you're as likely to hear folk song at a football ground as a folk club. It's also why as much as I love English traditional song, I've have low traddie tolerance. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 10 - 11:30 AM Good heavens! I mostly agree with Glueman, except that I don't think that all traddies by any means have that expectation of a means of delivery. Consider for example Brian Peters who uses some very electric guitar deliveries on some recording, or Jon Loomes whose stuff is all arranged, or "The Imagined Village", or even my humble self playing mostly what I sometimes with a bit of a tongue in cheek call "Folk 'n' Roll". |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 24 Feb 10 - 11:24 AM I think Glueman's got it about right there. Traditionalists need to be able to examine their expectations. For my own part, I have two very different personal responses to traditional song. One is to just sing it straight up as I currently do, no folkie styling extras. I enjoy doing that, it's very simple and immediate, and honest. And I enjoy hearing others do the same too. The other would be to really explore it with all the musical and technical options we have at our disposal today. That's an approach I will definitely be pursuing in the near future. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 24 Feb 10 - 11:06 AM "One would be "Folk is anything down with an acoustic guitar with limited amplification by drippy hippies and stuff like that" (and one's mind boggles)." To most peeps, I think that *is* what "folk" means - and that's precisely why traditional song has been effectively lost beneath the term. It's certainly what 'folk' has always meant to me (I wasn't around during the 60's when the revival was buzzing and hip). I'm not a muso, but I've always been interested in and open to different types of music too - which is just as well, because without exploring Sean Nos and stumbling into E. Trads somehow en route, I'd have never known that this vast body of traditional material existed beneath the genre of pretty boys and girls playing acoustic guitar and singing sad pretty songs about other pretty boys and girls that I'd been ignoring all my life. Arguably, the revival spawned a monster child - a very pretty and pleasant one, but it's smothering it's mother. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: glueman Date: 24 Feb 10 - 10:53 AM I'd suggest what traditionalists really mean is the definition plus the 'sound', the sound being a mix of instrumentation, delivery and subject matter but largely of context. If the 54 definition alone were the measure of folkness it would allow other music in because it was clear it met the criterion, as it is 54 is not used as a pathway but a keep out sign. That's unfortunate because it means people go round the definition which lets in all kinds of wet, folk-lite, drippy acoustic music rather than genuine recent versions of folk, which may sound nothing like what traddies or the man in the street recognise as folk. It's not the definition that needs to change, it's traditionalist's expectation. It isn't The Definition or anything goes, people need to keep to the letter of 1954 then it'll be clear what is or isn't folk music. What they choose to call folk club music is of course up to consenting adults. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 10 - 10:10 AM Sweeney, that is entirely at odds with the definition. For example there is a specific exclusion for composed music that is retained in its original form - which is precisely what karaoke seeks to achieve. Likewise classical music retains the "dots" and merely alters the performance, not even the key, and any changes of language are limited to translation. As Jim says, there are three choices. One would be "There is no such thing as folk" (and concomitantly there would be no meaning to other terms that sought to describe a limited set of music). One would be "Folk is anything down with an acoustic guitar with limited amplification by drippy hippies and stuff like that" (and one's mind boggles). The last would be something like the 1954 definition. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Feb 10 - 09:42 AM Oh pullleeezzzeee! We've been through all this and I don't think you had any takers for the idea that all songs were folk then. "Hardly contempt," Do you really want be to dig out all your sneery remarks about collectors and researchers dreaming it all up - happy to oblige. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jack Blandiver Date: 24 Feb 10 - 06:41 AM So - no new definition yet - I await with bated breath, but have been doing so for a long time! gasssssspppppppppppp Point is there is nothing in the 1954 Definition that can't be said of all musics. Does that mean all music is Folk Music? Of course not, but, pragmatically, all music can be Folk Music if we think of music being defined by its context. This is well in keeping even with the most orthodox reading of the 1954 Definition which deals with context & derivation rather than genre. Folk as a genre is something else altogether - traditional musics & traditional idioms continue to be developed without the need of definitions as the music pretty much defines itself. Shouldn't concern you one way or the other as you rejected their first efforts anyway, and treated their work with the contempt you appear to treat all such, so why should the next one bother you? Hardly contempt, old man - as this stuff concerns me, so I must engage with it in the hope that others do too. But just as the study and definition of Folklore has moved on a lot since 1954, one would hope the same might be said of Folk Music, which would appear to be the case if the ICTM (who changed their name 30 years ago) is anything to go by. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 10 - 06:31 AM Entirely plausible. I wondered where I had got it from! In any event, others might like it now. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jack Blandiver Date: 24 Feb 10 - 04:22 AM PS - HERE. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jack Blandiver Date: 24 Feb 10 - 04:05 AM Cheers Richard! Took 15 seconds to download & now I listen to it I see it's the same session I posted here a couple of years back. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 10 - 03:52 AM Here (allegedly) is the link which will (allegedly) remain available for 7 days or 100 downloads: - https://www.yousendit.com/download/RmNDcmxUVEhmVFpFQlE9PQ |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 10 - 03:43 AM Last night at the Bull in Snodland (Kent, England) was almost 100% contemporary or American except me so I dug my heels in and did all folk songs (albeit "folk'n'roll" except for the first one) Cupid's Garden Blackleg Miner Gentlemen of High Renown Sir Patrick Spens (considerably shortened) The Grey Cock (done uptempo with the "I'm a Rover" chorus) |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 10 - 03:37 AM File allegedly on its way - the network light is blinking steadily! Once that has happened I will see if I can figure out how to post the link for others who want to hear it. For purposes of research and private study of course! |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Feb 10 - 08:36 PM So - no new definition yet - I await with bated breath, but have been doing so for a long time! gasssssspppppppppppp Shouldn't concern you one way or the other as you rejected their first efforts anyway, and treated their work with the contempt you appear to treat all such, so why should the next one bother you? Incidentally, I owe you an apology. I was mistaken when I said that you 'didn't do' research; it was your 'alter ego' Glueman who said he "wouldn't allow research near the music he loved" - sorry. I still wait to see the basis for your (to date) arbitrary declarations, but I can only hold my breath for one thing at a time. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jack Blandiver Date: 23 Feb 10 - 03:20 PM Was aware that IFMC had re-named - didn't know they'd re-defined - enlighten please? I keep meaning to join the ICTM to see what's what, but I'm spurred on by their aims which are to further the study, practice, documentation, preservation and dissemination of traditional music, including folk, popular, classical and urban music, and dance of all countries. So folk is still in there - but popular, classical and urban are coming under the heading of traditional which is pretty much what I'm on about anyway. These days the ICTM is very much about ethnomusicology which covers pretty much everything (I had a friend who did her post grad ethnomusicology thesis on Barber Shop Singing in Hartlepool). So we're back to music in context, however so derived or otherwise defined. With that in mind, it's interesting to look through the contents of the IFMC / ICTM yearbooks & journals which you might access here: http://www.ictmusic.org/ICTM/ictm/journal_index.html |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Feb 10 - 02:16 PM Yousendit Account Active, but I still appear to need a contact email. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Feb 10 - 01:16 PM Sweeney, Yousendit is not sending me my verification email but I may have found a different way of doing it via Cutesendit, so PM me your email address which I will need for that. I have found the MP3 but it is about 100Mb. It is an M4A on my phone and that might be smaller if I can get it off the phone. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Feb 10 - 12:27 PM PS The rest of the world dowesn't give a toss - unless you can show where they do Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Feb 10 - 12:26 PM "Only for the 1954 Orthodoxy, old man - the rest of the world, including the IFMC that came up with it, appears to have moved on." Was aware that IFMC had re-named - didn't know they'd re-defined - enlighten please? The rest is 'convenience defining' to fit square pegs into round holes. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jack Blandiver Date: 23 Feb 10 - 12:18 PM Are you ever going to get to Swinton BTW? Problem with mid-week clubs is our early starts the following morning, but hopefully we'll be getting over for one of your March singers nights. Any club with a penguin on its website has got to be worth a visit! a heart-felt reaction to "Blues, Shanties, Kipling, Cicely Fox Smith, Musical Hall, George Formby, Pop, County, Dylan, Cohen, Cash, Medieval Latin, Beatles, Irish Jigs and Reels, Scottish Strathspeys, Gospel, Rock, Classical Guitar, Native American Chants, Operatic Arias and even the occasional Traditional Song and Ballad" definition of 'folk' Hey, don't shoot the messenger, old man! Just reporting on the empirical facts of folk as I regularly experience it in many of the folk clubs I go to where the defining factor is one of celebratory humanity irrespective of genre, though there is invariably more than a hint of what the 1954 Definition calls Folk Character. I'm torn here because I'm a Traddy who sings Trad and likes hearing Trad, but I'm also in favour of the inclusive ideal of the come-all-ye & believe that people should be able to sing whatever they like - which is just as well really, because that's pretty much what they do. None of this makes the slightest difference to the fact that there is an existing and workable definition of the term 'folk' and [...] this will remain the case for some time to come. Only for the 1954 Orthodoxy, old man - the rest of the world, including the IFMC that came up with it, appears to have moved on. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Feb 10 - 11:10 AM "Coming from you, old man, that represents a degree of fawning hypocrisy" Nope -it was a heart-felt reaction to "Blues, Shanties, Kipling, Cicely Fox Smith, Musical Hall, George Formby, Pop, County, Dylan, Cohen, Cash, Medieval Latin, Beatles, Irish Jigs and Reels, Scottish Strathspeys, Gospel, Rock, Classical Guitar, Native American Chants, Operatic Arias and even the occasional Traditional Song and Ballad" definition of 'folk' and your crass suggestion that we should abandon definitions altogether, presumably to accommodate your.... well, whatever you call what you do! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Feb 10 - 11:06 AM I wonder how Hannibal would get on with Mad Lizzie? After all she dresses like a lady and does not get drunk so she should be safe, shouldn't she? |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Dave the Gnome Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:47 AM Bloody Hell, Suibhne! I would have put you as at least as old as me - Not nearly 10 years younger:-P Are you ever going to get to Swinton BTW? We had another catter there last night - I like to collect them. Not in a Hanibal Lechter sort of way you understand... DeG |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jack Blandiver Date: 23 Feb 10 - 10:08 AM You had to be on one side or another by 1967/68! Hell, I would have been six at the time! Too young to be taking sides but my mother bought all The Beatles singles & I had my first pop/folk epiphany round that time when I flipped over All You Need is Love & thrilled to the eastern modal piping keyboards of Baby You're a Rich Man - so, pretty seminal I'd say. I was listening last night to an MP3 of an old radio 2 interview of Peter Bellamy You couldn't post that up at YouSendIt could you, Richard? you can't imagine how inspiring it is to us veterans to have a new kid on the block to bounce ideas off. Coming from you, old man, that represents a degree of fawning hypocrisy that has me, let's let this right now, ROTFLMAO. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Feb 10 - 09:49 AM I was listening last night to an MP3 of an old radio 2 interview of Peter Bellamy (and getting steadily less overwhelmed, sadly) and he proceeded to murder some other Stones song with a badly strummed (I hate that word and use it deliberately in this context) acoustic guitar after a bitter sounding comment about Carthy over-clever guitar-work. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Dave the Gnome Date: 23 Feb 10 - 09:33 AM My first sight of Peter Bellamy was wearing that same T-shirt! Along with a flat cap and holding his concertina under one arm while singing an unaccompanied number. It's what made me decide to play concertina. Far easier to hold and not do anything with than a guitar:-) I was never a big fan of the 'Stones either but I put that down to my (musicaly) formative years being under the influence of The Beatles - You had to be on one side or another by 1967/68! DeG |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jack Blandiver Date: 23 Feb 10 - 09:09 AM You Can't always get what you want (Stones) A favourite encore of Peter Bellamy's - I saw him do it at The Bay Hotel in Cullercoats at some point in the mid-eighties; as I recall he was wearing a Brian Jones t-shirt that night too. Whilst I'm first and foremost a fan of Popular Music, and whilst I share PB's passion for Kipling, Harry Cox and Appalachian Hollerin', I can't say I've ever been impressed by The Rolling Stones at all. Odd that. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Feb 10 - 09:04 AM CS, keen to re-enter the fray but a little busy. Quickly; I can't speak for Richard, but I'm a little uncomfortable at being entered in the rolls as a "strict traditionalist". As a researcher who occasionally writes and gives talks on the subject, I adhere to the existing definition - I am not aware of a workable alternative and consitent requests have failed to produce one. As somebody who has been involved in the club scene from my early twenties, while I have always known and welcomed the fact that the songs I hear at clubs are not going to be strictly 'folk', I do expect that what I am given is going to bear some relation to my understanding of the term. My reservations stem from the fact that has become less and less the case. Looking through my old repertoire book I find that out of 300 odd songs, at least 4 dozen of them are non-traditional; some of these (MacColl's re-write of 'Farewell To Ireland', 'Rambler From Clare', Pete Smith's 'Clayton Aniline'..) are still the ones I would not hesitate to sing at a local session now that I am no longer performing regularly. I was associated for over 20 years with the arch traddie Ewan MacColl, (whose work first gave rise to the epithet 'finger-in-ear) who, along with Peggy Seeger, contributed more newly composed songs than any other two individuals in the revival. He believed that without new songs the revival would be little more than a museum - I go along with that totally. None of this makes the slightest difference to the fact that there is an existing and workable definition of the term 'folk' and no matter how often people drag out the overworked 'singing horse' to give it yet another flogging, this will remain the case for some time to come. "And as such, shall now respectfully withdraw!" Please don't stray too far - you can't imagine how inspiring it is to us veterans to have a new kid on the block to bounce ideas off. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: melodeonboy Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:43 AM Gillingham fans used to sing a rather crude version of "Distant Drums" (which was slightly amusing to those like me with puerile tendencies!). I don't think they were the only ones who sang it. And I can stil remember the lyrics, funnily enough. It must be the folk process at work! :) |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: The Sandman Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:39 AM The important thing [imo]is to enjoy playing and singing. Creativity is important as well,I prefer to spend long winter evenings making music rather than going around in circles on such subjects as folk music or folk club music or traddies or singer song writers. I will leave you to your fun. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:36 AM I'd like to point out that although I am a firm believer in the meaning of the word "folk", and that folk music and song is an important part of our cultural heritage - a part of what we are and why we are that - I also do (as well as modifying and arranging traditional songs - for example TFFOSM as Mad Lizzie linked to) sing and play in acoustic song sessions quite a range of contemporary originally electric songs, for example: - Play with Fire (Stones) Substitute (Who) Shooting Star (Bad Company - or is it Free?) the Folk Singer (Tommy Roe) Come Away Melinda (mostly from the Uriah Heep version) Walk me out in the Morning Dew (mostly from the Nazareth version) You Can't always get what you want (Stones) You Better Move on (Stones) Signed DC (Love) Who am I (Country Joe and the Fish) I washed my hands in Muddy Water and a number of contemporary acoustic things for example Ride On Love has no pride Fall River Hoedown Step it out Mary (under pressure) A couple of Richard Matthewman songs The Importunate Child Watercress-O With God on our side I shall be released There but for Fortune What have they done to the Rain? The Cat came Back A living wage Hilda's Cabinet Band And have originated a couple too The Common Road The Mulberry Bush and some political parodies. Sometimes this makes me wonder why I am so firmly and universally termed a traddie. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: MGM·Lion Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:25 AM Oh, dear, Glueman ~ I wonder if you were wise to introduce the concept of a distinction between "folk music" & "folk club music". I can feel all sorts of potential proliferations breathing down my neck... |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: melodeonboy Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:25 AM "It's more about expertise in reviving old songs than accessing recent ones, no matter how 'folk' they may be." Hmmmm... What do you call "recent"? |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: glueman Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:09 AM Football songs continually change the words and sometimes the tunes of popular songs, 'Annie's Song', 'We Are Sailing' and 'Guantanamera' three of many. The only reason they're not accepted as folk songs is because of the context. The spontaneous or rapidly proliferating dispersal of a song is not the subject of folk club music. It's more about expertise in reviving old songs than accessing recent ones, no matter how 'folk' they may be. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: GUEST,Ralphie Date: 23 Feb 10 - 07:03 AM Where's Lizzie when you need her to interject a modicum of common sense into a debate?
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:20 AM PS - I aught to add that it's just an opinion, I don't think I'm 'right', it's just the way I look at these songs - as cultural artifacts from a prior period in our history. If others see an ongoing unbroken tradition of folk song - there is room for that approach IMO. And it's not for me to tell them they're wrong either. It doesn't have to be 'either / or'. Depending on what particular markers we choose to use to define our understanding of terms such as 'culture', 'community', 'tradition', 'folk', there is obviously room for any amount of individual ways to think about this stuff. But for the sake of clear and squabble-free communication, it'd probably be helpful if we set out our premises first! |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: MGM·Lion Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:18 AM ... even if you had cross-posted to withdraw from the discussion...! |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: MGM·Lion Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:16 AM The Industrial Revolution didn't end it, CS; as books & albums & songs like Shuttle & Cage, The Iron Muse, Come All You Bold Miners, Wark O' The Weavers have shown — even if A L Lloyd is suspected of having interfered to some extent in the process. I am not thinking of things like Beatles & Abba which get sung because we all know them & could conceivably become multiversional with the passage of time (tho I must say I can't see much evidence of such a process going on); but more of such a thing as a song that might come out of a few overnight pickets in a strike improvising some words that might catch on. Though one must nevertheless also allow for the purposes to which popsongs &c can be put. I once said to A L Loyd that Liverpool FC supporters had turned 'You'll Never Walk Alone', a song from a Rodgers & Hammerstein Broadway musical, 'Carousel', & so of immediately identifiable provenance, into a folksong by the purpose to which they had put it. He thought for a moment & said, "Well, folk in function but not in form." I replied, "But in folksong, does not the function define the form, at least to some extent?" He paused again and then said, "To some extent, perhaps." And that was as far as the conversation went. But I am sure you will follow the points I make. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 23 Feb 10 - 06:03 AM Actually, I've just realised I'm getting into one of 'those' discussions.. *feels a bit worried* And as such, shall now respectfully withdraw! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:57 AM "I am not sure, mind you, CS, that no traditional songs will ever more be writ [in the sense you have just used this phrase]." The folk revival has become a form of tradition in and of itself (though tiny by comparison), so the term of course may be applied in various ways - but the culture that forged those particular old songs is simply gone. The industrial revolution ended it and we are left with a specific body of cultural artifacts which give us a glimpse into the imaginal worlds and experiences of them as wot went before. But still, I've absolutely no idea what it must have been like to live then, to think then, to partake in that world. However much I might like to imagine it, or engage with those songs that were preserved - it's another country to me, and ever will be. As for 'traditional songs' in today's world, then I'd probably put my money on stuff like Abba and the Beatles: we all know the words, everyone can sing them. They'll probably go down in history in some fashion and people in a couple of hundred years time will look back at the hey-day of pop and maybe even have societies for the preservation of traditional pop music? |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: glueman Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:47 AM Don's 'guardians' conjours up two gnomes either side of a clipped yew arch. |
|
Subject: RE: In Praise of Traddies! From: MGM·Lion Date: 23 Feb 10 - 05:24 AM I am not sure, mind you, CS, that no traditional songs will ever more be writ [in the sense you have just used this phrase]. Traditional artefacts still certainly appear by oral tradition ~ urban myths; jokes: & some songs also, in fact ~ football chants, children's songs... All surely part of the anonymous oral tradition however you define it. To what extent, if any, serious, adult more extensive songs are appearing or will ever again appear is perhaps less clear: but I don't think the possibility can be entirely written off. |
| Share Thread: |