Still wondering what's folk these days?

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 01:37 PM

Jim
"Wall to wall traditional music programmes on the radio and television, two of the finest traditional music archives in the world, year round - music festivals and schools, thousands of kids playing like maestros - a respect for Irish traditional music throughout the world, applications for research and performance grants as easy as pushing on an open door (up to the Bankers shenanigans having naused up the economy)"
thousands of kids playing in the style of CCE, some looking miserable, dancers wearing ridiculous wigs and over the top apparrell,technically proficient players but who lack the joie de vivre of the emigrant irish playing in england, in the sixties and seventies, jim in my opinion you are talking up the situation, but then you have a vested interest in doing that, you fool nobody.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 09:13 AM

"But I don't think thats right, its more akin to those who follow classical music deciding to introduce a bit of Schoenberg"
Would be nice to think so, but gave up that idea when I found myself leaving folk club after folk club in Britain without ever hearing a song remotely resembling folk
I've had enough arguments on this forum where I've been told that folk ain't folk any more but now includes anything people choose to call "folk"
I was attracted by the comment here quoting the American Scene describing the old English folk songs as in need of modernising, and I still get a bit of giggle about the American "Traditional" Folk Festival that has a policy of only booking guests that "write their own stuff".
Not so long ago someone produced a horrific ad from a University folk song course in England saying that its study course would commence with (some modern pop group whose name totally escapes me (tbtG)
"who have to give everything a label."
Labels are so we know what's in the bottle when we but it - without them, we could well be swigging cyanide
"that is not acurate"
It most certainly is
Wall to wall traditional music programmes on the radio and television, two of the finest traditional music archives in the world, year round - music festivals and schools, thousands of kids playing like maestros - a respect for Irish traditional music throughout the world, applications for research and performance grants as easy as pushing on an open door (up to the Bankers shenanigans having naused up the economy)
Beats the old "diddly-di music" image that we encountered when we fist started recording over here.
You may not have it in your corner of the country, but please don't denigrate the the progress that has been made elsewhere
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 08:26 AM

I got dragged into a similar discussion at the office last week. Is baroque classical or are they different genres?

I tend to be suspicious of the types of people who have to give everything a label.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 08:13 AM

Jim says:

"It's always struck me that those folkies who find folk song proper 'old and boring' and feel the need for 'something new, are not unlike, say, those who follow Classical Music saying, "we've got fed up with that old Beethoven and Mozart crap and have decided to introduce a bit of Heavy Metal onto the scene (still remember the embarrassing 'Classics Go Pop' campaign that fizzled out - not soon enough)"

But I don't think thats right, its more akin to those who follow classical music deciding to introduce a bit of Schoenberg. Which they do. So if those who follow folk wand to introduce a bit of Olivia Chaney, or Laura Marling, or in past times Fairport Convention, or, dare I say it, Mumford and Sons, whats the problem. Clearly some people do have a problem though.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 08:12 AM

"Here in Ireland over the last 20 years, there's seen an amazing upturn in the fortunes of traditional/folk music proper, with many thousands of young people taking up traditional instruments and going to the older musicians, either in the flesh or through recordings, to learn the older styles of playin - no need for constant searching for 'something new' - they've realised that, played well and with respect, the traditional tunes and styles work as well as they have for centuries.
Doesn't mean that some don't experiment with new forms, but the fact that the improvement has built a firm foundation in the tradition to come back to means that folk music has been guaranteed a future for at least another two generations and does not need to seek constant change to keep it alive"
some of the upturn is due to CCE, However their competitions do not encourage innovation, to be fair they get a lot of children playing ,but the downside is that it seems to encourage a competitive attitude, their marking system encourages over ornamentation and a homoeoginsed CCE STYLE, Their marking system d couragesis harmony and innovation in certain competitions, in my experience there is very little experimentation within CCE and not much experimentation or innovation outside CCE, If this trencd continues the music will not progress.
In my opinion Jim is painting a rosy picture , that is not acurate

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 07:33 AM

"It also seems to be true that the audience for "contemporary folk" tends to be more affluent and better educated
than audiences for other non-Classical genres, and tend strongly to be white, female, and politically left of center."

Lighter - if nothing else, it seems you've just summed up a prominent current faddish niche market for ukuleles... 😜

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 07:25 AM

It also seems to be true that the audience for "contemporary folk" tends to be more affluent and better educated than audiences for other non-Classical genres, and tend strongly to be white, female, and politically left of center.

I think that by calling one's music "folk," a performer suggests that in some way he or (more often) she represents the "voice of the people" speaking out to the cultural and political Establishment.

The limited popularity of "folk" in any sense, however, calls that assumption into serious question.

Once again I'm only describing what I see.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 06:16 AM

Jim - to add to your post, do you know the Dublin band Lynched? Very encouraging young Dublin singers

https://lynchedfolkmiscreants.bandcamp.com/album/cold-old-fire

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 15 - 04:00 AM

It's always struck me that those folkies who find folk song proper 'old and boring' and feel the need for 'something new, are not unlike, say, those who follow Classical Music saying, "we've got fed up with that old Beethoven and Mozart crap and have decided to introduce a bit of Heavy Metal onto the scene (still remember the embarrassing 'Classics Go Pop' campaign that fizzled out - not soon enough)
Here in Ireland over the last 20 years, there's seen an amazing upturn in the fortunes of traditional/folk music proper, with many thousands of young people taking up traditional instruments and going to the older musicians, either in the flesh or through recordings, to learn the older styles of playin - no need for constant searching for 'something new' - they've realised that, played well and with respect, the traditional tunes and styles work as well as they have for centuries.
Doesn't mean that some don't experiment with new forms, but the fact that the improvement has built a firm foundation in the tradition to come back to means that folk music has been guaranteed a future for at least another two generations and does not need to seek constant change to keep it alive      
Nice feeling.
An unexpected offshoot of this upturn has been that is has fed into the Irish economy and now brings many thousands of visitors to Ireland in search of 'the real stuff' - it's helped weather the economic crash caused by the bankers bleeding the nation dry.
In a few weeks time this one-street town in The West will be hosting the 42nd annual, week-long Willie Clancy Summer School, dedicated to the teaching and promoting of traditional music and song, and throughout the year we boast at least half-a-dozen traditional music sessions ranging from enjoyable to world-class.
It seems there is life in the old music yet, if you put your mind to it.
The same has yet to happen with traditional song, but there are signs that things are stirring in that direction and some of the best singing can be heard in Dublin in a club set up and run by young people who have adopted the policy of encouraging people of their own age to perform.
Similarly, earlier this year we heard some stunning singing from young people at a two-day conference at Limerick University's 'World Music Centre' - came home walking on air.
We are hoping that the new websites of song that have been facilitated by The Irish Traditional Music Archive in Dublin and our own Clare County Library site will be the start of making available the large collections of recorded song that are, at present inaccessible.

GOILÍN

CLARE COLLECTION

INISHOWEN PROJECT

Jim Carroll
"this very night i sang a roscoe holcomb song accompanied by banjo"
Sorry to have missed that !!!!

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 07:33 PM

jim carroll,
this very night i sang a roscoe holcomb song accompanied by banjo, it was well appreciated, i sold 5 cds, some of us still do the business and cut the mustard, and dont just talk about it. Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 04:55 PM

I've given up on these debates. I vascillate hopelessly depending on the time of day, though in my heart of hearts, I really know that folk is really the old stuff, passed on by word of mouth, in a way that isn't really done in the west anymore. You sometimes hear people imitating it in folk clubs and festivals...

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,Joseph Scott
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 04:03 PM

"Everybody has an opinion about what folk is, and they are all subjective. Consequently, it is entirely reasonable to say that folk is what you choose it to be." Non sequitur.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 03:29 PM

Might as well say that a dollar bill or a pound coin are "what you choose them to be". Now try going out with a piece of lavatory paper or a pebble, BrendanB, and see how much change you'll get if you offer it for a chocci-bar in the Five-and-dime or the corner shop.

One gives a shit becoz if one HumptiDumptifies the language, communication breaks down -- indeed, doesn't even start. You know that perfectly well. Devil's advocates are mostly the most boring of peeps.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,Joseph Scott
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 03:25 PM

"what is folk can always be boiled down to the simplest delivery." Not even close to true. Old-time folk fiddlers didn't respect each other to the extent that they played simply. Many folk guitarists weren't trying to make sure no one thought they had talent for the guitar that simpler guitarists lacked. Some of "the populace" can play instruments very fast, for instance, just like some of "the populace" can fix engines very fast.

Within oral transmission there were traditional ways to adorn. Within oral transmission there were traditional ways to change music, and whether we call a change "adulteration" is merely a matter of personal taste.

"Real is folk." There's no such thing as unqualified authenticity. Authenticity is always about authentically what.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,BrendanB
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 03:17 PM

Everybody has an opinion about what folk is, and they are all subjective. Consequently, it is entirely reasonable to say that folk is what you choose it to be.   'Purists' can rant and rave as they will, if you think it's folk then it's folk. Furthermore, why on earth does anyone give a shit?

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 02:38 PM

The earliest mention of this in the chanty literature—that I'm able to find at the moment!—is by C. Fox Smith in her 1927 collection. (I have looked at writing mentioning this song back to the 1860s, but, unless I didn't put it in my notes because I thought it wasn't notable, I don't find attention called to this feature.)

I'm not sure when in the year 1927 Smith's book was published, but the March 1927 issue of Gramophone had a review of a recent batch of recordings of chanties commercially released. The review covers 5 different groups' recordings (chanties were REALLY a popular fad at that time, it seems), and all contain renditions of "Rio Grande." About two, the author of the review notes that they pronounced Rio incorrectly--they sing Ree-o instead of Rye-o. I can't say whether the author knows this from experience with oral tradition or if he/she got it from a book like Smith's.

Doing a quick check, these field-recorded singers pronounce "Rye-o":

Mark Page - Carpenter Collection - at sea 1849-1879 - recorded in late 1920s

Joseph Hyson of Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia - Helen Creighton - recorded sometime between 1930s-1956

Leighton Robinson of Falmouth - Library of Congress, Sidney Robertson Cowell - went to sea 1888 - recorded in California, 1939

St. Vincentian whalermen of the 1960s sang "Royo Groun."


Myself attempting to sing in this style, "Royo Groun"

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 12:43 PM

Brian -- I only actually saw Sam Larner 2 or 3 times, and we are going back now to the mid-1950s, so some few years ago. But my recollection is that he did the "you know about old women" bit every time.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 12:29 PM

I like what just-a-passin' through says.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,just a-passin' through
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 10:42 AM

I've always found "folk" to mean "unadulterated" and "unadorned".

If I sing the Springsteen song "The River" straight, because it's a good song and resonates with my experience, that's folk.

If I'm putting on that it's great because I'm from NJ and he's a star and I'm giving my best "earnest" imitation of the man, then it's bullshit.

If I have a natural tremolo/warble/whatever to my voice when I sing, that's folk. If I force myself to sing with, or without, those effects because they're more "traditional", that's bullshit, because it's not honestly coming from my natural self.

Folk is common themes delivered in ways that the populace can understand. A bunch of ri-tee-diddly-um-day doesn't mean a thing to a young urban black audience unless you've connected them to the themes running through the song. The problem is that education, at least Stateside, isn't community/folk-based anymore. it's formulated hypothetically, and from the top down, to try to be one-size-fits as many as possible. If education these days was based on relevance rather than on regurgitation, we'd have teachers relating their lessons in ways their students can grasp by identifying commonalities.

Folk music identifies, highlights and celebrates those commonalities. the fishermen of today can relate to "The Shoals Of Herring" because the work is the same even if the technology and sociopolitical times are different in some ways.

The reason the old songs and acoustic instruments still reign as "folk" by definition is because what is folk can always be boiled down to the simplest delivery. The human voice, the simple scale, the rhythmic clap or relatively primitive drum beat. Even rap, when used to communicate truth rather than to celebrate fantasy at the expense of the ignorant, can be delivered, folk-style, with just a voice.

Real is folk. Fake, with the crutches of innovation for the sake of "the new", and adornments to make otherwise trite and useless pablum palatable, is never folk.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 10:06 AM

You must be happy as a pig in shit right now, Jim. What a wonderful selection of people to be digitising. I'm not familiar with the Beech Mountain selections, though. Do tell more...

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 08:01 AM

Wasn't goint to bother with this, much of which seems about as far from folk so songs as you can get, but I'm in the process of digitising some of my old vinyl albums, (now up to the U.S. ones) and cant help wondering 'Where have all the flowers gone?'
Having just done Dillard Chandler, Roscoe Holcomb, Nimrod Workman and Frank Proffitt, I'm in the middle of the 2 Beech Mountain Folk Legacy selections.
Does anybody sing as good songs as that as well as that anymore.
Not in my hearing, and isn't the folk world a much impoverished place for it.
Talk about 'the best of times and the worst of times!!'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 07:35 AM

Fair points, Michael, and each to their own. Attunement of ears is a necessary prerequisite to enjoying traditional singing for many people, I would think.

I never saw Larner perform - was the 'old women' schtick always there in his live performances of 'Butter', d'you remember? Personally I found Harry Cox's rather austere style a lot harder to get into, at least at first.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 06:01 AM

Brian -- I don't think Nic meant his "not ... entertainment" as any sort of put-down; but was just pointing out to Valerie that she, as a scholarly person herself, should appreciate that there was more to the singing of such singers than merely instant appeal. Remember too that we have ears attuned by custom to different criteria from those of the popular-music listener at large.

Many found Sam Larner 'entertaining' becoz of his humorous-intro-+-cante·fable style, which, tho I loved his basic material, I personally found something of a turn-off: "Just belt up & sing, why dontcha!", I would mutter under my breath, as he went off on his facetious & interminable & predictable & otiose (the song is funny enough to make its own point without needing the humour drawn to the attention of thickos like me, thank you!) "You know what old women are like don't you" shtick in the middle of "Butter & Cheese". Harry Cox never indulged in such distracting self-indulgences, & I think would have thought shame to do so. But, as always, in the indispensible formula of Abe Lincoln, as cited by Miss Jean Brodie et al, "For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like".

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,matt milton
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 05:30 AM

There's another category I would add to Phil's list:

d) All songs sung by a Source Singer (or a Well Established Folk Singer)

This has become particularly apparent to me, as I've been listening to a lot of the Musical Traditions label albums recently (all crazily cheap to download currently).

It's interesting that all the songs get Roud Index numbers, including ones that were sentimental tunes of the 20s and 30s popularised by Classical singers or crooners or country singers - songs that the Source Singer would have learned from a 78rpm or radio.

One case in point being the song 'City of Laughter, City of Tears', which I heard recently on the Bob Hart album 'A Broadside'. Thanks to youTube, I can hear that this is a Light Classical piece recorded by the tenor William Thomas, with orchestra.

There's a corollary to this Stateside, in the case of singers like Mance Lipscomb or Mississippi John Hurt, where the boundary between folk song and jazz/blues standards and country standards of the day gets blurred.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 03:52 AM

Larry, Phil, your category (b) would include Mike Oldfield's version of In Dulci Jubilo, and Led Zeppelin's Black Mountain Side, is that what you intend?

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Musket
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 03:32 AM

Alternatively, see what iTunes calls it as a genre.

Vin Garbutt is country and western apparently, when I bought an album of his recently! Notwithstanding that some on here would say that he isn't folk, despite a long successful career entertaining folk music appreciating audiences...

Folk isn't really a genre. It encompasses too much. It is certainly prone to being a music of the people due to the mainly acoustic and therefore more easily attainable entertainment. Certain styles are folk in that they are easy to reproduce without expensive electronic props. Traditional songs and tunes fit the bill nicely.

But folk is and always will be subjective and whatever you are comfortable with calling it. The folk I play and love listening to most tends to be classed as roots these days. A sub genre if you really must take a librarian approach.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 09 Jun 15 - 01:00 AM

Interesting thread. I realize that the whole 'what is folk' theme is one that creates a lot of frustration and yawns.

If it weren't for the fact that the category gets used to describe certain types of music, I'd be willing to pass it by.

My dilemma is that our government run Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) as part of their radio station licensing requirements requires that we play 35% Canadian content for any rock, pop or country music (they even have an acoustic pop category). (Category 2)

But they also have another category called Category 3---which is special interest music. It includes something called "folk or folk-oriented'.   'Folk' to me is fairly clear in terms of traditional music.   'Folk-oriented'?   I have no idea.

So this discussion helps. Knowing what people who define themselves as folk music fans like gives me some idea.

I like Phil Edward's inclusion of:

a) all traditional songs, irrespective of what you do to them
b) all traditional tunes, irrespective of what you do to them
and
c) varying quantities of other stuff, defined by varying criteria but usually not irrespective of what you do to it.

So now all I have to worry about is what constitutes (c)

At this point I'm including is mostly acoustic, isn't too complicated, and which the 'folk' can sing. And especially if it says something relatively meaningful.

Unless others come up with better ideas.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 05:39 PM

Guest, Dave, wrote:

"So, not having heard of Joseph Taylor, and wondering why his music was being ignored, with the magic of Youtube you can listen to a small number of these... A good singer, with a good voice, but not, I think, out of the ordinary. The recording is a scratchy wax cylinder recording and the sound quality is of course dreadful, but its 105 years ago, so what do you expect.

A recording of great historical importance, yes. But for an evening's relaxation I will listen to Nic Jones singing Rufford Park Poachers..."

Hi, Dave. I'm happy that you took the trouble to listen to Joseph Taylor, and it doesn't bother me greatly that you prefer Nic Jones' 'Rufford Park Poachers'. I might, too, depending on the circumstances. I wasn't grumbling that Taylor's singing was being ignored, just saying that 100 year old recordings still do it for ME, without any 'reinvigoration'. A personal view only - no-one has a duty to listen to Taylor, but if someone does as a result of my mentioning him, that makes me happy.

Brigg Fair is perhaps his biggest hit, but personally I think his 'Rufford Park' is great too.

I chose JT as an example, partly because his are the oldest recordings we have of a traditional English singer who was also highly skilled. Without any disrespect to Anne Briggs, Taylor pulls off decorations that any revival singer - ever - would have found it hard to reproduce: technically he was very, very good. The recordings are, of course, scratchy, but so are those of Robert Johnson, and many blues fans would prefer his 'Crossroads' over Clapton's any day.

I teach classes on traditional singing regularly, and never tire of hearing Taylor's singing when I play it to a class - although there are other old singers I might listen to for pleasure before him. I spent a happy hour or so with Walter Pardon on a recent car journey, and Sam Larner, Phil Tanner and Caroline Hughes never fail to give pleasure. If Nic Jones said [see MGM's post]: "they are of great scholarly importance; they aren't meant to be 'entertainment'", I completely disagree. Sam Larner won singing competitions in fishermen's clubs the length of the East Coast because he was a fantastic entertainer. He certainly entertains me.

For singers looking for traditional repertoire, of course you can view old singers primarily as a source, but they have a vast amount to offer the listener, through technique and sheer ability to connect. It isn't always easy to get into this stuff on the first hearing, but it is well worth persevering with. IMO, of course.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 02:15 PM

If only I could still muster even half my brain power of 30 years ago,
when I was a post grad student concerned with matters of culture, ideology, and identity...

If I could.. I'd try to understand 'folk' less by the musical genre style and content,
but place more emphasis on analysing the prevailing dominant agendas & vested interests
of self-serving commercial & academic institutions;
and the predisposition, attitudes, prejudices, and social status of performers, audience, critics, etc...

... or maybe I'd just turn the lights off, put my head in an insulated hot water bottle cosy
and scream for 10 minutes....😫

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 01:32 PM

As I suggested, none of the songs mentioned by henryp have been subject to much alteration by any oral tradition or "folk process." The yare what they've always been.

Part of the reason, of course, is copyright. Another reason is that people no longer care to alter the songs they hear - partly because commercially recorded songs are usually about as good as they're going to get.

In the English-speaking world, bawdy or rugby songs appear to be the only ones that are still subject to a meaningful "folk process." But the Internet is probably changing that too, since now no one *ever* has to remember words. They can just run a search.

I don't say that the old-time folk tradition was good or bad, merely that it has nothing of significance to do with what is now generally considered to be "folk."

Nor am I passing judgment on the quality or value of the music.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,Joseph Scott
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 12:58 PM

"something to do with perceived authenticity" "aesthetic of authenticity" "quantify authenticity" "indicators of authenticity. Because authenticity is the ultimate goal...."

Any time someone perceives something as "authentic" without asking himself "authentically what," he's indulging in an idealism that has nothing to do with understanding history.

As for the repeated suggestion that categorization is about personal taste, not when it's done right.

"was really subjective" "It's just subjective" Technically speaking, everything we do is "just subjective." So what?

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 11:48 AM

Songs from the 1920s; what about The Prisoner's Song by Guy Massey
© 1924 by Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., Inc.

Oh, I wish I had someone to love me,
Someone to call me their own.
Oh, I wish I had someone to live with
'Cause I'm tired of livin' alone.

There are some Jimmie Rodgers songs too;
Blue Yodel No. 1 (T for Texas) was recorded in 1927.
In the Jailhouse Now" was recorded February 15, 1928.

Bye, Bye, Blackbird is a song by composer Ray Henderson and lyricist Mort Dixon was first recorded by Gene Austin in 1926.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 11:23 AM

The point of the thread is to discover what most people generally mean when they talk glibly about "folk.""


Doesn't help any but I think I'd have to go along with the equally vague anything you might reasonably expect to hear in a folk club or session on that one...

In practice on "what is folk" and in terms of getting out, I and most others I know just try to be "fitters in". Initially, you go to a session (my own preference is usually for mostly tunes) or a club and try to get a feeling for what in your own sense of "folk" repertoire would work there. Where the "goal posts" are placed is down to those who've been around longer. And for me, the only real debate is to what extent I fit/enjoy.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 11:00 AM

The point of the thread is to discover what most people generally mean when they talk glibly about "folk."

That's not the same as asking. "What really is or should be a folksong?"

And anyone who's heard me play will agree that I'm better off theorizing.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 10:58 AM

thishttps://www.ecosia.org/search?q=billericay+dickie+you+tube

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 10:37 AM

I've come to the realisation that these days I seem to spend more time reading and thinking about 'folk' music
than I do performing, or even listening to it...

Likewise, I'm convinced some mudcatters obsessively devote disproportionate hours
writing and theorising about 'folk'...!!!???

What a weird little subcultural preoccupation...??????

oh well... if it keeps us safely off the streets and out of trouble....😏

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 09:56 AM

I was careful to say, "The last American (non-bawdy) songs to have been *subject to many changes in oral tradition*...."

Plus, "I can't think of even one 1920s pop song that is now a "folk song. Unless 'folk song' now means "very old song you rarely if ever hear anymore."

By that standard, "Purple People Eater" is a folksong. You can call it that if you want, but it just confuses the issue - as so many other threads have shown.

The English songs mentioned appear to fall into the category of "old, rarely sung songs that hardly change - and that people don't want to change." Undoubtedly some songs written today may be sung a century from now, and very possibly they'll be called "folk songs."

But they'll have almost *nothing* in common with the titles I mentioned. That in itself should show that the distinction is useful and real.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 09:32 AM

I also listened to Olivia Chaney, a good singer and a multi-instrumentalist (and in my view loads better than Loreena McKennitt). Is her music New Age? I have never really understood what New Age music is, New age is a philosophical outlook derived a bit from Theosophy, but I am not really sure how it came to be a musical genre. It seems to mean music which sounds a bit like Enya, or maybe something involving William Orbit.

I don't see how her music can be thought of as any kind of Jazz, even Light Jazz (and definitely not Lite Jazz). Jazz is an American form and Olivia Chaney is definitely an English singer.

She sings songs by writers usually thought of as folk artists, such as Bert Jansch, and she sings them in a bit of an MoR way. I though a bit like Vashti Bunyan, though better on the instruments.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 09:01 AM

Interesting you mention Nic Jones there in that connection, Dave; because he it was (once when visiting our house when we were neighbours in Cambridgeshire [only 12 mile apart!], & my late wife Valerie mentioned how she couldn't warm to the Leader & Topic records I would get for review of the source singers like Joseph Taylor, Pop Maynard, et al) who replied, "Ah, but they are of great scholarly importance; they aren't meant to be 'entertainment'." Valerie, who was a scholar herself*, saw what he meant immediately, and never again inveighed against those that she had up-to-then dismissively called "your old men".

≈M≈

*[google her on Wikipedia, Valerie Grosvenor Myer]

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 08:57 AM

Just as songs passed back and forth between print and oral tradition in earlier centuries, so from the advent of recording technology onwards songs pass back and forth between records and oral tradition.

Little Pigs/The Old Sow
c1830s glee....pub tradition....oral tradition....Albert Richardson 78....oral tradition...?

Plenty of other examples. Fire ship...etc.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker/folkpunkrocker/rockpunkfolker
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 08:48 AM

1920s American pop songs now accepted as folk... ???

.. so not forgetting the influential early 20th Cent popular old timey country & blues hit selling 78rpm records;
and perhaps a fair few broadway show songs
creeping in at the margins of the broad 21st Cent 'folk' repertoire...????

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 08:42 AM

I think some people have a bit of a hair-shirt approach to folk music, maybe all genres of music have aficionados with this approach. So, not having heard of Joseph Taylor, and wondering why his music was being ignored, with the magic of Youtube you can listen to a small number of these. Two I found were Rufford Park Poachers and Sprig of Thyme. A good singer, with a good voice, but not, I think, out of the ordinary. The recording is a scratchy wax cylinder recording and the sound quality is of course dreadful, but its 105 years ago, so what do you expect.

A recording of great historical importance, yes. But for an evening's relaxation I will listen to Nic Jones singing Rufford Park Poachers, or Anne Briggs singing Let No Man Steal Your Thyme, with modern sound recording techniques (remastering a live performance in the case of Nic Jones). Did these people listen to Joseph Taylor's recordings? Who knows? In any case, Joseph Taylor's music is not being ignored, it is being recorded by people with great talent, in the case of those two possibly greater than his, and with vastly superior recording technology.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 08:29 AM

1908 My Brudda Sylvest. I don't know about America where it originated but it was sung a lot in WWII and carried on in the pub sings until the folk scene got hold of it. I doubt if 'Old Johnny Booker' is much older.

Moving on to the folk scene, plenty of English folk artistes of the 60s were including 20s comic songs in their repertoires, such as 'Taking my Oyster for Walkies'. Popular songs of any period will always be accepted into the folk repertoire but they won't be forced!

Recording source singers in more recent years they often offer songs they were taught at school like 'The Jolly Wagonner'.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 07:35 AM

> But the Folk Songs of the future are all around us,

Heh heh. So they've been saying.

But let's look back. To the 1920s for example.

That was nearly one hundred years ago. I can't think of even one 1920s pop song that is now a "folk song."

Unless "folk song" now means "very old song you rarely if ever hear anymore."

Which is certainly a possibility.

The last American (non-bawdy) songs to have been subject to many changes in oral tradition seem to be a few from the 1890s (before radio and practically before phonographs):

"John Hardy"
"The Wreck on the C & O Road"
"Stackolee"
"Frankie and Johnny"
"Railroad Bill"
"Mister McKinley" (1901 but what the hell)
   

Probably a handful more.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Mr Red
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 04:17 AM

Anyone mention Chas & Dave?
If they ain't folk, just give them 100 years and the techno-folkism of that era will look nostalgically at the "Old Songs".

Gertcha!

The problem with defining "Folk" is that "modern" does not have that patina, that distance, that age. But the Folk Songs of the future are all around us, I dare you to spot them.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 08 Jun 15 - 03:25 AM

Then there's category four. From the Cambridge Folk Festival to the smallest, most traditional singaround, the audience will always perk up for an acoustic Anarchy in the UK, a John Cooper Clarke poem done in the style of Gordon Lightfoot, Good Vibrations unaccompanied and in three-part harmony or Telstar on whistle, bodhran and autoharp. They (we) love that stuff.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 09:07 PM

> commercialization, promotion and the agenda of impressing all and sundry with virtuosity for it's own sake.

What so many professional "folk musicians" are into.

> questions of equal unimportance

In other words, most questions. This just happens to be one that interests some of us.

> Lighter - we're in violent agreement.

Finally there's somebody....

OK then. You've got your "traditional music," which everybody seems to be able to agree on, whether they want to listen to it or not. It's also known as "folk."

Then you've got your "folk-rock," which can be either rock arrangements of traditional music (like Steeleye)or else new rock songs claimed to have some relationship, however tenuous, to traditional music (I'm thinking early Dylan). That too is sometimes just called "folk."

Finally you've got "folk" of the Chaney-McKennitt variety, which is essentially "new or recent singer-songwriter material that is usually acoustic, draws on various styles including jazz, strives for nuanced, often romantic lyrics on a wide variety of subjects, is believed to be especially personal and sincere, and is often sung in a dreamy or understated way."

And I think number three is what most people are thinking of when they talk about and pay money for "folk."

What makes it complicated is that "folk" has not one, not two, but at least three distinct meanings when applied to music.

And you never know which one is going to pop up....

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: GUEST,The oldest banjo player in Franklin County (
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 05:56 PM

It is not just mudcat where the "What is... etc." rages on. The Banjo Hangout has many a thread attempting to answer that and other questions of equal unimportance. Brought to my easily confused memory was this verse from Roy Berkeley's parody "Party Folksinger" about the activities of the Peoples' Artists (singing those "good old People's songs)

"Their material is corny
But their motives are the purest
And their spirit can never be broke.
As they go right on with their great noble crusade
Of teaching folk music to the folk"

I have a button which says: Folk You! (nicely, though)

I used to hate folk music until I realized folk music is the music people enjoy in spite of commercialization, promotion and the agenda of impressing all and sundry with virtuosity for it's own sake.

Tom

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 04:41 PM

Lighter - we're in violent agreement. The point of folk(2) is that it can only be defined as "whatever people happen to be calling folk at the moment" - or, in your words, it's fuzzy all the way through.

Subject: RE: Still wondering what's folk these days?
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 02:53 PM

> the person who writes his or her own songs and wants to "legitimize" their songs by claiming they are "folk."

True, but what is there about the product that "legitimizes" it? People either like or don't like other music, without musicians/publicists needing to "legitimize" it (or themselves).

> about to 'drag English Folk Music kicking and screaming into the 21st century'

If it's got to be "dragged" or "reinvigorated," then it must be pretty bad, or at least unpopular. I don't see why a musician would want to associate herself with music that's supposed to be so tedious and antiquated that it needs to be morphed into something entirely different.

Anyway, Joseph Taylor's music isn't being morphed. It's being ignored or (perhaps) used in a vague way as inspiration, much as movies that are 95% fiction marketed as "Inspired by true events."

I can understand why people would want to watch "true" events. But I can't understand why people who would be bored to tears by actual folk/traditional music performed a by an actual traditional musician, *like* to think that some utterly different contemporary music really "is" what the stuff they dislike apparently "isn't."

Maybe it's just a fake, industry-induced "nostalgia" for a distorted past that's so romanticized and plain miscomprehended that its music *must* have sounded like what the "folk" audience wants to hear now.

Offhand I can't imagine any other reason for marketing it as "folk." As I said before, why not "light jazz" or "New Age" or something like that?

On the other hand, "folk traditions" and the past are usually absent from the modern music we're talking about - except when some simplistic history is invoked in protest songs.

Even "folk-rock" would make a wee bit more sense: but perhaps today "folk" is just an abbreviation for "folk-rock."