'Occupy English Folk Music!'

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 08:57 AM

"And no Leveller, I disagree with you. "

Fair enough. But, then, you've already called this entire thread "bullshit", so I think you need to be a bit more specific. Sorry, but I couldn't make head nor tail of your last post.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 08:37 AM

Your post is contradictory Richard. It seems you're promoting 'do as thou wilt so long as you don't call it folk music'. I'd like to know once again, what new material has entered the tradition, to the satisfaction of 1954 taxonomists and traditional singers, that fits all the criteria of the definition. Because so far as I can tell there isn't any. There's stuff that sounds traditional but and there's material that meets the criterion (footie chants, playground songs, comedy settings, etc) but I see no evidence of the continued transmission of song 1954 suggests.

I appreciate I sound like a stuck record but it's important that definitions represent what they seem to, especially when they're wielded with such confidence. And if they don't, and 1954 can show no reasonably modern songs to set against the mass of antique material, one can only conclude that the definition in this aspect at least, is thoroughly flawed.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 08:20 AM

I don't think I have seen so much rubbish in a long time.

I am also baffled why people want to call what they do "folk music" when clearly, they don't really want there to be any folk music. Every time I re-read the 1954 definition I feel how obviously sensible it is - and as for the sneers about academics and teachers taking over, I have never ever read so much pretentious twaddle as those here who spend usually about an A4 page replete with polysyllabics, pushing the boundaries of where piles of words slump into meaninglessness, trying to rubbish the eminently sensible definition.

It is also obvious upon a simple reading that the definition of "Folk music" is nation and style free. So the traditional chants of Qwertyuiop (as cited above) would be, if existing, folk music.

Certainly, I have never used the 1954 definition to discredit singer/songwriters. It's not about dismissing what they do. They can do it if they want to, and people can listen to it if they want to. It's about explaining the difference (to, I may add, apparently the ignorant).

There is, in fact, largely, a "do what you wilt" attitude (although I'm not quite clear where the Hell Fire Club comes into it) which is why Lizzie's original point is senseless.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 08:01 AM

I enjoyed that, Suibhne O'Piobaireachd (How DO you pronounce it?). I struggled a bit but persisted and I think I have got the gist of some of it at least.

The 'tradition' is what was collected and is now fixed at a point in time. Revivals have used the tradition as a reference point but not actually added to, or detracted from, that fixed point. The culture from which the tradition was born no longer exists. Using the tradition to define cultural constructs is not, therefore, possible.

Is that OK so far? - I would honestly rather you correct me that let me go on with false assumptions.

If so, could we say that, at some as yet undetermined point in the future, what is termed the tradition will change as the songs reflecting the culture of a particular revival will be collected? At that point do we then have two traditions, the old and new, or do we call the old tradition something else? Do we then end up with arguments that the very songs that people wish to 'occupy' English folk music with become the tradition? Someone in Mudcat v 11.7 (the revenge) will announce that songs of Seth Lakeman, The Oyster Band and Mumford and Sons are for old hoary gits and should give way to the younger generation?

It all gets far too complicated for me after that point, which is why I do not, personally, use any definition but my own. And my own is so subjective that I would not even dream of discussing it in public, let alone trying yo inflict it on anyone!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:48 AM

Missed name above.

And no Leveller, I disagree with you.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:47 AM

you'll see that what I have complained about is those people who seek to define and segregate the different strands of folk music instead of welcoming and celebrating its diversity. A "do what thou wilt" attitude would be much more beneficial to folk music.

Anyway

I agree with a "do what thou wilt" attitude and believe that there is health in diversity but:

Do what thou wilt to me means

If you wish to use the 1954 definition for discussion or other purposes, feel free to do so. Similarly if you wish to use say a "meaningful words" definition" feel free to do so. In both cases though, be prepared to accept that not everyone will agree with your choice.

It also means to me. If you wish to run your event with a narrower definition or focus feel free to do so or enjoy it. Similarly if you wish to include everything that anyone could possibly consider to be folk, feel free to do so but in both cases be prepared to accept that not everything will be for everyone.

Do what thou wilt to me does not mean enforce "free for" all definitions and policies on everyone any more that it means enforce "1954 rules" on everyone.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:47 AM

"Oh dear, Leveller... "

I accept your apology.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:28 AM

Lizzie's last post was somewhat disingenuous, it is the title of the thread which has resulted in the arguments, not her initial comment.
As for the 1954 definition it may be more productive to consider an up to date view as expressed by the ICTM in its aims
"International Council for Traditional Music
The aims of the ICTM 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."

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:28 AM

I agree in your analysis Dave. I still think the steady drip of patronisation and pedantry creates a de facto pecking order for what's 'real' and what ain't. I can say this because my tastes are very much of The Tradition (lots of traditions, actually) but hope I recognise it as the conservative reaction of a middle aged man, not because of some spurious documentary validation or imagined attacks on my preferences.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:26 AM

One of the more intriguing misgivings of the revival is a particular cultish off-shoot that thinks of itself as The Tradition, be it in respect of Old Songs or New. I've heard Scowie & Giff's When All Men Sing described as having passed into The Tradition, as with many others. This doesn't have much bearing on the precepts of the 1954 Definition, for things may pass into this Tradition unchanged by dint of their perceived folk character alone, and qualification is entirely a matter of communal concensus. Bob Copper and Peter Bellamy's The Old Songs is a similar sort of song - like When All Men Sing, it's a New Folk Song about Old Folk Songs and the singing thereof in the sort of singarounds which are, perhaps ironically, very much a phenomenon of the modern revival.

Like Speen said some way above, or below, I'm always keen to keep the two things quite seperate. The Tradition is a sacrosanct musical and cultural phenomenon which we know only through the efforts of early collectors who sought to document it as best they could, to preserve it, or at least the manifestations of it, whilst they had a chance to do so. The Revival - or more properly revivals - is an entirely different thing; for a start it operates at several very significant cultural removes from The Tradition, that is as far as The Tradition can be said to have existed at all, rather than the Idyll that has come down to us determined by the sort of song that was likely to have been sung by a certain sort of person at such-and-such a point in history - be they farmers boy, huntsman or collier lad. Music has always been an important part of working-class culture, but just because a music is of the working class doesn't necessarily make it Folk Music, and the 1954 Definition is an attempt to clarify this. My personal objection is mostly one of philosphy and interpretation; I believe the entire concept of Folk is essentially a Myth - be it Folktale, Folklore, Folk Art, Folk Dance or whatever. In all cases Folk is an agenda-ridden construct hatched in scholarly isolation from the thing itself, much less the creators and participants, who were cherished for their very special purity, without which they were no longer considered to be Folk - like much of the Lancastrian processional Morris tradition which Sharp rejected as being somehow tainted. That such Traditions are alive and well today as Fluffy Morris is of genuine Folkloric significance, yet few folkies, it any, are interested.

In this day and age, our concepts are perhaps a little less weighted; a term like Community is broader and more flexible in terms of the pragmatics of usage, so any reading of the 1954 Definition becomes, in effect, a nonesense. We recognise that all culture is in constant flux, and that notions such as purity are, at best, entirely bogus. However, the pure blood myths still endure, the notion of untainted cultural authenticity is still carried in many a Folkie's heart; the belief that, somehow or other in the mass-morass of 20th & 21st Century European Culture there exists a genuine 100% Authentic Folk Tradition Entirely Uninfluenced by the Outside World or The Folk Revival is one I have met with on any number of occasions. Naturally, I refute both this and the specious grounds on which it is invariably predicated; indeed, I reject the notion of cultural purity as an essentially right-wing nationalistic fantasy, and reserve my waryness when I hear Folkies opine that Folk is 'Their Culture' on a level with the ethnic cultures of (say) the Islamic communities with whom we share our true nationhood.

It is a similar weariness I have when I hear people insisting that New Folk Songs are The Traditional Songs of the future. For sure, there are New Folk Songs, and many damn fine ones too. You may catch one of ours on the Radio Three iPlayer for the next day or so; it's also on the current fRoots download compilation album. This is an Idiomatic Folk Song distantly inspired by a notion of Appalachian field-hollers (rather than a slavish immitation of actual examples) using (somewhat accidentally) the Javanese pelog mode, and a pentantonic fiddle style derived (mostly) from my life-long love of Michael Hurly, but the song is our creation. It is modern, but anciently idiomatic; whether or not it ever becomes part of the Folk Canon depends on people other than ourselves being moved to sing it, but even if they do it won't be part of The Tradition. For sure, it echoes The Tradition (as a concept) it acknowledges The Tradition (as a construct) it even celebrates The Folk Process (the words are built on a riddling sequence of images as though they were a mondegreened fragment of something else), but like other Modern Folk Songs, it's too self-consciously A Folk Song to ever become Traditional. This is both the essence and dilema of Folk (which is why I often use the term Steamfolk) but one which is, I feel, essentially very positive and highly productive and very Joyful indeed. Just look at all the amazing Revival Folk Music that has been made over the last sixty years...

When we deal in Traditional Folk Songs and Modern Folk Songs we're dealing with subjective dialogues on the nature of Folk itself, which is essentially a post-modern cultural reaction, often for the very best of reasons, and occasionally for the very worst (hence Folk Against Fascism which I would hope is very dear to us all). We do this thing out of individual choice, it asserts an individual identity - not a cultural one. Indeed, Individualism is our Culture in the the UK; it is Diverse, Complex, Multi Ethnic, Fraught With Difficulties and yet, ultimately, it is Wonderful. If Folk is about anything at all it's about certain individuals being moved to make those sort of choices, but once it becomes anything more in terms of proscriptive cultural correctness, then I really don't want any part of it. That is not my Folk, nor yet is it my cherished multi-cultural UK. Real Folklore is still measured by a complete innocence of folklore; even Bob Trubshaw acknlowdeges that much by quoting Warshaver in his very fine and highly recommended Explore Folklore (Heart of Albion, 2002 - read more HERE), thus real folklore just happens, entirely innocernt of the fact that it's folklore at all. So, despite all the mass-media talent circuses in the world, culture will always be what culture will be, and what the cultural landscapes of the future will yield are not for us to say. Will Folk exist? Does Folk exist now? Who can say? The best we can do, therefore, is just to keep on doing what we love to do and encouraging others to do what they love to do without creating false oppositions by looking for trouble which, in the present instance, just isn't there.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:15 AM

Well I can think of a number of characters on this site alone who never miss an opportunity to tell people what they like is all very nice but it's not proper folk music.

And the opinions on this site (and this thread in point) matter because? It's not as if anything said here, anywhere on the internet, by Bob Copper, Bob Dylan or Bob's your uncle have the slightest effect on what people listen to and enjoy. OK - If you are 14 and under peer pressure to listen to only the songs that are given the thumbs up by MC Godinhisheaven then yes, reviews may be important. But to us in the folk world? Come on - Most of us are too long in the tooth to be told what to listen to!

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 07:08 AM

"Who uses it to discredit whom?"

Well I can think of a number of characters on this site alone who never miss an opportunity to tell people what they like is all very nice but it's not proper folk music. Their single source for that opinion is the 1954 definition.

If the definition holds up in a modern context they may have a point, if it doesn't we may have to re-think what we mean by folk music. I think it's flawed in the very places people hold it up as useful and I've pointed out why.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 06:56 AM

Oh dear, Leveller...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 06:53 AM

The '54 definition is relevant to the thread because it's the single weapon of choice used to discredit the singer songwriter

Seeing as the original disagreements seem to have gone away I am happy to discuss the 54 definition on here. I was 1 in 1954 BTW :-)

Who uses it to discredit whom? I am not saying it doesn't happen - Just I have never in my 30-odd years of folk clubs come across anyone saying 'You can't sing that coz it's not 54'. Examples would be good.

Nearest I had was going into a folk club in Bedford, wrapped ip to the nose in a green Kagoulle because it was pissing down outside, and being told "You can't come in here like that - You look like some sort of folkie!" :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 06:46 AM

The '54 definition is relevant to the thread because it's the single weapon of choice used to discredit the singer songwriter/ nu-folk/ guitar playing barbarians waiting to batter down the pub door and impose whimsical ballads on our hearts of oak. Without The Definition traddies (me included) would have to get on with what they like just because they like it, not because they have a Neville Chamberlain document of assurance, or because they've replaced Mornington Crescent with Cecil Sharp house, but for the simple reason it tickles their fancy.

If 1954 is shown to be the set of intellectual lace curtains - if not lace knickers - it is, the Folk World would be a better place, IMHO.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 06:45 AM

"You mean you agree there is no problem in the real world. Might be me but I thought you had been suggesting otherwise..."

That's not what I'm saying at all. I endorse the idea of all approaches to the music living side by side. It's what happens in good clubs and festivals but around my neck of the woods it doesn't always happen. If you'd care to do me the courtesy of reading my posts instead of putting your own garbled interpretation of my words in my mouth, you'll see that what I have complained about is those people who seek to define and segregate the different strands of folk music instead of welcoming and celebrating its diversity. A "do what thou wilt" attitude would be much more beneficial to folk music.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 06:33 AM

Thanks for the clarification, Dave.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 06:23 AM

I think we are now all agreed, Jon. There are no issues. Both trad and modern folk are appreciated and everything in the garden is coming up roses.

Apart from the 1954 definition which was never mentioned in the OP and probably deserves a thread of it's own

Hope that helps.

:D

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 06:00 AM

Well, if the whole thread is bullshit, that must make your comments bullshit as well, surely?

I said the premise of the thread.


I would totally endorse what Banjiman says.

You mean you agree there is no problem in the real world. Might be me but I thought you had been suggesting otherwise...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:59 AM

Who said traditional music should be 'replaced'? WHERE has that been said? And by whom?

Ah - Thank you Lizzie. I am still a little unclear - My fault, I know - but you have now clarified that you do not want English Folk to be 'Occupied' -

occupied
adjective
1. in use, taken, full, engaged, unavailable three beds, two of which were occupied
2. inhabited, peopled, lived-in, settled, tenanted The house was occupied by successive generations of farmers.
inhabited empty, deserted, vacant, uninhabited, unoccupied, untenanted, tenantless
3. busy, engaged, employed, working, active, tied up (informal), engrossed, hard at work, in harness, hard at it (informal), rushed off your feet I forgot about it because I was so occupied with other things.

I mistakenly assumed the standard definition of occupied and as that is to fill-up, take, engage or any of the above definitions I am sure you will forgive me for guessing the thread was about occupying the space taken by English Folk Music and replacing it with something else. Thank you for letting me know that is not what you meant and it would have saved a lot of discussion had you have made that reply earlier.



What I was saying is that it's time to appreciate the singer songwriters far more. Time to recognise they are the New Traditionalists, writing the songs that will also be taken up by new generations to come..

I agree wholeheartedly. I do appreciate the singer-songwriters. I am sure if you look back through the thread you will find that everyone agrees with you. I am not sure what I am to appreciate them 'far more' than but if you mean appreciate them far more than the usual stuff that the music industry inflicts on us then yes - I do.

So, in a nutshell, no-one wants to replace traditional folk; we all appreciate good singer-songwriters; They can both live in harmony (4 part I should think) and everyone is happy. Yes?

See - easy when you take the time to explain.

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:54 AM

"Hmm... mostly to disagree with some of the comments made."

Well, if the whole thread is bullshit, that must make your comments bullshit as well, surely?

I would totally endorse what Banjiman says.

As an aside with regard to the 'set up your own club' comments, we were recently asked to perform at an open day at the Yorkshire Waterways Museum, singing some of our self-penned stuff. Afterwards we were approached by someone who is considering starting a local folk club with a traditional bias and we were asked if we would be interested in being the residents. Like I said, we're not looking to replace the tradition, just continue it.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:33 AM

"the basic premise of this thread is bullshit."

In that case, why are you posting here?

Hmm... mostly to disagree with some of the comments made.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:30 AM

"Let THE PEOPLE hear The New Traditionalists, for THEY are The 99%!!"

What's stopping THE PEOPLE from hearing the "The New Traditionalists" (whatever they are), Lizzie? Oh, I forgot - it's us old, fuddy-duddy traditionalists! I'll go and abolish myself right away! Mustn't stand in the way of progress!

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:29 AM

"the basic premise of this thread is bullshit."

In that case, why are you posting here?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Banjiman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:28 AM

In my day to day folk world both traditional & contemporary folky music live very happily side by side.

All the clubs and singarounds I attend welcome both.

I put on both at the Village Hall concerts I run.

All the festivals I attend welcome both.

(Just about) All of my favourite artists do both.

I love some of both genres (and dislike some of both genres)and value both on their merits.

Why all the squabbling ??????? It has nothing do do with the real world.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 05:14 AM

so we just tear it up and throw it to one side as we walk across the unenclosed common land that is folk music and set up camp.

Or and more realistic. There are plenty of venues that welcome "contemporary folk", the opportunity to start your own venue also exists. No one is even going to try to prevent this and the basic premise of this thread is bullshit.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:55 AM

The contemporary folk musicians and songwriters I know have a deep and abiding love of traditional music. We don't want to replace the tradition, just continue it. The 1954 definition is a barrier to this, so we just tear it up and throw it to one side as we walk across the unenclosed common land that is folk music and set up camp.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:41 AM

Just to clarify....

Who said traditional music should be 'replaced'? WHERE has that been said? And by whom?

My *original* post:

>>>>>YEAH!!!!!

Bring in The Singer Songwriters!
Modernise it!
Take it OFF The Holy Shrine of All That is Holy!

Let THE PEOPLE hear The New Traditionalists, for THEY are The 99%!!

:0) <<<<


What I was saying is that it's time to appreciate the singer songwriters far more. Time to recognise they are the New Traditionalists, writing the songs that will also be taken up by new generations to come..

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:02 AM

Just catching up on this thread and note that DtG made a good point somewhere above:

"Why is it that those who would 'Occupy English Folk Music' would have us believe that they are the liberal ones, moving forward with the times and not stuck in the old traditions? Yet not one person, as far as I cam tell, from the 'side of the traditionalists' has suggested that 'modern' folk music should be occupied, banned or replaced by something else. Yet those very liberal, fun-loving 'modernists' are quite happy with the concept that traditional folk music should be replaced."

For a start, yes, I agree, the 'modernists' are really just as illiberal as they (continually) claim that we 'traditionalists' are.

I still think that it's because an interest in traditional material doesn't conform to contemporary musical tastes or fashions. Some people are outraged by the fact that venues exist which attract audiences but don't present material which conforms to those people's contemporary, fashionable musical influences.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:02 AM

As someone who listens to traditional forms of music from a number of different countries, it fascinates me that we're the only country who seem unable to separate an old song from a new one without a guide to tell us the difference. Is it some national characteristic that makes us want to apply taxonomies to our preferences? Is it the folk club network of the last 50 odd years that's applied academic definitions to the product it deals in? Why can't we trust the evidence of our own ears?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: theleveller
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 04:01 AM

Ralphie, you keep telling us how tedious this thread is but you keep coming back to try to have a go at Lizzie. You're turning into a bit of a troll, I'm afraid. If you're not interested in what's being said, why don't you just stay away?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: johncharles
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 03:55 AM

probably not Ralphie

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 03:51 AM

I find it interesting that Lizzie, having (once again, and not for the first time) opened up this particular can of worms, is conspicuous by her abscence on her own thread...It would be enlightening to hear her views, Don't you think?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 03:13 AM

"Suppertime, and the liver is greasy."

This, if I may say so, is not the transmission 1954 was invented to flag up. I'm pointing out the absurdity of a defunct definition. If it's still valid prove it with real examples - not light entertainment or we'll include the output of BBC comedy for the last forty years.

"Get this:
It's not about history.
It's not about trying to revive anything.
There is no torch being borne.
It's not about whether the culture that produced most of the music is still alive."

Is that an opinion or the 1954 definition?

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 02:27 AM

I had a friend who married a Swede. It was a turnip for the books.

:D

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Nov 11 - 12:41 AM

traditional Swedish....I shouldn't involvo myself with that, it might abba bad side effect or two.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: John P
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 11:20 PM

glueman, I gave a few examples of music that was composed and is accepted by the community of people who play and listen to traditional music as being traditional tunes. Why are you still saying the same things over and over again? A few of us on this thread have said that we have experienced learning music from other musicians who learned it from other musicians, etc. We've also said that we have experienced music changing slightly as it changes hands. Why do you keep saying that traditional music is moribund? To people who are part of it not being dead you just sound silly. It's sort of like the guy at a party who goes on about how cats don't have any reasoning skills. All the cat owners in the room just look at each other and roll their eyes. Since you don't believe the first hand experiences of the people you are talking to, it makes me wonder why you are here.

Get this:
It's not about history.
It's not about trying to revive anything.
There is no torch being borne.
It's not about whether the culture that produced most of the music is still alive.

It's about whether the music is still alive.
The culture, now, is the community of people who listen to and play traditional folk music.
It's all just about the music.

You seem to be obsessed with trying to make a very simple general definition into something very complicated. You come across like an academic who is studying traditional folk music and needs to draw lines around things.

Most of my favorite songs and tunes came from other musicians. Sometimes I even get a couple of versions, like, "Here's how I learned it years ago, but now I play it like this". Or I find songs in old books and piece together how I want to play them. If you want to call that a revival, go for it. I call it finding cool tunes in an old book. I then teach the music to my friends, who teach it to theirs. All while I'm learning the cool music they learned and sometimes adapting it somewhat for my own purposes. I also sometimes learn music from recordings, but even that doesn't necessarily stop the process. A few years back I heard the album I learned a song from for the first time in about 20 years. Without ever meaning to do so, I had made some notable changes in 20 years of playing it without reference to the recording.

The band I'm playing in now does traditional Swedish music. As I learned the music, there was rarely a CD with the tune on it. I can sometimes find the notation on-line somewhere, but it's always an approximation of what actually gets played anyway. The only way for me to learn the music is to learn from my bandmates, both of whom lived in Sweden and learned the tunes from other musicians at dances and parties.

Sorry, but your thesis doesn't pass the real world experience test. It only makes sense if you chain yourself to the 1954 definition and try to wring every last legalistic drop of meaning from it.

It's just not that complicated.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 07:01 PM

Like I said glueman it's your opinion, for what it's worth.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:46 PM

Oh aye - I was going to add. Ted Edwards (Coal Hole Cavalry, Ladybird etc.) did a re-write of Summertime.

Suppertime, and the liver is greasy.
Fish are jumping
And the sausage is high

Does that count?

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:43 PM

You're probably right, glueman, but it doesn't give me the answers to my questions. I do hope you are not suggesting that the thread was just a wind up after all? Well, I am dissappointed...

:D tG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:25 PM

"I don't think that is the issue, glueman"

I beg to differ Dave. As long as I've been listening to traditional music fans have been saying it's under threat. As I said near the start of the thread, the music is in better health than I can remember it. The threat is always 'out there' somewhere, people with guitars, rock music by the back door, the whole them and us thing that bonds groups together in adversity. There is no adversity. Traditional music is no more under threat than rap or house music.

The OP was making one of her regular jibes at the dinosaurs and they roared in unison. Someone suggested a George Gershwin song as trad earlier. I can't find any examples of incremental change in Summertime that warrants the title trad and until someone provides one I shall consider the definition extinct.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:08 PM

If it's rubbish can someone provide examples of contemporary music that has entered the traditional canon, i.e. songs accepted by traditionalists as traditional that meet all the criteria of the 1954 definition re. adoption, adaptation, transmission.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:03 PM

I don't think that is the issue, glueman. The thread is about something else occupying the place that is currently taken by traditional English folk music. At least that is how I read it. Maybe the opening poster could clarify?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:03 PM

you need to learn the difference between fact and personal opinion, then and only then will there be progress

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 06:02 PM

rubbish

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 05:42 PM

The issue, that's been discussed at length, is not on the validity of traditional music or the freedom of anyone who chooses to sing it. It's on the nonsense surrounding a definition which has lifted up the ladder behind it while pretending it's still in place. New music can never enter the canon. Transmission is impossible. The conditions that obtained when it was written are gone, if they ever existed in the first place. It is not under threat, it survives in rude good health as a finite, historical genre of music.

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 05:37 PM

right

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 05:30 PM

Sorry if anyone has read this, or something similar, before. I did try similar arguments on another thread. My mistake - It was the wrong one and for obvious reasons my points went un-addressed on there. Maybe I can get some answers on here?

Although the 1954 definition is not one I apply, I understand why, in the absense of any other agreed definition, it can be important. Until such a time as another group of influential people get together and re-define folk music, it is all we have. No amount of derision or insult will alter that. Only a genuine alternative would prove constructive. And one that we can all agree on at that!

Anyway, on with the questions.

Why is it that those who would 'Occupy English Folk Music' would have us believe that they are the liberal ones, moving forward with the times and not stuck in the old traditions? Yet not one person, as far as I cam tell, from the 'side of the traditionalists' has suggested that 'modern' folk music should be occupied, banned or replaced by something else. Yet those very liberal, fun-loving 'modernists' are quite happy with the concept that traditional folk music should be replaced. Presumably never to seen again.

Why on earth would anyone want to remove the choice that people have now and leave us with just one type of folk music? Why not just tollerate all types of folk music, even if you don't like it, and accept that what some people enjoy is not to your tastes? Give people the choice. Let them decide if they want to hear Child ballads sung in their traditional form, boogie on with drum and bass hornpipes or watch American Indians performing Eurovision style stage shows?

Answers on a postcard, please, to -

Obershturmfurer Cecil von Sharpe
Folk Gestapo Division
Much Boring in the Tradition
FU2

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: BTNG
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 04:17 PM

and you should know glueman, and you should know...

Subject: RE: 'Occupy English Folk Music!'
From: glueman
Date: 08 Nov 11 - 04:12 PM

"Don't bank on it, glueman."

Well at least it's been killed as a topic for serious discussion. Flat-Earthers will always be with us.