Is traditional song finished?

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 08:43 AM

"even JC digs Dylan,"
Unless you're taklking about yer man - where on earth did you get this one - can you not get anythingh right?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 08:24 AM

they will still be trying to decide what is folk music.

I think that was decided when the first folk played their first music. The present problem seems to be how to reconcile the inner ironies of a Folk Revival with a) the songs it claims to be reviving and b) the overall context of traditional music as a whole. The ICTM have given us an indication of the way forward in their inclusive remit (which even Jim hasn't said anything about) whilst the rest is just a matter of the Folky Faithful singing about how good the old one was, which is fair enough.

Somewhere above (or below, depending how you're viewing this thread) someone said how Round Hole Folk is essentially an American import, which is obviously the case. One wonders what proportion of the 2nd Generation Revival over the last 50 years has been about E. Trads; even JC digs Dylan, which I never have, although I adored his Theme Time Radio Hour show. So maybe it's Dylan who's the key to Round Hole Folk and the anything-goes-as-long-as-it's-played-on-an-acoustic-(round hole?)-guitar approach that is pretty much the norm in the English clubs these days?

I must admit, this was never an issue in the North-East where guitar-free singarounds are pretty much the norm. At our regular old club in Durham it was all unaccompanied traditional singing, with but few exceptions & if instrument there was it generally me with a Black Sea fiddle or a Hungarian zither. Here in the North West however you can't get moved for the guitar cases piling up round the door. I am not anti-guitar, not on the whole anyway, but I don't think it's in any way appropriate to accompany E. Trads with the chordal modulations that are only the musical orthodoxy of an American inspired revival. Such things are anathema to the vibrant core of Traditional Song, and ultimately, I fear, a debasement of its essence. But that's Round Hole Folk for you, which isn't Trad.

I know I might be sounding like WAV here, but this is one of the things I've been dealing with as a Square Peg Folkie all my life. Guitar wielding Round Hole Folkies have questioned (seriously) my use of Indian Harmoniums, Black Sea Fiddles, Welsh Crwths, North African Frame Drums, Vietnamese Jew's Harps, Hungarian Citeras and Electronic Shruti Boxes to accompany venerable E. Trads as being somehow non-traditional - and it's not the one time that my Square Peg Traddie approach has been called eccentric. Recently a Round Hole at a folk club with a PA system said my use of an electronic shruti box would be bound to offend purists. I could go on; in the end I give up, pretty much.

The Round Hole Orthodoxy has not only established itself within a generation, but justified its attitudes in terms of that orthodoxy which is, after all, just a back-water of popular music defined by the grave limits of its musical vision and imagination. Thus Folk Music might be just as well defined as easy listening MOR pop music strummed out on acoustic guitars by an ever ageing baby-boomer demographic who've been singing the same-old same-old since the fifties & sixties. Here in the senile dotage of The Revival, this is more evident than ever.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: MikeL2
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 07:06 AM

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 05:37 PM

<" So: is traditional song finished? No. Betcha. ">

Jim you will never live long enough to collect your bet.....they will still be trying to decide what is folk music.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 06:27 AM

And whilst we're on with definitions:

reactionary -
adj.
Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.
n. pl. reactionaries -
An opponent of progress or liberalism; an extreme conservative.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 06:26 AM

Afterthought:
"the likes of Ewan MacColl trying to write traditional-sounding songs"
MacColl did not encourage others to do so - not in my hearing anyway. He suggested using the 'forms' of folk song to compose new ones, the use of speech patterns, their narrative nature, the way they lent themselves to vernacular speech and accent... and all the other things that make folk song unique; use of style was optional,
Doesn't mean to say he didn't use style - his 'Fields of Viet-Nam' was based on Robert Cinnamond's terraced style of singing 'Napopleon Bonepart' - extremely effective IMO. Similarly, his 'Joy of Living' based on a Sicilian folk song - one of his best.
"An unwillingness to debate the folk revival honestly and openly is one of the reasons it'll die out"
I totally agree with Glueman - where's me pills.....?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 06:15 AM

You say potatoes, I say potatoes
You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes
Let's call the whole thing off.

Should be a folk song!

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: glueman
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 05:45 AM

An unwillingness to debate the folk revival honestly and openly is one of the reasons it'll die out with the baby boomers. Smoke and mirrors don't cross generations.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 05:41 AM

Harry Cox and Heavy Metal - you couldn't make it up!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 26 Feb 10 - 05:13 AM

I'll take it from your evasively obscure answer that I didn't get it wrong - so you have your response.

In answer to "Does it need to be sung in some "traditional" manner...." you say No - style or setting has nothing to do with it's 'folkness'. We'll take the Folk Process as read when it comes to Heavy Metal covers of traditional songs, otherwise Heavy Metal is a traditional music. I love going into the Liverpool & Manchester music shops of weekend and listening to kids thrashing out power-chords with great gusto and no little skill, acquiring their chops as part of a venerable idiom that has endured down the ages - certainly from before their time anyway. Don't get too hung up on the songs - the idiom is the key to traditional process; the conventions by which such things are composed and absorbed into the community which in no way contradicts the tenets of the 1954 Definition which, as I've said elsewhere, still has a lot to tell us about the nature of music as a whole.

Fitting your particularly square peg into a round hole - no symbolism intended!

My interest in folk is founded purely on a lifelong love of traditional English-speaking folk song, but even in the most traditional of folk clubs we do not experience the glories of traditional song, rather a distant echo of them - we engage in a seance, becoming mediums to a potency that might still invigorate. In this sense you are right - I am a square-peg lover of Traditional Song who has been vainly trying to fit in with round-hole general Folkery. I do not decry it (as you do) even though I've tried & failed in my appreciation of it. It's fun on a good night with lots of beer & fags, but no one can smoke any more & I'm not allowed more than a pint or two - and, sadly, I can't take Round Hole Folk entirely sober. Otherwise, life really is too short.   

Not if they try to pass off your rag-bag as folk, they don't.

This is the nature of Round Hole Folk though, old man; it begins with the likes of Ewan MacColl trying to write traditional-sounding songs & encouraging others to do likewise. To round-hole folkies this is all very well - it thrives & people have a lot of fun doing it. In this sense Folk Music is simply amateur music, variously skilled, open to all to do pretty much what they want. It is what a few people do after a long working day, to gather with a few pints and sing a few songs, acoustically, informally, by way of catharsis and recreation.

Square-Peg O'Piobaireachd

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 07:50 PM

"Why do you always concentrate on the bad experiences but ignore the good? "
Because these are the ones that do the damage, and appear to be in the majority - certainly they are the ones argued for on this forum when it comes to applying standards and adopting a policy. I used it to illustrate the damage that can be caused in driving potential supporters away, nothing more.
The others we visited - poor to middling, as have been the ones we have visited since.
"language is what people speak not what a committee, however erudite,"
Don't quite understand this. If you are refering to a definition - it is immaterial who arrives at it; if it is generally accepted and works in practice, as it has done in our experience, it is good enough until a better one is arrived at.
I don't believe the clubs are in terminal decline, otherwise I wouldn't waste time discussing them - I believe them to be in a poor state - yes, from personal experience right up to 1998, when we left the UK while we were still attending them regularly. Nothing you have offered has come near to persuading me otherwise, nor has very much on this forum, from the horses mouths.
Please don't start sounding like our mutual friend.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 06:52 PM

Nice one, Richard Mellish! A beacon shining out above the petty bickering!

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 06:13 PM

Jim Carroll

what's a poor girl expected to do in those circumstances?

Well, she could stop believing that the wise words of Sweeny are in any way a representation of what is really happening in UK folk clubs. After all, the image he presents of the club he no longer goes to is contested by another regular. She could stop taking that as proof that that all UK folk clubs are in terminal decline.

I know from personal experience that the number and quality of the clubs have declined radically over the last twenty-odd years

No, JIm, you don't. You know from personal experience that folk clubs declined in the eighties. On your own admission, you have little direct experience of what is happening now.

I do believe there are remedies to improve things, if not to put them back to where they were - it's happened here in Ireland.

Please! Tell us more. In the UK we are up against a government that seems to be determined to stamp out all forms of small scale community music.

I said earlier that I believe clubs that call themselves 'folk' take on a responsibility for the music they claim to present.

As I have said before, language is what people speak not what a committee, however erudite, decides. I rather suspect that the "Anyone who sings with an acoustic guitar" definition of "folk" originated in America.

Just before we left London we 'pigged out' on folk clubs, visiting as many of them as we could because we realised we wouldn't get the opportunity here.
We were in a West London club one night were the performances were diabolical and the songs were - indifferent

So what were the others like? Why do you always concentrate on the bad experiences but ignore the good?

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 05:51 PM

The last thing that's likely to become a traditional song in Britain, Ireland and the USA is something concocted in a fake "traditional" style, to be sung by folkies at folkies - a minuscule minority.

It might not seem very likely on the face of it, but "Flower of Scotland" fits exactly that description.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 05:37 PM

Betcha."
How much?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Folknacious
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 05:34 PM

Points arising:

There are living traditions in all countries in the world, not just in Britain, Ireland and the USA.

Folk clubs (and similar) in Britain, Ireland and the USA aren't the official guardians of all things traditional.

The last thing that's likely to become a traditional song in Britain, Ireland and the USA is something concocted in a fake "traditional" style, to be sung by folkies at folkies - a minuscule minority.

So: is traditional song finished? No. Betcha.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 05:26 PM

"Well, I've heard heavy metal songs re-imagined as folk songs, "
I'll take it from your evasively obscure answer that I didn't get it wrong - so you have your response.
"And what vested interest might that be?"
Fitting your particularly square peg into a round hole - no symbolism intended!
"You mean they don't?"
Not if they try to pass off your rag-bag as folk, they don't.
T.J.
"I disagree that we have no more to discover."
Don't think anybody is trying to say that; rather, that traditional song has ceased to exist as a living form, just as nobody wrote Shakespeare plays after he died - nothing to say that they can't continue to be performed and enjoyed.
There is loads more to discover - we know next to nothing of what the traditional singers thought of their art - because, in the main they were never considered worth asking - hence the mess.
"Seems to me that nobody defined traditional song,"
Yes they have - it just doesn't suit some people.
"Does it need to be sung in some "traditional" manner...."
No - style or setting has nothing to do with it's 'folkness'.
It needs to have undergone a process which makes it folk - been through that thousands of times.
"As to the other question of whether COLLECTION of traditional song is finished. I doubt it."
Would love to agree, but not in our experience. Doesn't mean we've got nothing new to hand. Following the Greig Duncan Folk Song Collection relatively recently publised we have yet to see the J.M. Carpenter collection, arguably the largest single collection of traditional ballads ever gathered.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Paul Reade
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 05:08 PM

When I started this thread, my thoughts were that any songs written now would not pass into the tradition. I was always of the opinion that a traditional song was one that had been passed around for so long that no-one could remember who wrote it. I agreed with "Jorrox": "It's unlikely that there will be any unattributable songs for future generations, as a result of technology ... just about everyone can record and distribute their own songs, the authorship should hardly ever be in doubt.

Now I'm not so sure. There are songs around now that a lot of people think are traditional, like Keith Marsden's "Bring us a Barrel", and who knows what will happen to the records of authorship in the future? A couple of generations from now there may be another "folk revival" and someone will find this long-lost "traditional" song and unless they have the time and patience to ferret around among old archives, even non-dusty electronic ones, they will never know that it was written by a bank manager from Bradford.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Bert
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 04:44 PM

cboody, yes they did.

Here it is again: "What we speak of as 'traditional' is just a vignette of what collectors thought was 'traditional' when they were on the rampage"

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: glueman
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 04:43 PM

Crow Sister seems exceptionally shrewd for someone who hasn't been at the game long. I agree with almost everything you've said sis', but a number of points in particular. On future gazing who can say what will be viewed as traditional in a hundred years time, I wouldn't be surprised to see the current repertoir still in existence, hermetically sealed from incursions, the music a century older and sung by small groups of re-enactors with similarly bellicose views.

I also sense the revivalists will die off in the next fifteen years and the revival with it. We'll all mourn the passing of that peculiarly grumpy, well-meaning, innocent, misguided group of baby boomers and their broadsides about broadsides but will be able to console ourselves - if we haven't been gathered to Arthur's bosom with them - that their passing has bugger all to do with the history of folk music one way or another, save for a few who sang it particularly well.

I'll certainly mourn their wilful misinterpretation of any comment which questions the authenticity of the revival and the lengthy counterblasts which accompany it.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,cboody
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 04:15 PM

Seems to me that nobody defined traditional song, so lots of effort has been spent on arguing "around" the issue. Does it have to be sung in the original setting (whatever that means) to be traditional? Does it need to be sung in some "traditional" manner (whatever that means)? Is folks song, as Anna Russell once defined it "the uncouth vocal utterance of the people? Is traditional song to be defined as associated with the British Isles and the import of that tradition into America? All of these issues were discussed somehow, but with little attempt to find a common starting point from which discussion could proceed.

All that said: All one needs to do is consider a couple of Bill Staines songs "All God's Critters" and "River" to know that the tradition of creating music that can enter the main stream of music transmitted orally (or aurally if you prefer) today just as Stephen Foster songs entered that tradition in the past.

As to the other question of whether COLLECTION of traditional song is finished. I doubt it.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 04:13 PM

All songs are folk! or did I get it wrong again?

Well, I've heard heavy metal songs re-imagined as folk songs, and I've heard traditional folk songs sung by heavy metal bands - most famously Led Zeppelin's cover of Child #95, which is nice, but not a patch on Motorhead's cover of Dido, Bendigo...

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:38 PM

In a very real sense, collecting, cataloguing and preserving folk song for future generations is a lot like historical geology and archaeology. The more we uncover, the more we realize that we have barely scratched the surface. Every time paleontologists think they have a fair handle on the evolution of dinosaurs, a new one pops up to bring their theories into question once again.

I disagree that we have no more to discover. I think the definition of folk song, always a contentious subject, will continue to evolve. I also do not think that everyone who has something to contribute has been interviewed or recorded, despite all our excellent efforts. Stay tuned for further developments and keep the lamp lit in the meantime....

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: the Folk Police
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:32 PM

"Heavy Metal again. Curiouser & curiouser..."

Like this? Glorystrokes

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:23 PM

"And when did I do that?"
All songs are folk! or did I get it wrong again?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:12 PM

Anybody who lumps in Harry Cox and Phil Tanner with Heavy Metal is as reactionary as it gets.

And when did I do that?

The arbitrary manipulation or abandoning the definition is solely the work of people like S O'P with a vested interest.

And what vested interest might that be?

I said earlier that I believe clubs that call themselves 'folk' take on a responsibility for the music they claim to present.

You mean they don't?

(not one of Sweeney's wannabe but failed heavy metal mobs, just somewhat dismal).

Heavy Metal again. Curiouser & curiouser...

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:09 PM

A very insightful and realistic post, Crow Sister.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 03:05 PM

Don I actually wrote as a sentence "to paraphrase because I cant be arsed -"
Perhaps I should have added - "..... digging out the orginal statement" - I was intending that the hyphen would indicate my leaving the rest of the sentence hanging - my apologies for the confusion.
"If people never sang another note of these songs....."
Nope, sorry Don, it appears equally as crass to me, whichever version - hence my Shakespeare analogy.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 02:53 PM

"Hardly reactionary, old man"
Anybody who lumps in Harry Cox and Phil Tanner with Heavy Metal is as reactionary as it gets.
"Jim, no case to answer."
Bryan - I didn't really think there was. My problem arising, (as you rightly point out) from my not attending UK clubs often, is on the one hand I have SO'P's rag-bag as an example of legitimate fare for a set-up that calls itself a folk club, and on the other I have clubs like the Lewes ones which, I have no reason to doubt consistently present good folk-music well performed - what's a poor girl expected to do in those circumstances?
I know from personal experience that the number and quality of the clubs have declined radically over the last twenty-odd years, as have the audences numbers - I don't know to what extent.
I do believe there are remedies to improve things, if not to put them back to where they were - it's happened here in Ireland.
"Wow! That's a pretty serious ambition."
My reference to our failure to influence the public at large was a response to S O'P's claim that 'The world has moved on' as far as a definition of 'folk'; my point being that the world in general has shown no interest in the subject whatever and goes through life either unaware or not caring whether folk music exists or not. The arbitrary manipulation or abandoning the definition is solely the work of people like S O'P with a vested interest.
I said earlier that I believe clubs that call themselves 'folk' take on a responsibility for the music they claim to present.
Just before we left London we 'pigged out' on folk clubs, visiting as many of them as we could because we realised we wouldn't get the opportunity here.
We were in a West London club one night were the performances were diabolical and the songs were - indifferent (not one of Sweeney's wannabe but failed heavy metal mobs, just somewhat dismal). A youngish couple came in, the man had obviously been before but the woman appeared to be a first-timer who sat looking a mixture of bored and bemused. After a while she slipped the man a piece of paper and shortly afterwards they disappeared through the door.
To my shame, in the interval I found the piece of paper which had been left on their vacant seats and read it. It said "What the **** have you brought me to".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 02:42 PM

"I would expect repertoires in a hundred years time to include some of the recent songs along with some of those that are already old now."

Hmm, I must confess that I feel this to be an idealised romantic projection into an unlikely hypothetical musical future, which will no doubt be quite different to anything any of us might imagine.

Just consider how the internet has revolutionised the record industry in a matter of a smattering of years. And before that how the industrial revolution basically dispatched the old oral tradition. A hundred years is a very long time in the modern world. The old oral tradition (bar token remnants in schoolgrounds and terraces) died a death, as collectors like Jim Carroll will testify to - we have even heard from him how the Irish travellers he collected songs from lost their oral tradition in a matter of around 18 months just because they were able to buy TV's! The modern era destroyed the old oral tradition, but we have at least a body of historical documents in the form of the songs they once sang, to refer to and to explore and to enjoy *in our own way* - which IMHO is never going to be identical to the way in which they enjoyed them.

I too suspect that the revival - as a particular modern cultural phenomenon distict from the old oral tradition (or at best an artificially summoned revenant) - is itself on its last legs, and will likely fade out with the very same generation of enthusiasts who forged it in the first place. It might not.. But I personally suspect it probably will.

On the other hand the old songs will always be there to potentially inspire and fascinate fresh generations of enthusiasts - in the same way that the collected works of Shakespear will be. But in what fashion those future generations will go about engaging with them, will be anyone's guess. For now, I'm simply happy to be singing and sharing the Last of the Summer's Wine with others who are happy to do likewise. And while I'm busy enjoying the now, the future can fend for itself ;-)

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 02:18 PM

"If people never sang another note of these songs it would be no bother me at all; they have been sung by the masters""

Now, you see Jim, there is to me quite a large gap in meaning between this, "it wouldn't bother me", and your re-interpreted version

""long after your recent wish that no more traditional songs be sung because - to paraphrase because I cant be arsed""

If you can't see the chasm of difference between the two, I would suggest that an English Language course would be beneficial, in the interest of accuracy of understanding.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 02:03 PM

The Fleetwood Folk Club caters for all types of acoustic music,

I might add that although I run the FFC myspace page, I didn't write that bit of blurb which comes from an earlier, now defunct, web-page. This covers & celebrates on-going club policy which is further reflected in the repertoires of the residents and regulars which is widely (60%?!) idiomatic Folk though rarely purely traditional. Many of the regulars are skilled songwriters too - Ron Baxter, Nicky Snell & Ivan McKeown, to name but three - writing in a variety of idioms each of which could be called Folk. Ron's songs are regularly set & performed by other regulars & residents and yet further afield; Ivan's songs likewise, joining the ranks of innumerable Folk Song Writers whose work has been taken up by the folk community. Whilst not a resident nor a regular at the folk club himself, the canny song writing of Alan Bell is very much in evidence & provides both an inspiration and a bench mark of the standards people aim for which is in any case pretty high. I've recently had the pleasure of engineering a session for Nicky Snell, and I regard Ron Baxter as a crucial collaborator & musical colleague, as well as a very dear friend.

As CS says, however, none of this is Traditional Song, which is not a value judgement, but a statement of fact & a reflection on the current state of play in the folk clubs and perhaps the revival in general. It is this reality that gave rise to the OP of the 1954 and All That thread which seeks, on my part, to accommodate the breadth of music one finds in folk clubs these days and an attempt to understand how that might be Folk Music. That I failed in this appreciation is by the by; I have my limits & my passions, as do we all, but I would never question the right of ANYONE to perform ANYTHING in the name of FOLK - just as long as we're all be clear about what is, and what is not, a Traditional Folk Song.

One of the FFC regulars is the brother of a celebrated opera singer. The other week said Celebrated Opera Singer paid a visit. Though he didn't sing on that occasion, next time, so I'm told, he just might...

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 02:02 PM

CS said
> It's super that people write new songs in the 'folk idiom' and rightly enjoy doing that, but it's the archived body of traditional material that interests me not new songs absorbed into 'the tradition'. Whatever that means, they are not identical to the archived body of songs from the old oral tradition.

Ah, but that old oral tradition is pretty diverse. As I said recently in another thread, I don't see a lot in common between, for example, Cruel Mother, Cupid's Garden and Watters o' Tyne.) And that's without considering the diverse versions of Cruel Mother.

I reckon some songs made in the last 50-odd years (by the likes of MacColl, Tawney, Guthrie and Utah Phillips) can pass muster with songs made a century (or two or three) earlier. Equally, a lot of songs made over the centuries have disappeared into oblivion deservedly.

One of the defining aspects of the tradition, in this context, is selection. The old songs that have survived have done so because they have virtues that have appealed to a succession of song carriers. By and large, they continue to appeal to (some of) us now for the same reasons. Despite the changed circumstances of transmission, the transmission still happens, and I would expect repertoires in a hundred years time to include some of the recent songs along with some of those that are already old now.

This is not to say that I consider all the recent ones to be remotely comparable to the old ones. The old ones have passed through the selection process (as well as the transmission and variation that may or may not have improved them). The song makers that I have mentioned are all deceased, and their output has already been subject to some selection. The output of today's singer-songwriters is just being fed into the selection process (or not, if they prefer to enforce copyright and prohibit others from performing their songs).

Richard

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 01:04 PM

I'm not quite finished writing my most recent one. :-)

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 12:31 PM

The time-window within which Childs' collection were originally developed probably felt very modern to those living and singing in it. And I could hazard that they, too, mourned the disappearing view of the far past traditions which were fading out. The REAL traditional songs, to them, might have included long-forgotten paeans to Boadicea or war-chants from the Blue Belly Brigade dancing in Ashdown Forest or some such thing, but to those in the 18-19 c. window, these were the real stuff, now long forgot.

Granted, we have accelerated the rate of change by becoming a media-centric, networked civilization. But I do not believe the fundamentals have changed that much.

In my family, amongst all my nephews and nieces, "Jamaica Farewell" and "The Strawberry Roan" are traditional songs because they are remembered from their childhoods forty years ago when I sang them to them around Gramma's fireplace.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: glueman
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 12:16 PM

I've treated myself to one of these on the basis this may be the new this.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:56 AM

"I am in no position to generalise about folk clubs / singarounds / any-other-name"

Nor am I, my own comments are merely representative of my own limited experience. And actually, I think I've misunderstood SO'P in any event. I thought he was just talking about the strictly amateur song/music session, but in retrospect he's obviously describing those folk clubs of his own experience in general.

Maybe with me not being a child of the revival, I see things in far more black and white terms? Traditional songs and contemporary folk songs. Amateur music club and professional paid performer. I must confess I prefer to eschew the ambiguous shades of grey that I read hear and that appear to cause so much argument amongst people. It's super that people write new songs in the 'folk idiom' and rightly enjoy doing that, but it's the archived body of traditional material that interests me not new songs absorbed into 'the tradition'. Whatever that means, they are not identical to the archived body of songs from the old oral tradition. Similarly, if I pay to go see something I want to know what I'm paying to see. But if I'm simply joining in with a bunch of others just doing their thing, I'm joining in for the hell of it, and I'm not going to complain if I don't dig exactly what they're doing. If I go to a restaurant for a meal, I choose what I want and pay for it and if it's dire I get my money back and leave. If I go to a dinner party hosted by friends, I eat what I'm given and enjoy it in the spirit that it is given.

Perhaps if I was older and had been a part of the revival, the apparent ambiguities that I read here, would make more sense to me?

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 11:17 AM

I have found myself agreeing with much that Crow Sister says, but a few posts back she said
> SO'P is describing the kind of music *amateur musicians* might play when gathered together under the rough tag of 'folk club' but what is more rightly the singaround cum pub session, rather than the type of professional performer/performance that a proper folk club might offer up to it's paying audience. <

I have trouble with the notion of the "proper folk club" being one that offers "professional performer/performance" as contrasted with the "singaround" where anyone can turn up and sing anything.

I am in no position to generalise about folk clubs / singarounds / any-other-name nowadays, because in the last decade or so I have visited only one such regularly and a few others a very few times. My regular is Sharp's Folk Club (note the name). About one evening a month we have a professional performer, who performs for about 60% of the evening, the other 40% being much the same as the singarounds that we have on the non-guest evenings.

In the singarounds, all performers are made welcome and "anything goes" occasionally, but the preponderance is of traditional material from England and Ireland, with lesser amounts of traditional from other places (Scotland, Sweden, USA, etc) and non-traditional. The performers have various levels of skill (of course) but most are at least competent and some are excellent.

Yes the world has changed; we now have on-line communities (like this one) defined by common interest rather than common location; a folk club, singaround or musicians' session isn't exactly the same as a singing pub of 50 or 100 years ago; but I see these as more-or-less the present-day equivalents. As has already been said on this thread, some of the songs that people are writing nowadays do get picked up and sung by others.

As for the folk process, which is generally reckoned to be an essential part of the tradition: I often notice small but significant changes in songs that either have been recently written (with, therefore, authentic original versions) or have been learnt from well-known recordings. For instance I recently heard someone sing Sally, Free and Easy and change the line "The heart she gave me was not made of stone" to "The heart I gave her was not made of stone".

I have also heard The Galway Shawl with "we kept on talking" changed to "she kept on talking", suggesting why a few hours in the girl's company might have been enough.

If you want instances of complete re-builds of songs, such as the one that some time in the past gave rise to two radically different families of versions of The Two Sisters; how about this modern version of The Frog and the Mouse and Bob Coltman's Son of Child series?

Richard

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 10:46 AM

"The Fleetwood Folk Club caters for all types of acoustic music, from traditional English ballads, Irish jigs and reels, jazz, classical, blues, rock and roll, contemporary song writers and many other forms of music.

We welcome all performers and especially the complete novice. Everyone is welcome to come to the gathering either to perform or to simply listen and enjoy the various styles of music on offer.

About every 6 weeks or so a guest artist appears. These ... represent a wide range of musical styles."

I too can quote selectively from their website.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 09:56 AM

Suibhne O'Piobaireachd

a look at the guest list will show that the guest policy is very much non-traditional

John Kelly, Bryony, Steve Turner, Geoff Higginbottom?

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 09:35 AM

Even S O'P's description of his local club was challenged by someone else familiar with it. To extrapolate from this one dodgy bit of evidence to all folk clubs is untenable. Sorr, Jim, no case to answer.

The anything-goes policy of Fleetwood Folk Club might be gleaned from its web page (see HERE) which, incidently, I look after. All of the songs on the player are settings of Ron's songs by various club members, and a look at the guest list will show that the guest policy is very much non-traditional - which is why I never bothered with guest nights.

As I replied to Ron at the time I think 60% is very generous estimate; many nights I have been there and the only traditional material has been sung by me. This is but one of the factors why I haven't been for the past 3 months - and it is simply a matter of personal taste, not damnation. I don't go to Karaoke nights either, nor would I expect Ron or any other of my folky friends to come with my wife and I to see the Bad Lieutenants or Peter Hook's Unknown Pleasures. Fact is, Fleetwood Folk Club is an alive, happening, open, appreciative, enthusiastic, friendly, welcoming, anything-goes free-for-all which is no way atypical of any number of folk clubs I've been to over the years.

I think you highlighted the wrong bit of Ron's post there, Brian. This is the best bit (SS is me of course, then posting as Sinister Supporter):

Of all the people I have met in 'the folk scene' over the past 40 years SS is, without a doubt, one of the most leaned, and passionate,
exponants of the great traditional ballads. Besides ballads he he sings a vast number of 'traditional' songs, and if he also has a love of Kipling/Bellamy songs so what? He also on occasions descends to the deapths os singing some of mine [Shock! Horror!]. Does this make him any less a 'traddie'? And as for 'not giving a toss', well [and forgive me for this Jim, 'cause much of what you have said throughout this thread I totally agree with], is a complete load of bollocks !   

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 09:25 AM

To get back to the original posters question.
"Is traditional song finished?"
The answer is
No. Not by a long way.
My two pence on the subject.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 09:13 AM

The Sycophantic Mollusc: You seem to think that all other folk clubs in the land conform to the description emanating from the fuddled brain of S O'P

Once again Mudcat talks break down when, not being able come up with anything constructive to say, posters feel the need resort to personal insults.

JC: It was me who couldn'd be arsed digging this piece of reactionary nonsense from a previous post.

Hardly reactionary, old man - long after the revival is dead and forgotten (about 15 years should do it) people are still going to value the Traditional Songs and the singers thereof.

JC: Absolutely right; but when I look at S O'Ps shopping list of what passes for folk in some/many of todays clubs I am left with the impression that this is very much on the wan too - please prove me wrong - please.

This presumably being people trying to write songs in the Traditional Idiom, which is, at best, a revival conceit and in no way produces songs in any way worthy of being called Traditional. I work with song writers with a canny knack for the craft, but are these really folk songs in the same sense as the traditional songs? I say most definitely not, even though I have happily roared out many a Graham Miles chorus and actively promote the singular genius of Ron Baxter, and revel in the song writing talents of Mike Waterson, Lal Waterson, Peter Bellamy and Bob Pegg and might even crack one off myself as the occasion demands. This is where mere Folk is different from Traditional; as different as Mr Higgins's scratch-built 00-scale model of the Flying Scotsman is different from the real thing; even as different as The Tornado is different from the real Peppercorn A1's from 1948; a fine sight it may be, but it is not 1948.

To confuse the two is to do a grave disservice to the traditional heritage and the marvels thereof; thus is born Fake Lore, and sadly Fake Song.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 09:09 AM

Jim Carroll

Thank's Bryan - that's what I was asking you to prove.

======================================================================

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Sailor Ron - PM
Date: 16 Apr 09 - 11:44 AM

Jim "....that SS 'traddie' though he claims to be....neither understands the tradition nor gives a toss for its welfare".

I feel I must take up cudgels over this [not that SS needs anyone else to defend his views]. Firstly this threat was, at least originaly, about the relavance, today, of the 1954 definition.
SS has mentioned several times what he is likley to hear at his local folk club, which is also mine. Yes we do get all that he has mentioned, but, and it is a big but, well over 60% of what is performed is 'traditional'[ that is if you include broadsheets, chapbooks, and 'old songs by unknown authors], plus a fair number of what I would call songs written in the traditional style or idiom.
Of all the people I have met in 'the folk scene' over the past 40 years SS is, without a doubt, one of the most leaned, and passionate,
exponants of the great traditional ballads. Besides ballads he he sings a vast number of 'traditional' songs, and if he also has a love of Kipling/Bellamy songs so what? He also on occasions descends to the deapths os singing some of mine [Shock! Horror!]. Does this make him any less a 'traddie'? And as for 'not giving a toss', well [and forgive me for this Jim, 'cause much of what you have said throughout this thread I totally agree with], is a complete load of bollocks !    Sailor Ron

======================================================================

My highlighting.

Even S O'P's description of his local club was challenged by someone else familiar with it. To extrapolate from this one dodgy bit of evidence to all folk clubs is untenable. Sorr, Jim, no case to answer.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 09:03 AM

"fuddled brain"

Not nice.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 08:58 AM

PLEASE. There was no such person as "Cecil Sharpe".

You meant Cecil Sharp, the English folk song collector.

You did not mean Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, the Scottish folk song collector.

It's well documented how both of them dealt with the limits on what could be published in their own time - in both cases, responsibly and creditably. Here is something from an early 18th century manuscript that Sharpe published, but not in a way that would attract more attention than he could deal with:

The Metamorphosis (1707-8)

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: robinia
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 08:22 AM

Oops, didn't mean to repeat myself!

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: robinia
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 08:15 AM

"Given that Cecil Sharpe bowdlerised most of what he collected..."

Er... in what sense is that a 'given'?

Thanks for raising the question, Brian.   I question the assumption that Sharpe himself bowlderised what he collected.   It's at least possible that, singing to this visitor from polite society, many older singers themselves modified their language.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 07:58 AM

Cross posted:
"You seem to think that all other folk clubs in the land conform to the description emanating from the fuddled brain of S O'P. "
Thank's Bryan - that's what I was asking you to prove.
Must go; it's not raining unfortunately
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 07:54 AM

"As one who leans toward what you erroneously call the "Anything Goes Brigade", may I ask do you have any evidence to support that slur about not wanting traditional songs to be sung because we "can't be arsed"?
Not a lot of time to read though all this properly at present - but suggest you read my post more carefully, which was a response to SO'P's:
"If people never sang another note of these songs it would be no bother me at all; they have been sung by the masters - Phil Tanner, Davie Stewart, Harry Cox, Walter Pardon, Sam Larner, Willie Scott, Mrs Pearl Brewer of Arkansas et al - let that be enough to let them resound down the ages."
It was me who couldn'd be arsed digging this piece of reactionary nonsense from a previous post.
CS
I've always had difficulty in distinguishing the difference between 'fun' and 'pleasure' and always presumed that they are the same thing.
I sang and listened for fun/pleasure, the peak of which was when I or anybody sang something well which the audence enjoyed and understood. I never enjoyed singing badly in public, and the fact that my singing is no longer what it was is the reason I avoid singing nowadays.
We NEVER differentiated between paying guests and those who turned up each week to sing. I feel that throwing open folk songs to the general public requires that you present them in an acceptible form - otherwise I would have stayed at home and sung in the bath.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 07:53 AM

Jim Carroll

I am not arguing for one minute that people are not writing songs Bryan - of course they are. But by and large they are not leaving the greenhouse conditions of the folk club...

Previously you had said -

"However, that doesn't mean that the skills and desire to produce songs in the traditional style or styles have been lost." [theleveller]
Absolutely right; but when I look at S O'Ps shopping list of what passes for folk in some/many of todays clubs I am left with the impression that this is very much on the wan too - please prove me wrong - please.

I'm confused. What ARE you arguing? What are you asking us to prove?

One of the great failures of the revival is that it has failed to engage with the population at large and it has failed to draw the attention of the general public to their own songs - not finger pointing, I was as much a part of that failure as anybody.

Wow! That's a pretty serious ambition. I will be happy if I can persuade a few people to share my pleasure in traditional music. Changing the tastes of the population at large is a step too far for me.

Unfortunately the Universe doesn't start and end in Lewes.

I can't believe that we are the sole audience for those songwriters who come from Cornwall, Northumberland and points inbetween. You seem to think that all other folk clubs in the land conform to the description emanating from the fuddled brain of S O'P.