Is it really Folk?

Subject: Is it really Folk?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 01:24 AM

hello, i just bought the Mock Tudor CD by Richard Thompson, I was disapointed, I have got most of his other stuff but this seems a bit Rock to me, if this was the first cd of his that i bought, i doubt i would bother buying the rest, was he going through a strange patch wehen he recorded this one?
i don't think much to it, i might tape it, and put it in the mudcat auction, anyone herad it, ? waht you think to it?, sounds a bit all the same to me, what yiu thinkj/

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: alanabit
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 03:43 AM

I would pay money to hear Ricahard Thompson playing either the acoustic or electric guitar. At the end of the day, our definitions of "folk music" will always be rather subjective. We can only really say what we mean by folk. It might not be what you expected John, but if it's by the mighty Richard Thompson I am sure there is something worth listening to on it.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 04:51 AM

Mock Tudor is a reflection of how it is for a young person living out in the London 'burbs, the Metroland ("Walking the Long Miles Home"). There are acute observations on the flotsam and jetsam that pitches up in the city from afar ("Sights and Sounds of London Town") and the adolescent angst of being among it yet alienated ("Dry My Tears and Move On", "Crawl Back Under My Stone").

Yes, it's "suburban folk" of today. And a jolly fine sound too. One of my favourite RT albums.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 05:02 AM

oh.

john

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: GUEST,Richard Thompson
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 09:04 AM

Yes it is folk john.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: greg stephens
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 09:32 AM

no it is not folk, though excellent.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: GUEST,P.Granger
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 10:30 AM

I look forward to collecting it and composing a pastoral with it.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 12:04 PM

Two things to remember:

The question, "Is x folk?" appears to be a question about x, but is really a question about the term "folk."

The answer to such a question is always much more informative about the person giving the answer than it is about the term "folk."

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: John Robinson (aka Cittern)
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 12:19 PM

Steve Earl and Bruce Springsteen are two of the greatest living folk song writers.

IMHO

All the best
John Robinson
http://www.JulieEllison.co.uk

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 12:24 PM

Hank Williams is my favorite American folksinger.

The Beatles are my favorite British folksingers.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 12:39 PM

eerrkk...gulp...*sigh*

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 01:00 PM

I have been tempted several times to start a thread called "Is Swing Folk?" but have never done so because the typical Mudcatter response to such questions seems to be:

"Of course it is/isn't, and you are an effing idiot for asking the question."

I'll just stick with my own opinion on the matter, and not worry about everybody else's.

Anyway, opinions are like assholes: Everybody's got one and they frequently stink.

Bruce

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 01:08 PM

I wish there was some way to accelerate the doctrine about reliving traditions (history) of which one is ignorant. Selectively. I can think of a few heads I would like to push the button on.

If you can't tie it to the legacy context, it doesn't work as "folk" for me; but if all you are doing is a survey of opinions, why?

A

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 01:46 PM

If an amateur poet/miner down amidst the coaldust makes up a rhyme and another fellow adds melody that's not folk, yet.

When the other miners pick up on it, learn it, repeat it, pass it to their children who later perform it for free on the playground where
a skilled musician overhears it and adds it to his do list, performs
it in public to enthusiastic applause . . .

Somewhere along that line, regardless of musical style, it became a
folk song.

I lik Bernie Taupin's notion that when one of his efforts makes its way whether via punk, acid, or whatever; the song has then truly arrived at its intended state, i.e. passed to the people (remember them? the "folk"?) to do with as they will.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Cluin
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 01:51 PM

If you can break it down to one voice and an acoustic guitar, it's folk.

If you need a piano, it isn't.




There. A dumb-ass definition, but I'll set it up on the fence. Get yer BB guns out, boys and girls.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 02:06 PM

if one NEEDS to ask, that probably means it is not considered folk/trad by the conservative elements. As some know, I LIKE to reserve 'folk' for older, acoustic, non-commercial stuff, rather than to continue stuffing new genrés into it until it is so broad it means almost nothing......but it is SUCH a simple, convenient word, and many people don't want to be bothered with analyzing categories. They are at a site which calls itself 'folk', so they want "music I like" to be included. (These same people would no doubt grump if a cookbook just listed 'food')

(I make these points now & then...and now & then someone says.."oh, yeah, I see what you mean"...but usually they just decide to keep streching 'folk' to mean anything they wish it to mean)

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: GUEST,Gene Burton
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 02:15 PM

It's really quite simple. Anything which includes electric piano, synthesizer, drum machines, loops, samples etc. is not folk. Anything I play is :). Gene.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 02:17 PM

Just because we like something that doesn't mean it's folk. Folk isn't another word for "good".

Just because I like honey, it doesn't mean I have to call it "jam" before I'm allowed to spread it only bread. I don't have to call my shoes and my shirt "trousers" in order to get dressed in the morning.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 02:45 PM

This argument has been going on since Richard Thompson was a member of Fairport Convention in the 1960s, and they were performing amplified rock versions of trad songs and tunes as well as self-penned ones. Including of course, on Liege and Lief, Tam Lin and Lttle Musgrave....

Never heard a horse sing.

Kitty

(Described in the Living Tradition as someone who sings folk songs, rather than a folk singer.....)

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 02:52 PM

I'm beginning to not completely give a shit.
I think it's more complicated that just describing the end product. A song may need to be traditional to be a folk song, but the tradition itself doesn't pay too much mind to whether a song's traditional or not, or there would never be any new ones added. People sing songs they like...period. They sing traditional folk songs and they sing Richard Thompson songs. Come back in a couple hundred years and see if they're still around.

I'm not going to change my mind about calling songs which are traditional and have been passed down by generations of average people 'folk' and the rest not, because I need a word to call those songs.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 03:08 PM

"... because I need a word to call those songs."

I think that's what I have been saying for 7 years here...sometimes in much longer paragraphs..*grin*, but essentially that point.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: DebC
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 03:30 PM

Very well, put, Jeri.

Getting back to John's original post, I think one of the things that puts Richard Thompson in the 'folk' category is that he has taken inspiration from and has used elements of many different traditional music forms over the years in his own compositions.

I enjoyed Mock Tudor and also his newest "The Old Kit Bag".

He also has an amazing way of putting words together to make a great story.

Deb Cowan

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: greg stephens
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 03:44 PM

Thank you Jeri, for a very concise and well put post(translation: I agree with it entirely).

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Dave Wynn
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 05:01 PM

Anyone got any provenance as to when the term "Folk" was first applied to song or music (or dance).

Without any proof I would suggest that it was in the 20th century (1920's to 1950's perhaps) as I don't believe that the use of such pigeonholes would have been prevalent earlier.

From the initial use and take up in the nomenclature of Britain and USA it seems to have gained a notoriety that always tends to spin it down rather than up. As I love the genre I always find this difficult to understand but accept the fact that it is so.


Recently popular media has coined the terms "acoustic music" , "Un-plugged" and "roots" none of which sit easily with me. I have tried to think of another generic name that would cover the scene (as I know it) and always fail miserably.

Is there anyone out there that has in depth knowledge of other countries use of the generic term "Folk" and does it receive the same press as in the UK.

No way would I try and define what is or isn't "folk" as I have heard and played many songs and tunes that I would consider fit smoothly into the generic name yet the original artist would probably have a negative response to his or her song being labelled in such a way.

Phew.....I don't usually get so serious or involved. Reality is just a lack of alcohol it seems.


Spot

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 05:38 PM

Jeri

If you need a word to call them, why not "old"

What constitutes "generations?" If a song is passed from grandfather to father to son is that enough generations for you to call it folk? Or does it have to be 4,5,6 or more generations for it to fit into your "I'll call them folk" folder?

Seems to me that is way too narrow, almost cryptic. And what is this traditional stuff anyway? Traditional to who and how many? Isn't a song like Yellow Submarine already a tradtional children's song? What is the cut-off date for something to not be called traditional.

I raise these questions because of the effetism and snobbery that I have found in my 40 years of association with folksingers and musicians involved with this genre.

My favorite answer to this on-going question is to go to Borders or any music store that sells CDs and see what is in their folk music section. Undoubtably you will find something in that section that you don't think belongs there. Ask the manager if you can move it to suit your opinion and see what he says.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 05:53 PM

Not all "folk music" has to have vocal accompaniment.

Funny how it's always people who can't play Piano Accordion who dismiss any unaccompanied music played on it as "not folk music".

Now you go try and argue that down in South America - Brazil Argentinia, etc!

Robin

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: greg stephens
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 06:01 PM

Guest Martin Gibson: I know what Bill D and jeri mean by "folk", they mean just about what I mean by it. Same goes for "beer", "butter" "sunshine" and various other words we might use having a chat, It's useful, and it suits us. It's just confusing to the every day exchanges of life when people come in and change the meaning of words radically. Sure it happens, sure you cant stop it, but you dont always have to love it. And no, the narrow older meaning of "folk" and "old" are not synonymous.MY dad was a church organist . He played a lot of Bach. that's pretty old, but it's not folk.
   I'm going out to listen to meet Kurdish guys tomorrow, for a social get-together. What they will be playing will be new, and mostly folk.What my dad played was old, and mostly not folk.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 06:01 PM

Guest Gene Burton's defintion of "folk" by instrumentation is almost persuasive; until recently, I might have agreed with him.

Back in August, I attended a Wednesday evening ceili at a hotel ballroom in County Rocommon, Ireland, where instrumental dance tunes were played by quartet that included an electric keyboard and a modern-type drum kit.

While I was not the only tourist in the room, most of the participants were local folks who immediately recognized each tune and knew what dance to do. They were obviously engaged in an activity that was/is part of the local folk culture.

Was the music folk music or not? If the definition is determined by intrumentation, the answer would have to be no, but I believe such a decision would be incorrect.

Was the music good, or ideal, or appropriate? Well, not necessarily -- but then, that's not the question. My cousin who brought us to the event didn't like it at all, and was quite apologetic -- he had expected a different group with a more traditional sound (i.e., traditional acoustic instruments).

However, the dancers didn't seem to mind at all, and their participation was what really made the event memorable. I contend that I was able to witness a social event that was quite firmly part of a venerable folk tradition, even while evolving within a present-day context (perhaps for the better, perhaps not). And it centered around music -- so how could that (electrified) music *not* have been folk music?

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 06:03 PM

and J.S. Bach is my favorite German folk performer. He did use a lot of folk themes.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 06:06 PM

Many Classical Composers used folk tunes of their day in their own compositions.

And I include Cecil Sharp in this ... see his "Collecting Folk Music" Books :-)

Robin

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 06:21 PM

Martin..I have used the music bin metaphor for years...but a bit differently. The whole point of different bins to to allow people to find the music they want...if the store only has a few categories, i.e., if the 'folk' bin has everything vaguely related of derived from traditional music, how is someone going to easily locate the New Lost City Ramblers mixed into all the singer-songwriter stuff?....Lazy music store managers should not define the categories!

Please understand...it is not some insult or snobbery to NOT be defined as 'folk'. I don't condemn someone else's music, only their broad, sweeping nomenclature! There is much that is quite good that simply needs its own label. Bluegrass, Blues, Native American, etc., can ALL lay claim to some 'folkness', but they are NOT what the term was coined to described.

"isn't a song like Yellow Submarine already a tradtional children's song? "...well..(let's see if I can condense an hours rambling into a short comment)..yeah, in one sense, it is...but 'traditional' simply has a more specific, narrow connotation for some purposes. I just don't see "traditional children's song" as the sam as "children's song from the tradition" "Yellow Submarine" and "Tisket-a-Tasket" all the same category...tsk!

This whole discussion should be based on what is clear and 'practical'...not on accusations of snobbery or on artifical distinctions made by a commercial music industry which wants buzzword categories for its own convenience.

There is no law about all this, but like Jeri, I need a word that describes what **I** want to refer to, without taking a whole paragraph.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Cluin
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 06:30 PM

Why?

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: GUEST,Sweet Folk Hall
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 08:25 PM

what's folk???????????

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 10:07 PM

Bill D. Clear and practical?

I don't understand how someone can have a problem with the commercial music industry and yet bang away on a computer made for the commercial computer industry.

I think it was that **I** attitude that I was referring to in the snobbish approach. That and referring to lazy store managers to ones who should not define the catagories. Listen, pal. I doubt all of them are lazy, and maybe they just got hired because they know something about music.

And, anyone who writes the word tsk! has got to be snobby!

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 10:37 PM

Borders???? That's the place that shelves Marion Zimmer Bradley under the Zs and Lois McMaster Bujold under the Ms because somebody at corporate decided that they were hyphenated names.

I'm a little surprised that a Joe Clone hasn't done a link yet to all of the other discussions on "what is folk music," but the evening is young yet.

---

10:46 PM - Took me a while. --JoeClone

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 10:47 PM

"...and maybe they just got hired because they know something about music." Uh...ok, I see where you're coming from now. I shall try to listen to bookstore music section employees more, and people who study music less.

Martin, why does it bother you so much that not everything is folk music? How can it be a matter of snobbery? It's not that music in other genres isn't good - it just isn't folk. If someone said 'Purple Haze' wasn't classical music, would it be snobbery? I'm wondering why you're equating 'folk' with 'better' because it sure as hell ain't anybody else here.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 11:16 PM

wow, Martin...I don't think we can talk.
"I don't understand how someone can have a problem with the commercial music industry and yet bang away on a computer made for the commercial computer industry."...huh? What in the world is THAT supposed to mean?. What does the attitude of the music industry have to do with computer use? Computers and the music industry are not comparable in this discussion...

and I never implied all store managers are lazy...'lazy' is merely one reason a manager might not bother to be careful about categories. The ones I have seen who DID 'know something about music' tended to do categories pretty well! You are obscuring the point by picking at my words.

but you really amaze me by being able to categorize ME as a snob by my use of *tsk* Perhaps 'snob' means having an opinion different from yours, hmmm?...what do you make of my use of 'balderdash' to characterize your argument?

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Grab
Date: 11 Dec 03 - 09:15 AM

Re the "passed on for generations" theme, my dad used to sing "Jennifer's Rabbit" for my sister Jenny and me. It wasn't until I got my first Tom Paxton CD, age 20, that I found it *wasn't* a traditional song! Sounds like a pretty damn good version of "folk" to me.

But if that is, how about the songs that Tom wrote last year - "The Bravest" or other recent stuff? Is it compulsory for the author to be dead before a song is "folk"?

Graham.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Dec 03 - 11:09 AM

It doesn't matter - not really. We've got to sing songs we like. Whether or not something's 'folk' shouldn't matter too much to those who sing them. The songs should matter, not the label, and if one loves old folk songs, it's because they love the SONGS. I'd say that it's not a folk song, meaning traditional and orally transmitted unless it gets adopted by a people and passed on. There are plenty of relatively new songs which I think are working their way down the generations and will probably still be sung in a couple hundred years. I think Yellow Submarine is a perfect example. If today is like it was when my mom drove a school bus in the 70's, kids are learning that one from parents and other kids and driving the bus drivers batty. I think quite a few Tom Paxton songs are headed that way simply because they're great songs and people love to sing them.

The problem is that people don't want to consider time as a factor in turning their favorite songs into folk songs, and maybe think the people, the masses, the folk don't have a say. Now that is snobbery: "I am right and no one else matters, and if you don't agree, you're a _____(fill in word: snob/pedant/elitist/poopy-head)!" Language is consensual; what becomes and is 'folk' is consensual. In the end, no single person can keep a song alive (OR change the meaning of a word) - it's got to be known and sung by a bunch of folks, or it just fades away when the singer goes. We don't have the power to determine a song lasts past us, but we sure have the power to pass on songs we think are good, and we can hope others will pick them up and carry them on.

In the end, it's comforting to know that neither Martin Gibson or myself will make the determination and will only get our individual votes by passing or not passing on a song. Each one of those kids on the back of the bus gets a vote, and so does your brother Bob who taught YOUR kids to sing "Billy, Don't Be a Hero."

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: ossonflags
Date: 11 Dec 03 - 03:30 PM

Does it realy matter?

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 11 Dec 03 - 03:45 PM

er..aren't we supposed to be talking about Richard Thompson in this thread? And, specifically, Mock Tudor?

This is all very interesting (not) but, cm'on...thread drift is one thing, but totally ignoring the topic?

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 11 Dec 03 - 05:28 PM

first of all, I absolutely do not think everything is folk. You really miss the point. Run DMC to me is not folk. Andy Williams is not folk, and neither is The Tommy dorsey Orchestra.

My point is that the traditionalists have been ridiculing everything that is not in their own little world of authentic teeth missing, handed down through generations, forget electric guitars CAN'T be folk music world.

Listen, I live in a huge metropolitan area and Borders has the absolute best selection of anyone in folk, bluegrass, and country. Do you think that you could file everything for all catagories of music perfectly? I don't. Maybe 95% but not all. Why knock Borders? Because they are a big corporation? There really are not too many other places you can walk in, pick up a CD, look at it, read what's on it, buy it and play it in you car 30 seconds later.

And yes, anyone who uses "balderdash" might not be snobby to all, but definately weird to many. The same as going "tsk" or "hmmmm" or even "aye" for that matter.

As far as computers and music, you really missed the point.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Peter Woodruff
Date: 11 Dec 03 - 05:38 PM

Folk is you and me and W.C. Handy

Peter Woodruff

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 03 - 08:23 PM

"Balderdash is weird to many"? Well I suppose any word in any language is going to be pretty weird to most people on this linguistucally variegated planet.

"Balderdash" is about as weird a word as "rubbish", in my experience. And while "tsk" isn't a word you see written down very often, it's pretty common in spoken English in many parts of the world.

I'm still puzzled by the way some people seem to see it as deadly insult to a musician or singer to be called something other than folk - and next-door there are people who would see it as a deadly insult to be referred to as folk. And they are quite likely making pretty well the same kind of music.

Myself I'd be quite flattered to be referred to as a folk-singer, but it wouldn't really be too accurate most of the time.

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Dec 03 - 11:53 PM

"As far as computers and music, you really missed the point."

aye....

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Dec 03 - 01:40 AM

I also missed the point about the music industry and computers, Martin, please elucidate - oh, dear...I've shown my true (snobbish?) colours by using "elucidate"...
You both have valid opinions, and actually overlap more than 50%. But we are getting close to the line between having an opinion and being opinionated.
Martin, Bill, clearly you have a different view of what is folk, and those views no doubt are formed through your experience and background. So, they differ - so what? There is a colour shade that my wife and I always disagree on: she calls it blue, I call it green.
But we get on in life together quite well for 30 years now...
"you say tomaytoes, and I say tomahtoes..."

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 03 - 03:43 AM

Do I detect a hint of thread creep?

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Dec 03 - 06:15 AM

Just a modicum

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: VIN
Date: 12 Dec 03 - 06:37 AM

Hey El Greko, was'nt that done brilliantly by Danny Kaye onece? (the 'tomatoe' song i mean). Was it in a film? Can't remember. wonder whor wrote it? Or is it traditional, probably is by now (woops, sorry, here we go again).

Subject: RE: Is it really Folk?
From: danensis
Date: 12 Dec 03 - 07:35 AM

Returning to instruments for a moment, is the piano not a more traditional instrument than the guitar?