Did I miss something? (policy on requests?)

Subject: Did I miss something?
From: N.W.T.O
Date: 13 Jul 97 - 10:26 PM

Not wishing to offend (NWTO) anyone, but did I miss where the official stated policy and definition of what can be requested on this forum? Maybe I found this forum through the backdoor and missed the entrance notice. Could one of the creators and authors please direct to the state policy? Thank you.

Subject: RE: Did I miss something?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Jul 97 - 11:10 PM

As you come in the door, you'll note blues & folk, there's been much debate on what that should encompass. It is loosly guided if at all & I'd say, thanks to Dick, Susan & others who's baby this is, is pretty much self governed, hence debate & disagreement (all healthy). Some like myself are staunch supporters of staying to blues& folk & even borderline or grey areas, others will allow pop, rock, musicals, etc. Some of the debate comes from the deferences of the definition of folk music, but if it is in that area it's usually accepted (the more it stays in that area, the more it will be accepted, at least by myself & Elsie). Part of the disagreement comes from whether it's acceptable to just go ahead & blatantly disreguard where it says Blues & Folk & become a fourm for anything that comes in that's musical or poetry or prose or ...... I hope this helps, we including Elsie aren't rude, only concerned about the direction this fourm & folk music in general takes. Enjoy & stay," New Blood Is Good For Growth". (Child # ?). Barry

Subject: RE: Did I miss something?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Jul 97 - 11:13 PM

Whil I know precisely what folk music is (and isn't), I doubt seriously if anyone would completely agree with me. And so, I'd much rather err on the side of INCLUSIVITY rather than EXCLUSIVITY. If this means we collect an irritating (to me and some others) number of non-folk requests, I'd rather put up with this than leave out something that I might be interested in that might be excluded.

THat said, it would be nice if we could stay somewhere close to the folk (or folkish) idiom. Short of censoring this forum, I can see no way of insuring this.

Subject: RE: Did I miss something?
From: Gates
Date: 14 Jul 97 - 10:44 AM

I also entered through a back door and have been privy to some heated and interesting debates. I was also wondering if there was a front door with rules, FAQs, introductions, etc. If not, I'll just continue to "browse". Love the site and learning lots....

Subject: RE: Did I miss something?
From: Oldtimer
Date: 14 Jul 97 - 12:08 PM

I think there is room for tolerance in this forum for the intrusions by people looking for "non-folk" material (by whatever definition one wishes to use). If a request does not meet my standard of folk definition, I can, if I wish, ignore it and look for something that does. On the other hand, what goes into the DT is another matter. That can be controlled. The DT can be the annointed list of rigorously defined, jealously-guarded material (although I fear it is too late- there is already some questionable material in there, by some of the standards I have read from other folkies). It might be an interesting exercise to start a thread on what should be removed from the DT! What a goat-rope that would be! It is also interesting to note that many songs considered to be "Traditional Folk" (TF) have appeared in other (sometimes several) generes before TF was generally acknowledged as a genre! How does one reconcile this while trying to isolate and rigorously define TF music? Can TF be TF if it was spawned in another genre? If so, what is the argument? Well enough rambling from me... I think Dick Greenhaus has eloquently stated the dilema and the solution to this issue of what is and isn't folk:

>"Whil I know precisely what folk music is (and isn't), I >doubt seriously if anyone would completely agree with me. >And so, I'd much rather err on the side of INCLUSIVITY >rather than EXCLUSIVITY. If this means we collect an >irritating (to me and some others) number of non-folk >requests, I'd rather put up with this than leave out >something that I might be interested in that might be >excluded. >THat said, it would be nice if we could stay somewhere >close to the folk (or folkish) idiom. Short of censoring >this forum, I can >see no way of insuring this."

No offense intended to anyone with a different view of this issue (I hate to have to say that, but it seems someone always takes things personally). I also know that there will never be agreement by everyone, so you have just read my two-cents worth on the issue.

Yours in music,

Oldtimer

Subject: RE: Did I miss something?
From: N.W.T.O
Date: 14 Jul 97 - 05:09 PM

I have followed the debate for several weeks over what is or is not a folk song and what should and should not be on this forum and have certainly contributed my share of threads. I fall on the side of the purist as far as what folk music is, but would hope this forum would continue to be incluse and open to a variety of requests, however, gray. Thanks, Dick, for your comment. I just wanted to know if there was an "official" statement or page that told us what we could and could not contribute or ask for in addition to the statements about copyrighted music and technical stuff back at the DT page.

Subject: RE: Did I miss something?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Jul 97 - 10:52 PM

To repeat what I've already said in some previous post, the Digital Tradition's definition of a folk song is anything that someone likes enough to send in. Of necessity, I excercise a modicum of editorial judgment in what I include, primarily to keep some sort of balance. I COULD add, (parenthetically), that the DT's definition is considerably looser than my own hidebound definition, but that's how we started and that's how we'll continue. The ONLY songs that will be removed from the Digital Tradition will be unwitting duplications and, if it ever comes up, copyrighted material that the copyright holder objects to our inclusion.