It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 06:14 PM

"Trad doesn't not equal good anymore than modern equals good."

Who said it did? And, by extension, I'd like to add that trad equals good no more than modern equals bad - there are some brilliant renditions of trad songs that blend contemporary, plugged-in instruments and ar5rangements with a respect for the material - well, god bless all who sail in her. The only thing that's sacrosanct as far as I'm concerned is the preservation of the body of material itself - but if people want to come along and interpret it in new and exciting ways, so much the better.

However, it might be true that at the other end of the spectrum, the tradition, because of its history and ethos, has a different set of value judgements applied to its interpretation and performance. As this music has come from ordinary people, it's still perfectly valid for ordinary people (with not-great voices and little showmanship) to perform those songs. Traddies get this - non-traddies often don't. Reactions can vary from impatience to rudeness. I think non-traddies often see these interpretations as somehow self-indulgent ("Did they have to sing EVERY single verse? It's not as if they could even sing very well!"). In fact, this collective ownership of the traditional musical canon is part of what keeps it a living tradition. There's a trend toward a less participative experience that you can see at some festivals, where people don't come to take part in any way, but imply sit back and let the professionals entertain them. I might struggle to come up with a definition for folk, but I'm pretty sure that's not it.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 06:18 PM

WLD, the folk scene is awash with middle class people. There are plenty of working-class musicians, but the audiences are, in my experience, predominantly middle class.

I don't think your argument holds water, that's all.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 06:35 PM

Jerry Rasmussen opined:

If you don't make any money singing it, it's folk music...

Or maybe you're just a bad commercial musician?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 06:56 PM

Again, Ruth - bang on the nail.

There are two values to be respected in a tradtional work. 1) How it presents as a tune or song today, and that's partly about how well you can adapt and develop it for a modern audience (this is the value that most people understand), and 2) what we can learn from it (which is what some forget).

You only have a right to adapt and present another writer's work (even if it's now in the public domain) for value 1) if you also respect value 2) - so that others can still go back and do more research later.

Beacause it's not yours. It's everyone's.

It's like archeology.

Artifacts are no good in the ground. You need to dig them up and stick them in a museum or make a TV programme out them - and use all sorts of modern interpretive material to make them interesting to people.

BUT, oh but but but, when you do so, you MUST record how they lay, because someone else, later, may be able to interpret valuable information from that seemingly insignificant data.

That's all I'm saying.

Do what you like to a song, but try to do it well.

Try to learn as you go along - you'll be the one to benefit.

And always, ALWAYS say where you got a song from.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 07:05 PM

...which is the reason I hope to acquire the whole of the Voice of the People series this year.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 07:06 PM

I have worked in the the music industry, Drummer. I've been signed to a major label. I'm a full time pro folkie - and my philosphy has been developed over 30 years of writing and performing many kinds of music, including trad.

I don't like to engage with your point of view, but I believe that what you say is both shallow and dangerous for the future of folk music.

Yes the BBC falls short, and it's a scandal - but suggesting that this is for class reasons is just stupid. And trying to dismiss the tradition because you can't get gigs in some clubs is just, well, words fail me.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 07:12 PM

WLD, I programme a venue and a festival. I wasn't deliberately hiding behind a parapet - I'm so gobby I jsut assume everyone knows who i am.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 07:27 PM

Drummer,Jack Hudson's class has nothing to do with his lack of commercial success. There are a million and one reasons why minority music does not break through. Class isn't one of them. Jack is more country than anything else, excellent, yes, but not country like American country. You need to be brash,plasticsurgeonised,beautiful, young, and sing crap lyrics to succeed in that field. Jack isn't any of these. So he falls between the cracks in English culture.
As to the Trad/ New arguement it's been going on for as long as I've been in the folk world (over 40 years). Personally, the trad music scene is a nice museum for a day out to me. Lots to see, hear and learn from. But those who don't learn from history are set to repeat it, and I don't go much for sterile repetition.
I visit the museum with pleasure, but then I like to leave it and take the air and find what the world of today has to offer that did learn from the past.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

1. Oh dear.

2. WLD, WTF has country to do with the UK? Did your favourite range pony get consumption and your yaller hound get TB? Do you suckle orphaned dogies whose mothers got git by coyotes? Do you drive a Great Lakes Special? DO you even know what one is?

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 08:07 PM

Your point?

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 08:13 PM

dEAR jEST, try reading. If that is beyond you, try hemlock.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 08:16 PM

As you so kindly pointed out in the first post you are a pedant.
I think I'll take another walk outside in the fresh air. Enjoy your cell.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 08:54 PM

Well, GUEST, it would be nice if you'd use a name if you'd like to post here regularly - and it appears you've posted here a lot. We tolerate anonymous posts in the Music section, but only if the tone is non-combative - and the idea is that anonymous posting is for occasional visitors, not regulars.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 09:53 PM

Back in 1998 or '99 I jumped into these conversations readily and ad infinitum-- or so it seemed to me. I must have posted to 500 quite similar threads------maybe more. So I guess my views are already here at Mudcat for anyone to find and read if they want to.

Thanks for all your good insights whenever these threads come back. I just read this thread through, and I'm left with no energy to post anything new here. That energy drain is a big part of my life now.

Just one quick point:   These issues have all been settled for good some months or years back along the time line---until a well-meaning person came along -- one who had never got thefinal word -- And---the definitions changed!! Again!!

From where I am tonight, it just ain't worth the sweat!

Art

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 09:56 PM

Joe, that GUEST you are piqued at was not me! Seems we just cross posted.

Hope you are well!!

Art

---

Yes, I know it's not you, Art - but it's another person who's nice to have around, but who sounds slightly ominous without a name.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 11:50 PM

"WLD, I programme a venue and a festival. I wasn't deliberately hiding behind a parapet - I'm so gobby I jsut assume everyone knows who i am. "

So, who are you?

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 11:58 PM

'I wouldn't cross the street to hear Robert Johnson because I don't think he was all that good.(Peace) "Because I don't like the way he sang and played" would be about personal taste, and no one can dictate that. "I don't think he was all that good" makes a claim that goes beyond that.'

Stop being so damned pedantic. Like who you want to like. I'll do the same. Claim that goes beyond? Jaysus. I don't think he's all that good. You may think he's fantastic. That is fine by me. I don't ask that you not like him. I have NO wish to control what you do or don't like, regardless of how you say it.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 03:33 AM

Peace, if you look back through my posts, it won't take you long to find out.

I was accused recently by another (even more gobby) member of ruthless self-promotion. So I feel a bit self-conscious about chucking my name and my job all over threads right now.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 04:14 AM

Strangely enough the country music scene with working class people in it, could see the connection with folk music. But the middle class folkscene could never see the connection - mainly cos it was middle class class folk protecting their various fifedoms, subsidies, etc.

Peggy Seegers song for example about about a wife telling her kids her man was away in England working on repairing the motorways, had extra resonances for Irish families and it was a country hit - very popular amongst Irish lady country singers in that period.

In England, of course it was okay to sneer at Peggy - she was American.

As Tony Capstick famously remarked, Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger - they say every man carries his own cross round with him.

I just see a lot of middle class sneering. Most of it ignorant , uninformed by experience.

You think my thoughts are dangerous for the future of folk music, Mr Guest. Creative thought is never dangerous.

Of course the hammer blow against the English country music scene was another one of Margaret Thatcher achievements for the economy. The professional country music scene was dependent on on the Miners welfares - once the mines had gone, that was it.

What is it Hamish Imlach sang in the Men of Knoydart - we know our enemies by now, and Mister - you are one!

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 04:45 AM

By and large I am as vehement a critic of that bitch Thatcher as anyone, but it's nice to know she did something useful. The appearance of country music as a a popular phenomenon both here and in Ireland is another demonstration of American cultural imperialism, and while country can at a stretch be categorised as an extension of the folk experience of the USA, it is a cuckoo in the nest of the music of other countries just as damaging to indigenous phenomena as the export of "christian" values by the British empire.

That doesn't mean that it cannot form part of the extended mass that I am hoping to name in this thread, and it doesn't mean that it is without musical merit (although I pretty universally hate it with the possible exception of a couple of Bonnie Raitt performances, but that is a matter of preference not definition, and gainsaid by the fact that I occasionally do sing "Love has no pride").

The idea that creative thought can never be dangerous cannot possible withstand a moment's consideration, and surely the unreasoned first paragraph of WLD's makes it clear that what he addresses are his inner demons and not any wider truth. The romantic idea of a working class revolution and the ascendancy of a working class culture is surely unnecessary in a country that can adopt Thicks Beckham as a hero and call Mrs Beckham "Posh". That country has thereby been proved to have been conquered by working class culture. No revolution or railing against middle class feifdoms (surely a contradiction in terms) is necessary. The sadness of that is that the Fabian idea of self improvement has been lost and replaced by (nice phrase here borrowed from another poster, I don't know if it's original) a "prolier than thou" slumcult.

What, IMHO led to much criticism of Seeger was that she as an American should dare to pontificate on the folk music of England, and even how it "should" be performed - an act of colonial imperialism: that and the fact that if you listem to some Ewan MacColl recordings they are (as, I daresay, his live performances were) gravely harmed by some out of time and out of tune banjo plunking, and I say that as someone who is no great fan of MacColl's own performance or indeed his own betrayal of his own origins by his re-invention of himself, a lad from the outskirts of Salford, as Jock McTavish the cartoon Scotsman. He wrote some good songs though - even though by definition they are not folk, and that is another reason we need a name for the body of material of which they form part. I am a great fan of his politics, and his military career, but that is a different story.

Bah. I did not have that half hour to waste.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 04:48 AM

There's more than one GUEST on this thread Joe. I'm the less gobby one who wrote the longer, more reasoned posts. I'd prefer to use my name, but as almost no-one else does, and because I'm well-known and risk alienating at least some potential bookers with my views, I don't see why I should. But I do believe passionately that this isssue needs debate, and that views like Drummer's should be challenged. We are living in pivotal times for folk music - though few recognise it. Clubs have a couple of decades left. We need to get our house in order - even if only to write a clear will.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 04:53 AM

yes and get the plebs out! A world fit for strangulated moaning, crap songs that should have stayed in the museum and dance music nobody dances to..... Richard - YOU are the imperialist, and a bloody arrogant one at that.

PS Don't worry Art, its just a few Brits having fun doing what Brits do best - be obnoxious!

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Sparticus
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 05:31 AM

I'm with weelittledrummer here. While I find the majority in the "folk" scene welcoming, the strings are definately pulled by individuals who have cornered the market, as it were, when it comes to handing out the favours.
What motivates their decisions is probably governed by supply and demand and/or the ability to get bums on seats. If I was being really paranoid I would say that certain artists are "pushed" because they are seen by these same manipulators as being the best bet in terms of either financial return or, possibly, the bearers of the torch ie safe hands to continue the tradition.
Whichever way you look at it many excellent artists are overlooked during this selection process and this causes resentment.

To me there's two categories in this world we call folk:

Fundamental Folk - in the hands of the ultra traditionalists

and New Folk - embraced by artists more interested in what's happening in the world today and tolerated by borderline traditionalists.

They both have their place and should be allowed to live side by side.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 05:34 AM

"That country has thereby been proved to have been conquered by working class culture...The sadness of that is that the Fabian idea of self improvement has been lost..." - I couldn't agree more, Richard.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 05:44 AM

"While I find the majority in the "folk" scene welcoming, the strings are definately pulled by individuals who have cornered the market, as it were, when it comes to handing out the favours."

And as soon as you acknowledge that folk is working as part of a wider industry, surely this should come as no surprise? But the great thing about folk is that not getting a headline slot at a festival doesn't stop you getting your music out where people can hear it - hence the folk clubs, singarounds, and even the smaller, more participative festivals.

If you're after airplay and big stages, you become part of an industry that has quite specific parameters - even if it's a cottage industry like folk. I get CDs almost every day - a lot of people doing what they do very well indeed. Unfortunately, there aren't enough "favours" for every talented person out there - there are simply more people wanting to make their living by playing folk and acoustic music than there are opportunities to accomodate them. So these people who are "pulling the strings" have to make tough choices sometimes.

Certain artists may well be "pushed" by the "manipulators". but consider this: If I have a big name headliner at my festival, the tickets that their name sells will allow me to book another 10 up-and-coming, talented artists whom most of the audience will not have heard of.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 05:53 AM

"Fabian idea of self improvement"

Is this a Britthread, or what? All I know about Fabian is that he was a lousy singer and Elvis spin off who also couldn't act.

Where's the self improvement, there?

Next thing you know you'll be talking about the artistic depth of Annette Funicello..

Jerry

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Tootler
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 06:15 AM

For Jerry and others you can find out more about the Fabians

here

and here

A Google search will bring up many more links

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: MikeofNorthumbria
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:19 AM

A few thoughts for Weelittledrummer (and possibly some others hereabouts).

Folks – I think you may be confusing two different things here – namely, a club and a venue.

A venue is an enclosed space, where paying customers are offered entertainment (in this case, musical).   A club is a community of people who gather together occasionally because they share a particular interest (in this case, a musical one). Many musical clubs hire a venue to meet in, but by no means all venues are clubs.

Professional musicians (and those who aspire to become such) need to persuade the managers of venues that they can attract audiences big enough to turn a reasonable profit.   Alternatively, they are free to hire a venue for an evening, and take the profit, or the loss, themselves. Unfortunately, the supply of affordable venues remains limited, while the number of aspiring performers keeps on increasing.

An alternative strategy is to join an existing musical club, present your material to its members, and hope they like it. If this succeeds, well and good. But if a majority of that club's members remain devoted to their kind of music, and lukewarm towards yours, that is their democratic right.   You need to look for a more sympathetic club, or start a new one yourself. Retreating into paranoia may be an emotionally satisfying response, but it is not a good career move.

The conspiracy theorists do have a point, however, when they move into the territory of the state-subsidised arts. By which I mean everything from the BBC and the Royal Opera House to Little Piddlington-on-the-Wold Arts Centre, or Grosschester University Students' Union.) In such institutions, individuals can exploit their position to promote artists (or whole genres of music) for which there is relatively little demand, while ignoring others which are more popular with the general public. But there are ways of changing this. They range from writing letters to the management (or the media, or your elected representative), to simply taking your custom elsewhere.

I don't think all this has a lot to do with the various labels that people choose to stick on different kinds of music. Complaints about limited access to venues, and insufficient attention from the media are commonplace in other areas beyond the little world of folk and traditional music.

But if some musicians or listeners wish to convert what should be a pleasurable experience into a form of tribal warfare, they can include me out. Life is too short for this kind of nonsense - get on with playing, singing and listening whatever type of music you enjoy, and leave your neighbours to do likewise.

Wassail!

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:51 AM

"In such institutions, individuals can exploit their position to promote artists (or whole genres of music) for which there is relatively little demand, while ignoring others which are more popular with the general public."

I'm not sure where the conspiracy is...if we didn't do that, what do you think the ratio of folk would be that gets a look-in at our venues? Or jazz? Or other minority music genres? Or more challenging theatre?

If state-subsidised venues weren't trying to redress the balance and were programming purely on populist lines, it wouldn't even be the more popular folk artists we'd fill our brochures with. It'd be Jethro, Ken Dodd, Chubby Brown, and tribute bands. Oh, and touring musicals. I could pack my venue every night with a programme like that. Happily, though, our objectives extend beyond bums on seats.

It's the sucess of the populist stuff, by the way, that lets us then look around and say, "Okay, I can now afford to take a few risks. Let's see which interesting folk/jazz/roots/blues bands are around that I might be able to get away with."

With the best will in the world, small to mid-scale gigs hardly pay for themselves, by the time you factor in staffing and additional costs like PA. But we do them because it's important to be presenting a diversity of cultural product, and to be giving opportunities to artists whose profile would benefit from a date at a venue like ours.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 08:29 AM

all very well, but why do we find some of you rejoicing in the loss of work for professional musicians, when the miners welfares closed.

Folk musicians, I might add. Paul Downes and Phil beer had played on about 80 country albums for labels likw westwood and tank - road albums for gigging artists - and they probably went on to do half as many again.

The country music scene was as valid a form of expression for the mining communities as Tommy Armstrongs ballads, or the brass bands, or concertina bands. Merle travis's dark as a Dungeon was known by virtually all English miners.   Also the redneck anthems seemed to strike a note with communities of people - that knew they would never be your first choice quaff reall ale with, and sing Byker Hill to Bartok style rhythms.

we're not talking about gutter entertainment here, we're talking about a cultural phenomena that you lot said bollocks to, cos it didn't fit in the boxed set of Martin Carthy's three million forgettable ditties.

PS Art, you're a Chicago lad, surely your Irish pals warned you about the obnoxious Brits.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: MikeofNorthumbria
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 08:38 AM

Hi Ruth,

In principle, I'm with you all the way on this one - but it's vital to get the balance right. Of course the managers of venues (whether subsidised or free-market) should introduce audiences to unfamiliar and challenging experiences, rather than just "giving the public what it wants". (Which actually means giving the public what it wanted the day before yesterday - a sure recipe for stagnation and sterility.)

But it's dangerous to get too far ahead of your public. When I started teaching many years ago, the most useful advice I ever got from a senior colleague was this: "Wherever you want them to get to, you have to start from where they are." I think this tip is applicable in the performing arts, as well as in education.

Furthermore, if some artists (or genres) seem to be getting a disproportionate amount of space on the programme, then performers (or punters) who think that they (or their favourite artists)are being unjustly ignored will be likely to cry "foul". And although such claims are often completely unjustified, there have been a few occasions in the past where a certain amount of mutual back-scratching and favour-exchanging between interested parties has gone on behind the scenes. (Not anybody we know, of course!)

But anyhow, keep up the good work ...

Wassail!

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 08:46 AM

WLD,

Not being a miner, or coming from a mining background, I had no idea that the forms of entertainment that you refer to even existed - so I couldn't have said "bollocks" to them - even if I'd wanted to, could I?
Nothing that you have written has convinced me that my interest in traditional music is anything but just that - an interest, like any other. Nor do I believe that traditional music and its enthusiasts are in any way guilty of the monstrous cultural crimes that you regularly accuse them of. Methinks thou dost protest too much!

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 09:15 AM

Sorry Joe. Like another poster above I sometimes have to preserve anonymity. If I gave offence it was ony because of Richard Bridge's way over the top reply to my post and his request that I commit suicide!
I promise to behave better in future!

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 09:17 AM

WLD, I'm programming in 2007 - not 1987. I never said bollocks to anybody.

Mike: couldn't agree more. But even if I were programming events 365 days a year (which, because of staffing resources and other demands on the building, I can't), I still wouldn't be able to please everybody. So, like many venues, we've tried to keep a variety of programming areas and events, while focusing more strongly on a few areas that we're really good at and which we were able to demonstrate an audience demand for. Those are children's theatre, comedy - and now folk.

But in all of our programming, audience development is very much about starting from where the audience is and then gradually moving forward. Otherwise, they simply won't come with you.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 09:22 AM

I should clarify. Miners' welfares as such - excellent. I'm a vehement defender of Arthur Scargill, and it was most regrettable that he got outmanoeuvred by the capitalists. The welfares' function in marketing an invasive "art" form - undesirable.

The musicians who played there were not owed a living.

The idea however that if music is popular with the proletariat that makes it folk music is quite simply indefensible. It is also most curious that I started this thread with the idea of formulating a name for an inclusory range of music, so that the expression "Folk Music" was not unnecessarily corrupted in meaning, and could be used as a definition without assumptions of implications of superiority, yet the thread has been taken over by a one-man diatribe against the ruling classes, and an outpost of a class war that is hardly at all carried on elsewhere.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 09:50 AM

"From: GUEST,Shimrod - PM
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 04:49 AM


Snip> "I would strive NOT to make such a policy too restrictive (eg. a policy which requires only unaccompanied singing is patently absurd!)."
Not at all absurd, Shimrod. Any common interest group who choose to come together for the satisfaction of that interest have, quite correctly, the right to include, or exclude, whomever they wish.

A club without some policy of operation is, by definition, inefficient, and IMHO unlikely to flourish. "Too restrictive" in this context is meaningless, unless the restriction in practise prevents the club from performing as needed. So a group of a capella singers might very reasonably exclude musicians on the basis that none are required for their particular style of performance.

Don T.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 09:55 AM

"There's more than one GUEST on this thread Joe. "

No, there isn't. At least not so anyone can tell. Joe isn't talking about using YOUR name, just ANY name you can spell. Otherwise, people might confuse you with a coward who'd be shamed to look them in the eye after what he's said, named. At the very least, not typing in a name distracts from the topic, and may inspire a fight which you did not pick. That's all I really had to say, so I'll cease. Peace, out - I'm going away.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 10:28 AM

I echo what Jeri said...if you MUST not use your name, be "Rumplestiltskin" for the purpose of this discussion...or any consistent pseudonym.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 02:54 PM

well, I have had a lot of amusement,thanks very much,.
But no Jim Carroll,I hope he is o k.
In answer to your question, what is it we do,we enjoy life.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 03:02 PM

"Not at all absurd, Shimrod. Any common interest group who choose to come together for the satisfaction of that interest have, quite correctly, the right to include, or exclude, whomever they wish."

Oh dear, have I been caught on the wrong side of the fence!

Actually, I think it's absurd, Don because although singing accompanied is rare in the British tradition it's not unknown and it certainly exists in other traditions (including various American ones). I also think that skilful and appropriate accompaniment can add an extra and exciting dimension to a performance and to deliberately exclude it would mean missing out.
Although I definitely think that any worthwhile club should have some sort of policy I think that this policy should be designed in a way which encourages people to develop their performance skills within a defined framework but does not stifle innovation and is not primarily designed to exclude people. This is probably more or less impossible to achieve - but you must admit that it's a worthwhile aspiration (?).

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 03:16 PM

The use of the term "tradition" is a slippery-slope. Whose? Jazz has a tradition. So-called classical or art song has a tradition. There are "traditions" and what is trad to a British folk audience may not qualify in other musical areas.

The term "new folk" is oxymoronic in my opinion. Folk to me represents some mass acceptance by a group of people (sub-culture) and can't be manufactured over night.
The songs that people write today in a "folk-style" can be called "new folk" but there is a meaninglessness in the term. "Folk-style" overlaps other styles such as jazz, so-called "country" and "pop music". It becomes a mish-mash. Stephen Sondheim calls it a "piss-tache".

When we get into these discussions, it becomes clear that the definitions are not.

The solution in my view may be that we focus on the artist rather than the material. The material will always be subject to the interpretation of the artist. Each song changes with each performance. Without the vision of the performer, the song has no meaning in and of itself. Even when rendered by a non-professional, it comes to life in a unique way.

I think that one of the most interesting aspects of performing material that is called "folk" is its history. It tells us how the people of past times felt. It's really hard to be convincing historically when writing a "new" song. Some "folk-style" songwriters can sort of pull it off. I think of Jean Ritchie or Woody Guthrie as examples. Ewan would fit into this as well.
Stan Rogers from Canada also. Utah Phillips. Si Kahn.

Still, a song to be durable and sung by the nebulous "folk" would have to be made available through individual performers bringing the song to life. Now, some songs are more accessible and universal in this way.

I don't share the conviction that the music we like has to be rigidly confined to a label.
Go for the song, the performer, the music and leave the hair-splitting to the academic grey-beards that thrive on that kind of thing.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 03:16 PM

Ruth Archer,you are contradicting yourself.
you agree to book a HEADLINER because of their hype and their ability to put bums on seats,and then say this enables you to book another 10 up and coming performers,but unless these 10 up and coming performers,play commercial folk music,and have the right image,and are promoted correctly,they wont succeed.
Whatever happened to judging people on merit,what you are doing is promoting pop folk music,[that may be ok if it takes people further to listen to source singers or revivalists like Carthy,Rose Jones Lloyd]
but dont kid anyone,that you are giving them a break,because the folk world has now become like the pop world, people are not judged on merit but on how well they are promoted,witness the drivel; about Kate Rusbys using double drop d guitar tuning,people were using this and other tunings before she was born.but idiots on this forum call it Kate Rusbys tuning,as if she invented it.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 04:06 PM

Dick, I programmed a diversity of local and up-and-coming artists alongside big names. They represented a whole range of folk styles, from very traditional musicians to singer/songwriters. People who wouldn't have paid to see artists they've never heard of still got to hear those artists because of the bill they were on, and may go on to buy their CDs and support their careers in future.

But I guess I'm promoting pop folk music if that's what you're telling me I'm doing.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 04:52 PM

I'm not going to get dragged into the discussion on trad vs new etc, but I do slightly wonder if there's a bit of hypocrisy here. Someone objected to hearing american folk in England, yet I hear Irish and Scottish, (even the odd bit of Breton) folk in England quite often and few people seem to object. If you object to these as well, then I would understand. And don't go justifying by talking about cultural interchange cos that has happened and no doubt could continue to happen with America as well.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 05:52 PM

Ruth, it sounds like you are doing something worthwhile ,well done,

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 05:53 PM

"I don't share the conviction that the music we like has to be rigidly confined to a label."

That is the issue. What name might we use to encompass the music that we like, to avoid the divisiveness of accurate use of other terms?

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 06:01 PM

I think you may have missed my point Shimrod. I deliberately chose "a capella" as an example of an interest which would logically not be suitable for instrumental musicians. I don't recall using the word traditional, and on re-reading my post can confirm that I did not. You are of course correct in your comments about accompaniment in just about everthing other than a capella.

As an entertainer who writes much of his own material, some after the traditional style, some in the Music Hall style, and some contemporary, I would certainly not fall into the category of music fundamentalist.

I just happen to believe that the organisers of any club should determine what exactly they will accept, and if their ideas conflict with mine, I wish them well, and go elsewhere.

As to the title of the thread "It isn't Folk, but what is it that I do?"...........Hopefully, I entertain a significant proportion of those who hear me, and I am fortunate enough to have moderate success in "Folk" venues, so maybe, after a fashion, it is Folk.

Don T.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Tootler
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 07:01 PM

I think Jerry Rasmussen has it absolutely right somewhere further up the thread about our attitudes in Britain. To put it crudely, we are too much up our collective backsides about the whole thing.

Some people seem to get hung up about the definitions and peddle out the (in)famous 1954 definition. I have no quibble about that definition but it should be recognised for what it is, an academic definition. A definition that is useful for folklorists who make an academic study of traditional music.

What it does not in any way reflect is what actually gets played and sung in folk clubs or on the concert stage. In that sense it is a very restrictive definition.

I believe folk music has at its heart the canon of traditional songs and tunes but can also include more recent compositions that are informed by the tradition. That, of course leaves the edges blurry, which makes some very unhappy, but there does seem to be a broad consensus as to what is appropriate to sing in a folk club or what one might expect at a folk concert.

To go back to Richard's original question, I am quite happy that the term "folk music" can be applied to a broader range of songs than just the traditional canon and I don't think we need a new term. It just needs folk to lighten up a bit and not to get hung up and nit picky. Think of the newer songs as modern equivalents of broadside ballads.

Just to anticipate those who use the "take it to the limit" technique of putting down an argument I am not saying anything goes. On the whole, if you sing, say "Dirty Old Town" in a folk club no one will complain, but they might look askance if you sang "Eleanor Rigby" even though both are excellent songs.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 09:56 PM

"Ruth, it sounds like you are doing something worthwhile ,well done,"

Ta, Dick. But you'll find that most small to mid-scale festival programmers are doing the exact same thing. There's this perception in some corners that all people programming folk care about is the big names and bums on seats. Well,we do have to make things work financially, but I'd like to think that we also care about artist development and the health of the sector.

Some festivals do a hell of a lot more than I do, because they have the capacity to do so - they'll programme a whole stage of local and up-and-coming artists. That kind of thing is incredibly valuable to those artists' careers.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: nutty
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 05:56 AM

I don't think 'folk' has anything to do with the words we sing or the music we play. For me it's far more about the way we communicate with each other - which is generally on a highly personal basis that doeS not rely on special effects or mic enhancements. But comes from the heart in such a simple form that is very easy for others to emulate or aspire to.

Of course, folk has its super stars but promoters need them to fill venues but there is just as much quality music found (certainly here in the UK) in the local folk club or festival.

Folk is about respect for the song, the songwriter and the music and the musician.

It's about being part of an extended family in a much more personal way than being a member of a fan club.

I have a friend who is a Beatles fan, she goes to all the conventions yet worships from afar. After 40 years her dearest wish is still to meet one of them.
My heroes are real - I've met them - talked to them and am fortunate to count some as my friends.

THATS WHAT PUTS THE 'FOLK' INTO FOLK MUSIC.