What makes a new song a folk song?

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 03:48 PM

Jim, I'm not talking about the 1954 definition, I asking about all those other songs that you consider acceptabe in a folk club. Are you seriously telling me that the list of people you gave in your post of 01 Sep 14 - 11:46 AM comes from research done by "those who did the work long before came on the scene."? Who did this research? Where is it published? If none of the names I gave in my post are on that list does that mean they aren't acceptable? Will no new songs written after publication date be allowed?

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: johncharles
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 03:48 PM

victorian song collectors
This link should show a short section of the book which has an interesting discussion on the problems of definitions of folk song.
To me it demonstrates that academics are still struggling with the problem. I would be interested if anyone else has other references to this type of discussion it would surely be more enlightening than this present thread.
john

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Bounty Hound
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 03:59 PM

Bryan and Steve, thank you, you are both absolutely right, it will never sink in. And Steve, I'm happy to go with your definition, not too dissimilar from my own from what seems like several years earlier in this thread, where I said that a new song can be folk if it is influenced by, and respects the tradition of it's country or district of origin.

'fraid to say though, I expect Mr Carroll scared off the OP a long time ago!

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 04:21 PM

Actually, Bounty Hound, that's not exactly what I am saying but I haven't got the energy to argue about it.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 04:40 PM

As has already been suggested, try Steve Roud's introduction to the recent "New Penguin Book of English Folksongs."

The distinction between old and new meanings should become clear.

A terrific book, by the way.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 05:09 PM

John,
Another useful source which attacks half-baked research like that of Harker and Boyes is Chris Bearman's online thesis The English Folk Music Movement 1898-1914. It is extremely thorough and the intro has some useful things to say on folk song definition. Whilst Harker and Boyes present some useful ideas their research is tainted by an overt political slant, and Bearman exposes this cruelly.

Don't get me wrong, my own researches back up much of what Harker has to say on fakesong, but the book is spoilt by overstating any political ideologies of the fakers, and it is full of statements on people like Sharp that do not stand up to the sort of scrutiny Bearman puts in.

Bearman also attacks Thompson on the origins of folk songs, but his research is lacking on this one.

Warning! it is not light reading. (I haven't yet read Thompson's thesis.)

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: johncharles
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 07:00 PM

Steve, thanks for the info.
john

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 07:37 PM

"I asking about all those other songs that you consider acceptable in a folk club"
Of course I'm not.
I have become extremely tired of saying that I am perfectly happy with newly composed songs being included in a folk song evening - you damn well know this - I have advocated it in all my arguments - I have stated the my main influence has been MacColl - who wrote more contemporary songs using folk forms than most people had hot dinners
The list I put up were people who were doing likewise.
The song they were writing were not folk songs (I've never argued that they can't become such), but their being performed at a folk club has far more validity than those being proposed here - all were using folk forms to make new songs - great, what I've always dreamed of happening extensively.
That isn't a subjective judgement - it's something that can be verified by merely comparing the forms.
"Will no new songs written after publication date be allowed?"
It has never been a matter of what will be "allowed" - that is a somewhat dishonest twist of your own - it is a matter of what is acceptable to someone who might have a little idea of what the term means based on what has gone before, or what is to be found in 'the Penguin Book of Folk Songs.... or any such long-term and accepted collection you care to name.... or even, (dare I suggest it?) what is indicated by a dictionary definition.
You, rather dishonestly, entered into this discussion by suggesting that I might go to your club brandishing a copy of '54 - I have many disagreements with you, but I expected a little more from you than that.
"Yes you have Jim you just can't do it on the basis of a club using Folk in its name."
After several requests, you have finally got round to responding to my first question - a little late, but better late than never, I suppose.
So calling a club 'folk' no is longer an indication of what goes on there - little wonder that someone who has claimed the clubs are in the bloom of health and who haspersited in suggesting that my suggestion that they are not is down to my not visiting them anymore, is somewhat backward in coming forward with the answer you have just given.
I await with some interest to see if you get round to answering my other question, do you find putting on 1950s pop et al, a fair way to treat people who have turned up to listen to folk songs?.   
"'fraid to say though, I expect Mr Carroll scared off the OP a long time ago!"
My name is Jim Carroll - I consider referring to me as "Mr Carroll" in the unfriendly and aggressive way that you have, coupled with your accusation that I have "scared people off", not only unpleasant, but somewhat ludicrous from someone who has accused me of being insulting - perhaps a "irony implant' would be in order for you, Bryan and The Skibbereen Stalker.
If you find putting a case I believe in strongly after a great deal of actual work, study and practical experience 'scary' - perhaps a forum that debates topics that are sometimes contentious, is not the place for you.
I can't remember the last time Bryan approached any of our arguments with anything other than sneery facetiousness.
As for his running mate, The Skibbereen Stalker - out of the his - what - twenty, thirty, forty, fifty postings, the majority have been aimed directly at me - and nearly all worded in personal and often extremely insulting terms.
Most of them have accused me of being insulting to people, one of the last warned me to stay out of West Cork - he declines to say 'or what'.
Now there's an urgent case for an 'irony implant' if I ever there was one!
Earlier on, I reacted badly to being accused of going to clubs brandishing a copy of '54 and of indulging in "selective listening" - I'm sorry I did so, but I can't promise I wouldn't do the same in similar circumstances.
Get a grip, all of you - the aggression and nastiness is coming from your side of the fence - not the stuff idea sharing is made of, as far as I'm concerned.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Sep 14 - 10:18 PM

lets see...dishonest, ludicrous, aggressive, nasty,unpleasant, unfriendly, insulting . just accept that this is us. (just culled from the last post).

and Jim is right, and the rest of us have been aggressive and nasty people.
I don't see why you can't all grasp these two simple points.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 02:29 AM

Since when did words such as "unacceptable " and "disapproval" have anything to go with having a good night out, a few bevvies, a song or three and let's have some fun?

Most "folk clubs " are singarounds these days and there is less opportunity to waffle on about the song's provenance. Mainly because most people are leafing through their three chord songbooks to decide what to attempt next. The clubs where you can introduce songs and be appreciated for doing so are getting thin on the ground.

The counter to that is that if somebody has put their coat on, picked up their guitar and come to support your night rather than watch Wheeler Dealers on the box, it would be churlish and club life span threatening to dictate to them.

If you want to kick Martin Carthy out for singing Cum on Feel the Noize, be my guest, but Dave Burland might get up next and introduce I Don't Like Mondays as a late '70s folk song, which of course it is. It's even Irish, how much more provenance do you want??

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 02:56 AM

".dishonest, ludicrous, aggressive, nasty,unpleasant, unfriendly, insulting . "
All culled from the three people I mentioned (not "the rest of you" - I assume that was a mistake on your part Al) throughout this discussion.
In each case, I specified examples of their behaviour - read the posting again and tell me they are not accurate descriptions of the behaviour displayed on this and other threads.
Invite one of your mates to a heavy metal concert and give him a night of Child ballads sung by ''finger-in-ear' unaccompanied singers and ask him if he is happy to accept that he has been given what he was promised.
"Mainly because most people are leafing through their three chord songbooks"
Is that what happens at sing-around clubs nowadays - are you backing me or Bryan in our argument on the state of clubs.
I could probably sing around 150 songs off the top of my head - at least double that if I was given a week to prepare and my mate didn't need a 3 chord songbook" - he was a pretty good instrumentalist - goood enough to have done enough work beforehand not to need any paper prompting.
Your contempt blanket spreads far enough to include anybody who doesn't sing Lady Gaga hits, it would appear.
"If you want to kick Martin Carthy out for singing Cum on Feel the Noiz"
I don't want to kick anybody out for anything; just don't want to be part of anything that cons people by telling them they are going to hear something they are not.
If our greengrocer starts selling frocks instead of spuds, I'd look for another greengrocer.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 04:25 AM

last night i was in an open mic. at Weymouth and this young girl stepped up and did three trad song - admittedly not with all the grace notes, traddy affectations etc. - but she knew all the words, played a guitar very nicely.

i went over and asked her why she was braving the beer junkies and loudmouths in an open mic. - rather than a folk club. she said, she just didn't feel she was part of the scene, and felt it was too difficult to break into the clique. i said, try again - and she promised she would.

think about it - where does all this business about there being prerequisites to singing in a folk club come from. i know you have no time for Donovan - but at least his influence was - hey! he's this young guy with a guitar ....you could do this. and that's what made most of the careers of the pro folk singers traddy and contemporary possible.

people thought folk clubs were for them. and as a consequence folk clubs were full.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 04:26 AM

Yes but the whole of the population less one person knows what to expect.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 04:48 AM

That was for Jim, not Al.

Crossed posts...

Al, I hear that all the time. Some damned fine musicians and singers go to open mic nights, acoustic nights, even roots and acoustic nights around here because they feel the term "folk club" has some weird masonic aura about it and many are of the "been once, never again" variety. Organisers go out of their way not to call them folk clubs in order to attract people in!

So so sad. What's worse, those guilty of stifling the folk process are represented on here by people thinking they are the ones who know what the fuck folk actually is...

A while ago, I sang a traditional song that I have worked to my own adaptation. At the bar afterwards, a pompous git told me I sang it wrong. "I can't have done." I said. "I have been singing like that ever since I wrote that particular arrangement."

If I hadn't been haunting folk clubs for 35 years, I too might have said "fuck this for a game of soldiers."

Reminds me of Harry Chapin's "Flowers are red."

Flowers are red
Green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen.

But there's so many colours in the rainbow!
So many colours in the morning sun!
So many colours in the flowers,
And I see every one.

Flowers are red
Green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 05:07 AM

"a pompous git told me I sang it wrong"
.,,.
He was an ignorant git too. If he'd really known anything about folksong [traditional song, whatever], he would have known that concepts of 'right/wrong' just don't enter into the equation regarding any rendition or edition.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 05:22 AM

That was my take Michael.

The real me tries to be civil and I just asked him when he looks at the credits for a traditional song on an album, why does it say "trad, arr Smith" etc.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 05:32 AM

I've had Muskets experience also,I was told "that's not how it was collected".
Some one also told me I was a performer not a folk singer.
I've never worked out whether it was meant as a compliment or an insult.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 05:34 AM

I think the problem here is that we keep using the word 'definition' for something which can't be defined.

In my opinion, the only sort of 'folk' which is open to definition in objective terms is traditional music, where the 1954 definition or something like it sets out the characteristics of what makes a traditional folk song, and distinguishes it from a popular song that is widely known (we can argue what those characteristics might be, and whether the 1954 version is correct or complete, but my point is it is capable of being defined).

The other sort of 'folk' cannot be defined. It depends on the expectations of its audience and what they are willing to accept, and to an extent this will depend on context - Cambridge Folk Festival's audience's idea is rather broader than mine (let alone Jim's!). You can describe certain characteristics which may make it more or less likely that a song will fall within these expectations and achieve broad acceptance, but these can only be pointers. You can't 'define' this meaning of 'folk', it is simply too vague.

I suppose that is Jim's point, but being vague doesn't mean that it doesn't work in practice. Those who go to Cambridge Folk Festival know what to expect, and those who avoid it do so for the same reason.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 06:26 AM

"I think the problem here is that we keep using the word 'definition' for something which can't be defined."
It can and has been defined - what can't be defined is what is happening at folk clubs today.
At the beginning of the twentieth century a group of people accumulated a large number of songs, largely from the rural population.
They were closely related to each other in form and many of them appeared in different parts of the country in different versions - they were also found in Ireland, the United States and Canada - all over the English speaking world - the older ones, the ballads, also turned up in other languages.
The vast majority of them were anonymous and were claimed by the people who sang them to be 'local' - Norfolk, Aberdeenshire, Clare, wherever - most of the singers we recorded in Ireland were totally unaware that many of their songs had English or Scots variants.
The old claim that "I know a folk song when I hear it" is still a valid one - though no longer applicable in the clubs.
A genre of songs were found, somebody a name, which was more or less agreed on, and in 1954, a group of researchers got together and attempted to fill out a usable definition from the work that had been carried out so far in Britain, Ireland, America, Canada.
Around the end of the 1950s, another group of people got together and launched a Revival based on the previous body of songs and another five year campaign of collecting by the BBC, encouraged by Alan Lomax.
Part of that revival was inspired by similar work carried out in the United States by The Library of Congress.
We have a specific and identifiable body of songs, we have an attempt to identify that body of songs socially and culturally and up to relatively recently we have had a consensus on what those songs are - that is our 'definition'.
The only thing that ahs changed is that we now have a revival that no longer accepts any definition and has turned folk sessions into singing nights, we call them 'Singing Circles' in Ireland.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 07:45 AM

"she just didn't feel she was part of the scene"
I went into dozens of 'folk' clubs where I would never have felt comfortable singing any of my repertoire - I certainly would not have felt to be "part of the scene"
That's exactly why I stopped going to them.
If Fred Jordan had gone into Muskett's club he would have seen sat down in front of an electric group and "shown how to do" something he'd been doing for all of his life - "part of the scene" or what?
What's your point Al
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 07:49 AM

""I think the problem here is that we keep using the word 'definition' for something which can't be defined."
It can and has been defined - what can't be defined is what is happening at folk clubs today."

You've missed my point, that is exactly what I was saying. Nevertheless, although what happens in folk clubs can't be pinned down to a definition, there is a widely understood understanding of what you can expect to hear. This is of course very fuzzy around the edges and no clear lines can be drawn.

I am also saying that what you understand as 'folk' can be defined, indeed this is what in objective terms makes it distinctive. However your insistence that any other meaning is wrong may be technically correct but flies in the face of common usage. Your view that this other meaning is not understood by the "man in the street" flies in the face of common experience.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 07:50 AM

Anything can be defined, though not perfectly for all contexts amd certainly not finally and for all time.

The issue isn't whether "folksong" (or "folk," which is a bit different) is definable, it's how well the definition explains what most people seem to mean when they use the word.

The two dictionary definitions I offered seem to me to cover the possibilities well enough for everyday use. (They're definitions, not encyclopedia articles.) It's unfortunate that they describe two different, even contrasting, phenomena (trad songs and songs "inspired" by them), but they do. That's how the words are actually used, and have been for at least fifty or sixty years.

But posters here aren't just interested in *the* definition of "folksong" (which demands that there be just one); they're equally exercised about what specific songs "deserve" the coveted "folk" label. And clearly it is coveted. (Another word whose meaning has expanded, though less obviously, in recent decades.)

Labeling isn't a matter of definition but of application. The gray area, which hardly existed 150 years ago, is now - because of the commercial definition of "folksong" - quite enormous. To that extent it's a futile discussion.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 08:09 AM

"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat."
― Confucius.
The next hardest thing of all is to define folk song, especially when no one can agree on a definition... Dick Miles

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 08:12 AM

"We have a specific and identifiable body of songs, we have an attempt to identify that body of songs socially and culturally and up to relatively recently we have had a consensus on what those songs are - that is our 'definition'."

It depends what you mean by 'relatively recently'. I first became aware of folk music in the late 1960s and even then the term was widely understood to include modern as well as traditional folk. The big stars of the day were the Ian Campbell Folk Group, the Spinners, and the Dubliners and they all included modern songs as well as traditional ones in their repertoire. Of course the REALLY big stars were Dylan, Simon & Garfunkel, Donovan, Joni Mitchell... all widely understood to be 'folk'.

Can you please say when the period of linguistic purity you refer to came to an end? From my own experience I know it must be more than 50 years ago.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 08:45 AM

"We have a specific and identifiable body of songs, we have an attempt to identify that body of songs socially and culturally and up to relatively recently we have had a consensus on what those songs are - that is our 'definition'."
but we do not, because if you approached different people interested in folk music, they have different musical boundaries which they use to define folk music.
for example al whittle has different boundaries to jim carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 08:53 AM

But it hasn't been defined Jim. The 1954 definition was out of date as it was written.

Those who are comfortable with the 1954 definition might feel it is defined for them, but it certainly doesn't define it for the thousands of people who like folk music and haven't even heard of a definition, not least one that was dreamt up before most folk music was even written...

It defines a tight knit group of traditional lyrics derived from the oral tradition. Folk as an umbrella is far far more than that. The oral tradition has been replaced by the youtube tradition...

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 09:01 AM

"But it hasn't been defined Jim. The 1954 definition was out of date as it was written."
By whose reckoning, and what has replaced it?
It has always needed updating, no argument, but nobody has and it serves as a guide for virtually every published collection and the output of labels like Topic and the School of Scottish Studies.
Any form of definition has become inconvenient for the present club scene so nobody has bothered
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 10:22 AM

Again it is this word 'definition' which is causing problems

The 1954 Definition describes traditional music. Once this was synonymous with 'folk' but no longer - not for musicological reasons but because language has altered. It is meaningful to use this definition but only for certain purposes. These do not include prescribing what is allowed into a 'folk club'.

For at least half a century the meaning of 'folk' has widened to include a much broader range of music which defies definition but can usually be recognised. The fact that this is also called 'folk' may be confusing, and may be regrettable, but language has its own momentum. The term 'folk club', again by common usage, usually refers to this wider meaning. As long as what is performed is recognisable as 'folk' in this sense, calling it a 'folk club' is not inaccurate, even if it does not include traditional songs. Again, this may be regrettable but is how term is widely understood. Language again.

In practice clubs which want to focus on a narrower spectrum often specify this somewhere in their name or publicity material. Equally, clubs which want to put on an even wider range of music call themselves 'open mics' to distinguish themselves from 'folk clubs'.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 10:50 AM

Jim Carroll
I have become extremely tired of saying that I am perfectly happy with newly composed songs being included in a folk song evening - you damn well know this - I have advocated it in all my arguments
Yes, I know. I am just trying to find out what the objective criterion is that makes those songs "acceptable".

- I have stated the my main influence has been MacColl - who wrote more contemporary songs using folk forms than most people had hot dinners
The list I put up were people who were doing likewise.
Your influences and your list are neither here nor there. Other people have different influences and different lists. What makes yours right and theirs wrong?

That isn't a subjective judgement - it's something that can be verified by merely comparing the forms.
You have stated frequently that folk songs are not defined by style or form but by derivation and process. How can you compare forms if there are none?

it is a matter of what is acceptable to someone who might have a little idea of what the term means based on what has gone before
How can you possibly say that isn't subjective?

You, rather dishonestly, entered into this discussion by suggesting that I might go to your club brandishing a copy of '54 - I have many disagreements with you, but I expected a little more from you than that.

I responded to what you had said -

Walk into a folk club and you your probably be told "Piss off, we don't need a definition" - and quite likely be asked to leave, judging by the way some of these discussions end up.
I need a fairly solid definition for whet we choose to do

You would only be asked to leave if you were causing a disturbance by demanding that the material performed fitted some sort of definition. The only definition that I know of is the 1954 one. If that is not what you meant, please tell me what "fairly solid definition" you want people to conform to. (And I didn't say "brandishing ".)

After several requests, you have finally got round to responding to my first question - a little late, but better late than never, I suppose.
I never felt any obligation to answer that question since you weren't answering mine. Howard Jones was giving perfectly satisfactory answers which you were ignoring so why bother. I did, however, give an answer in my post of 11 Sep 14 - 11:33 AM which I then quoted and expanded on in my post of 15 Sep 14 - 01:39 PM. I further developed the point yesterday in my post of 16 Sep 14 - 01:23 PM. All a waste of time since you still haven't got the point -

So calling a club 'folk' no is longer an indication of what goes on there

anymore than calling a place a restaurant guarantees what you will find. Look the place up, read their advertising, read the reviews. At the very least, stop and read the menu outside before walking into an Angus Steak House and demanding sushi. The Singers Club and The Court Sessions would never have had any customers at all if people had relied on what it said on the label.

little wonder that someone who has claimed the clubs are in the bloom of health
Never said anything of the sort. Your contention is that what you like to think of as folk music (still poorly defined) has all but vanished from UK folk clubs to be replaced by 1950s pop and heavy metal. My contention is that this is not so and, yes, the fact that I am here deeply involved in folk music and regularly meeting people who are similarly involved while you are sitting in County Clare reading about it on the internet is relevant.

I await with some interest to see if you get round to answering my other question, do you find putting on 1950s pop et al, a fair way to treat people who have turned up to listen to folk songs?.
A complete non question. I have never experienced this and you have provided no evidence that it happens. I don't think "I seem to remember that it was a Sussex folk club that was offering pop hits from the fifties on their 'folk', though I might have mis-remembered that one." will stand up in court.

You still haven't answered the question I asked in my post of 02 Sep 14 - 01:13 PM -
How can I tell whether the works of Brian Bedford, Roger Bryant, Jon Heslop, Mike O'Connor, Graham Moore, Mick Ryan, Lennon and McCartney, Sandra Kerr, Buddy Holly, Frankie Armstrong, Bob Dylan, Gordon Sumner... fit in with "what it says on the tin" for a folk club?

As for his running mate, The Skibbereen Stalker
I think Dick is motivated more by his hostility to you than any great desire to support me. I haven't taken much notice. You, on the other hand, thanked Teribus warmly for his support.

not the stuff idea sharing is made of, as far as I'm concerned. Ya gorra larf.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 10:54 AM

Is that what happens at sing-around clubs nowadays - are you backing me or Bryan in our argument on the state of clubs.

I've told Musket he should get out more. Perhaps you could give him the details of those clubs playing 50's pop songs and heavy metal. That should cheer him up.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 10:57 AM

"Once this was synonymous with 'folk' but no longer "
Yes it is Howard - this is how it was documented- if you pick a volume of songs from your shelf such as 'The New Penguin Book of Folk Songs" you will find a book full of traditional songs.
'The Gavin Greig Folk Song Collection' consists of 8 substantial volumes of traditional songs.
You can trace a continual thread of published folk songs from the beginning of the 20th century to the present day, all clearly defined as folk songs - a century and a quarter long pedigree.
Your man-in-the-street definition doesn't fit as a definition because it has no consensus - ask one man, you get one definition, ask another and you are quite likely to get a totally different one - not a definition, rather a series of 'Chinese whispers'.
The nearest the clubs come to a definition is either "what we (individual club) put on is folk" or "we don't need a definition" the music can range from High Baroque to heavy metal.
The definition has in no way changed - it has largely been totally abandoned by the clubs.
As Muskett said, if Fred Jordan walked into his club had be sat down and shown how it was done (this would include 'I Don't Like Mondays' presumably)
I'm coming around to thinking that Muskett's Anti-folk fundamentalism is why the club scene is where it is today.
I believe I'm better out of all this, but on the other hand, at one time the clubs provided a doorway into folk song for many thousands of people like me, who had no idea it existed - take them away and you close that doorway leaving no other access to a working peoples culture that has survived for many centuries.
Traditional music in Ireland will survive and develop for at least another two generations- English Traditional song has been left in the hands of a few 'tree-huggers' (as they were described by a university authority when it closed down its folk studies department).
That makes me both sad and angry enough to stand my ground.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 11:33 AM

Brace yourselves.

The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't even bother to recognize two distinct definitions, just two nuances of a *single one*:

From the OED:

"folk-song. n. A song originating from the common people; also, a modern imitation of such a song."

The entry was updated in 1972, nearly twenty years after the 1954 definition.

Oxford also gives this example, without comment, from the Listener in 1966:

"That passage from Ecclesiastes which Pete Seeger has turned into a beautiful folk song."

Frankly, the first half of the definition could be considerably tighter - as in the (American) college dictionary that I've already quoted - but I can't argue with the overall description.

Shall we now argue about the authority of the OED? Or simply admit that the songs Jim and others describe actually exist, but that outside of highly specialized contexts the word now *also* has a far wider application?

How wide, we've seen here. And who nowadays doesn't want to be considered one "of the common people"?

PS: Whatever the shortcomings of the OED's definition, the OED and its abridgments are the places a great many journalists and writers refer to for ultimate guidance.

So if the OED says it, millions will follow suit.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 12:09 PM

And who nowadays doesn't want to be considered one "of the common people"?

Er? Musket?

Musket
I keep saying you couldn't afford me.
But you say you aren't famous. Just a suggestion but, might you not get better known if you adopted a more realistic pricing policy?

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Bounty Hound
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 01:08 PM

I have become extremely tired of saying that I am perfectly happy with newly composed songs being included in a folk song evening - you damn well know this - I have advocated it in all my arguments

So says Mr Carroll, therefore we can advertise an evening (presumably in a 'Folk' club) as a 'Folk song evening' and we can include newly composed songs. But here's the problem, what on earth do we call those 'newly composed songs' to make sure that Mr Carroll knows precisely what to expect when he turns up at our 'Folk song evening'

Now, Mr Carroll is adamant that we have to have a definition for 'folk' songs, and cannot use the 'F'word for anything that does not fit that definition, so he would presumably consider it logical to expect a 'definition' for those new songs.

I've asked Mr Carroll several times in this thread to help us all out and tell us what we are to call these new songs, but the best he has managed so far is a 'new song in a folk song style' but then tells us that folk is not a style! He did not seem to like my suggestion that we could simplify 'new song in a folk song style' to FOLK!

So let's try the question one last time. Please Mr Carroll, help us, and tell us what we must call these new songs?

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 01:25 PM

I appear to be fundamentally against folk music and something or other about Fred Whassisname.

It must be fascinating inside your mind Jim... Not that I wish to understand it you see. I'd be grateful if you just stopped misrepresenting what I put. If you can't make a decent point, putting silly words in the mouths of others doesn't make your posts any better.

Quite the opposite in fact.

Anyway, I'm off to sing some folk songs tonight with my trusty carbon fibre folk guitar. I reckon I know what they are, although I chop and change as most of us do. My provisional list doesn't have a folk song that existed in 1954. No reason, just looking at the list, all contemporary tonight.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 01:44 PM

"Traditional music in Ireland will survive and develop for at least another two generations- English Traditional song has been left in the hands of a few 'tree-huggers' (as they were described by a university authority when it closed down its folk studies department)."
   on what evidence is this statement made, I see The Irish singers club scene as rather inward looking, for example the insistence that irish singers clubs should be unaccompanied only, much as i love unaccompanied singing, I find the exclusion of accompanying instruments, backward looking and exclusive, I understand the reason behind it is to prevent musicians coming in and turning it into a tunes session, but imo to prevent accompanying instruments immediately makes the evening less interesting and means less variety sound wise, and means that unaccompanied singing has less impact.
Traditional irish instrumental music is being pushed in a certain direction by CCE, which I believe Jim thinks is not good for its development, and on this i would agree

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 02:13 PM

Jim said "Your man-in-the-street definition doesn't fit as a definition because it has no consensus"

That was the point I was making earlier - that this meaning cannot be defined objectively, in the way that you would prefer to use it. Talk of a 'definition' is meaningless. Nevertheless there is a broad consensus. What you cannot do is draw a line between this folk and a different genre - but neither can you for any other genre of music.

The definition you insist upon - which I entirely accept for what it is - is only of interest to enthusiasts and academics who wish to make a distinction between some songs and others (I'm not belittling the importance of that distincton, but for many people who just enjoy listening to music it is an irrelevance). It is not what the word means in common usage. If you want to fight that battle, you're about 50 years too late.

If I recall correctly, you are a retired electrician - have I got that right? I am sure there are many technical terms in your former profession which the general public uses in a broader or even incorrect sense - I know there are in mine. This is no different. 'Folk' has a technical meaning for one set of users and a general meaning for others. Once you acknowledge that you can determine the meaning from context, or use another term, such as 'traditional folk', when you want to be more precise.

"The definition has in no way changed - it has largely been totally abandoned by the clubs."

You keep saying this, but on what evidence? The experience of most people here is different. You seem to have been exceptionally unlucky in the clubs you have visited recently. It may apply to some clubs, but then it always did. The balance of music I hear today isn't a lot different from 40 years ago. I see a lot of young performers who are very committed to traditional music. Again, this battle was lost 50 years ago.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: GUEST,Phil sans cookie
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 06:00 PM

Actually, BH, Jim has been quite clear and consistent: he talks about new songs written using folk *forms*, I.e. the forms used by existing folk songs, rather than "in a folk style" which would be so broad as to be meaningless.

As for what you call them, can I suggest "songs"?

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Sep 14 - 09:36 PM

well lets suppose you are right jim. stinkers like me and musket have subverted the folk movement. its all our fault - donovan, simon and garfunkel, bod dylan, the beatles, ralph mctell.

everybody thought folk music was fred jordan and ewan - but sadly two villains were at work -undermining western civilisation....breathing our subtle poison into the ears of the young and impressionable.

the folk clubs were our last territorial demand, and we have taken them by blitzkrieg. saturation bombing with versions of streets of london.

perhaps you need to think up a new strategy, a citadel from which to defend English folk music from hobbledehoys like that musket character. he is not to be trusted -even as we speak he is trying to remember the words to the boxer.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 02:56 AM

Oh my name is Fingers Musket
And my story's seldom told
And I massacre folk music
With a yard of Japanese plywood
And a capo
I do requests
Only the ones that have got two chords in
And I disregard the rest
With Bert Weedon's help
One day I'll be the best

Li Li Li
Etc

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Bounty Hound
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 03:48 AM

Phil, one of the joys of the English language is the number of words that can have the same meaning. Actually, I think the phrase used initially was in the folk 'idiom', but in the context of this debate, 'form', 'style' and 'idiom' all have exactly the same meaning. Although of course, Mr Carroll did tell us that folk is not a 'style'

The problem, that I think you've missed, is that Mr Carroll has declared that we can 'qualify' traditional song that fits 1954 with the word 'folk', but has also complained that he does not know what to expect if he turns up to a 'folk' club. So, following his logic, we need to 'qualify' other songs with something. Now you would not call an opera piece just a 'song' so in order that Mr Carroll knows what he's going to get when he visits a 'folk' club, we need to qualify those new songs.

What I've been asking, but he has declined to answer, is HOW do we qualify those new songs that are in the style/form/idiom?

Me, I just call them Folk!

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 04:11 AM

Although of course, Mr Carroll did tell us that folk is not a 'style'


Because it isn't. Which is why he used the more precise phrase 'using folk forms'.

following his logic, we need to 'qualify' other songs with something

Not really. We just need to sing more traditional songs and songs using traditional forms at folk clubs. Jim's asking for changes, not more accurate advertising.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Bounty Hound
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 04:31 AM

Phil, I'll just repeat what I said earlier, form/idiom/style all have the same meaning in the context of this debate.

So help me out here with a practical example, I'm in the process of organising a weekend event that will contain a variety of music, from traditional songs, new songs in a traditional style, other modern songs in a more contemporary style and even some of that dreadful folk/rock.

How do I describe this event? Should the advertising read 'a weekend of folk music and other music using folk forms'

Gets a bit long winded, so I'd be interested to hear your suggestions

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 04:34 AM

"Me, I just call them Folk!"
i call them contemporary folk songs

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 05:59 AM

"Me, I just call them Folk!"

So does everyone else. It seems much easier for the minority who wish to distinguish '1954 folk' from the rest to change their language rather than try to push against the tide of common usage. I call it 'traditional music'.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Bounty Hound
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 06:07 AM

Dick and Howard, I do of course differenciate between traditional and new when required. I'm guessing you would both be comfortable for my weekend to be billed as a 'weekend of folk music'and would know what to expect from that.

however, I'd still be most interested to hear from Phil and Mr Carroll as to how I should advertise said event.

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Musket
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 06:34 AM

Pedantry night
Librarians welcome

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 06:57 AM

Bit pushed for time - I was going to leave this until I'd completed what I had to say, but as "Mr" Bounty hound seems to be having trouble going ahead with his event – will leave the rest till later.
"Phil and Mr Carroll as to how I should advertise said event."
"Mr" Bounty Hound (see how stupidly childish this looks), continues to bang on about what to call the songs he has written – he writes them – call them what you want – I don't write songs so it's really not my job to label your product.
If you are writing using folk forms, that's what they are - new songs using folk forms, these have always been part of any evening in folk clubs I have frequented throughout my life – why on earth should you want to call them anything other than new songs?
The finest and most prolific writer on songs based on traditional forms always referred to what he sang as "folk songs and new songs that derive their ispiration from the older ones" – good enough for Ewan MacColl, certainly good enough for me.   
"well lets suppose you are right jim. stinkers like me.... "
You have made this a personal attack Al, not me – I don't suppose its any use my asking you characters to remove some of the defensive hostility from your postings?
As I said - it's all coming from you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Bounty Hound
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 07:47 AM

Bit pushed for time - I was going to leave this until I'd completed what I had to say, but as "Mr" Bounty hound seems to be having trouble going ahead with his event

Your concern is touching, but actually, I'm having no trouble at all going ahead with my event, posters and tickets printed, website live, facebook page etc etc, and it's billed as a Folk weekend.

Now you have complained about turning up to a 'folk' club, and not hearing anything that you would describe as folk music, so in your eyes, there is obviously an issue with the way that club is promoted. You also stated clearly that it is perfectly acceptable to have new songs included in an evening of folk music. So here's the problem, I don't want you turning up at my event as it's billed as folk, being disappointed and complaining that there is no 'folk' music, so to encompass the varied styles (or forms if you prefer) of music that will be at the event, I need a simple way of conveying what's on offer, that the public will understand.

I'd still be interested to hear your suggestions as to how to promote the event.

I know what I call the songs I and other songwriters have written!

So, the simple question: how would YOU describe an event that contains a mix of traditional song, new songs in that style, contempory songs and folk/rock in a way that the public would understand? (and how about a simple, straightforward answer dealing with just this question)

By the way, you have also complained about lack of respect, so I thought perhaps as we've never actually met, you may prefer Mr Carroll!

Subject: RE: What makes a new song a folk song?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 18 Sep 14 - 08:01 AM

"The finest and most prolific writer on songs based on traditional forms always referred to what he sang as "folk songs and new songs that derive their inspiration from the older ones" – good enough for Ewan MacColl, certainly good enough for me. "

Hard to argue with that, Jim, but it doesn't exactly trip off the tongue. Most people want something a bit snappier, and 'folk' is the word they have chosen to use.

"new songs using folk forms, these have always been part of any evening in folk clubs I have frequented throughout my life"

Unless you have been extraordinarily selective in the clubs you frequented, I find it hard to believe they would not also have included new songs with little if any connection with folk forms.

" – why on earth should you want to call them anything other than new songs?"

"New songs" may be sufficient in a very specific context, but does nothing to place them in any particular genre. "New songs" could be pop, jazz, classical, anything. There is a need for a word to describe songs which don't fit into other categories and which can sit reasonably comfortably along side folk songs and songs using folk forms. Once again, the word in common usage for this is 'folk'.