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

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Grab
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:27 AM

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

I'm with Little Robyn. The problem seems to me to be that some lovers of traditional folk music want to say "what we do is folk, therefore what you do isn't, regardless of what you call it". Even Richard's first post on the thread fell into this trap.

Think of it another way. 100 years ago, what was considered "traditional"? Kipling's verses put to music certainly wouldn't have been - some of them would only just have been published, and even "Mandalay" had only been around for 17 years. But you could go to any folk club you liked today, no matter how restrictive their limits on what you played, and your choice would be soundly approved of as being in the tradition.

So how's about calling the two groups of material "traditional folk" and "new folk" (or "modern folk" or whatever)? Then see that given a little time, songs in the latter category may be added to the former category if they've stood the test of time. "Modern folk" doesn't just mean your whiny 17-year-old singer-songwriter or rocked-up groups like Show of Hands; it also covers highly-respected artists who write/wrote within the tradition, like Cyril Tawny, Eric Bogle and Dick Gaughan.

Graham.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:01 AM

"Contemporary folk" and "traditional folk" worked well enough for decades and I don't see the reason to change them now; if it ain't broken and all that. Definitions are too limiting, and do not allow the "thing defined" to evolve. They are also unnecessary at best and can be abused at worst. No, rather than defining folk music of whatever flavour, I prefer to simply describe it periphrastically, based on the impact it has, not on the instruments or the chords or modes it uses.

As for the relationship between folk and the class system, that is a 20th century forcibly enforced connection as far as I am aware, and has no real meaning. Else you wouldn't get the miners' songs next to the Babes in the Wood, next to the hunting songs, next to the Banks of the Nile, all in one genre. Yes, some British folk songs specifically have class importance, but others don't; and other countries' folk songs are (understandably) totally oblivious to the class system.

What is important for all folk songs and music is that they should have relevance to the period in which (note: not "about which") they were written, social relevance in particular. That is why in a folk song lyrics are important, whereas in a pop song they are incidental.

And of course, folk songs/music should be accessible and easily replicated by ordinary people (to whatever standard of excellence is immaterial), so they would have sparse arrangements, even the contemporary ones. That is why "Bohemian Rhapsody" could never be a folk song - too elaborate, even though it caught people's imagination - while Gerry Rafferty was writing effectively contemporary folk hits in the same period.

This insistence on defining "folk" seems to me to be a peculiarly British thing. I certainly haven't come across it in other countries' folk music, including my own home country. There, people don't bother to define "folk" (Laiko, i.e. "of the people") song. When a new one comes across, they just recognise it instantly for what it is, even if it employs totally contemporary arrangements and instrumentation. And so folk grows, and adapts, and adopts, and evolves, and assimilates, and retains its relevance. And still, people will recognise a traditional song or tune for what it is, mostly because of the time-displaced relevance, even if given a contemporary treatment. And yes, there are people who prefer the traditional folk over contemporary, or vice versa, and nobody tries to put down the other.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:44 AM

In reading George's recent post, it struck a note with me (staying musical here.) These last couple of weeks, I've been compiling some of my favorite tracks of African music (mostly South African, because that happens to be what I enjoy most.) In putting together the compilations, the thought never occurred to me to try and label each song as folk, traditional, new folk, or contemporary. Some of the songs are certainly "folk, in the traditional sense. Some are based on traditional songs, done in a more contemporary way. Ladysmith Black Mombazo might seem to be "folk" or traditional, and yet their style has evolved considerably from older styles. There is an exciting vitality to the music that shows very little regard for labeling.

When I am performing, I don't say before each song, "This is a folk song," and then, "This is not a folk song, but it has a traditional feel to it," "This is a song I wrote, so it's not a folk song.." I will talk a little about where the songs come from, because I want to give credit where credit is due. But, questioning the authenticity of each song as to whether it is or is not a folk song would have the same effect on me as a centipede would have if they started concetrating on the movement of each leg. I'd fall flat on my face. If I want to toss in Blue Monday, from Fats Domino, right after Three Nights Drunk, or Blues In The Bottle, that would seem perfectly natural. Give each song it's propers.

I never believed in "Separate But Equal." It never works.

The vitality in African music comes from the freedom of rejoicing in the music for what it is, and making it personal to the singer. (That's very traditional, by the way...)

Jerry

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 02:18 PM

I think that it is important to remember that "the tradition" does not exist. There are lots of traditions, some vital and growing, some dying or dead. Traditions tend to be the provenance of subgroups, be they ethnic, cultural, or trade-Cowboy songs, Miner Songs, Lumberman songs, Wedding songs, Slavic Songs, Slave songs, Mountain Ballads, Sea Chanteys--you get the idea--

Some of this material has been collected and presented in such a way that it can be appreciated by a mostly middle class audience, but that audience experiences in a way that is different from the culture of origin--

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 06:34 PM

The problem with the "horse" approach to the term (which is what most of the recent posters to this thread are adopting with varying degrees of elegance) is that there is then no term left to distinguish the materials that genuinely were transmitted and modified by the oral tradition - and so were conceptually different from chanson.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: MikeofNorthumbria
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 06:57 AM

Hi Richard,

Here is part of my attempt to address the problems raised by the "horse" definition, which you mentioned in your latest post. For the full version, see the article in Living Tradition Magazine, May-June 2006.

"Suppose that instead of beginning with yet another attempt to categorise the songs, or the singers, we start from the actual experience of singing.   Consider what happens when an informal gathering of people, most of them well acquainted with each other, launch into a song that most of them have known for some time. This activity has been going on in private homes and public houses for centuries.   We find vivid descriptions of it in the reminiscences of authors like Flora Thompson, Bob Copper, and Richard Hoggart. And we have recordings of it from pubs in Sussex, Suffolk, Yorkshire, and various other locations.   

The activity itself is traditional, in one sense. But if many of the songs being sung are of recent origin and known authorship, it could be misleading to describe it as "traditional singing".   There are some possible alternatives.   "Vernacular singing" is technically accurate, but sounds a bit too pompous. "Community singing" is nearer the mark, but carries some awkward historical baggage along with it. So why not bite on the bullet and call it "folk singing"?

This trail can lead us towards a more helpful definition of folk song. Suppose that we reserve the T-word for songs of unknown authorship, which have survived generations of oral transmission. And suppose that we then apply the F-word to songs - whatever their origin - that the people of a specific community sing regularly, and acknowledge as their own. If we do, there are simple tests which can identify one of these songs.

Can most members of the host community recognise the opening bars of the tune immediately?   Do most of them know the words of the chorus and at least some of the verses?    Are many of them unable to remember when they learnt it, but sure they've known it a long time?   And do most of them assume this song belongs to their community?

"Blaydon Races" was composed by George Ridley in 1862, so it can't be traditional in the strict sense. But since generations of Tynesiders have claimed it as their collective property, it seems petty and pedantic to deny it the status of a folk song."

Wassail!

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: deadfrett
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 07:51 AM

Some bright whiz in the recording industry came up with the term "Americana". Gotta put a label on the bin at Walmart. If you don't know who or what you are, two aisles over in the business supply section, they have labeling guns. Go help yourself.
Buddy Emmons, the Worlds Greatest Pedal steel guitar player,is on countless Jazz, Country-western, Rock and "folk" albums. I'm of the opinion that he could care less what it's called. It's GOOD MUSIC.
Cheers Dave

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Tootler
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:46 AM

Richard Bridge wrote;

The problem with the "horse" approach to the term (which is what most of the recent posters to this thread are adopting with varying degrees of elegance) is that there is then no term left to distinguish the materials that genuinely were transmitted and modified by the oral tradition

No Richard. What people are suggesting is that the term "folk music" is broader than just the traditional canon. And, for the traditional canon, what is wrong with simply calling it ... er - "traditional"

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:50 AM

Folk-extra (with the slightly sinful idea of "fecundatio ab extra" about which matrimonial lawyers will tell you)
Post-folk
Additional (as distinct from "traditional", geddit?)
Contemporary Folk
Modern folk
Authored folk
Written folk
Uncollected folk
Neo-folk (I quite like that idea, combining the thoughts of "newness" as "nearness"
Fauxk or Faux-folk (pronounced fo-folk, like faux-fur)
Hybrid folk
Mongrel folk
Half-folk
Bastard folk
Natural folk
Extended folk
Broad folk
Focoustic
Cuckoo-folk
Step-folk

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,pliver
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:54 AM

Richard, how about Shit Folk?

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Sparticus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:54 AM

Knife and folk.....For stabbing each other in the back with???

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Nick
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:19 AM

Jerry (somewhat off topic but...)

Your post reminded me of a visit I had to Thirsk Folk Club in North Yorkshire a couple of years ago.

The Black Umfolosi band were staying in the hotel the club meets in as they were doing various concerts and schools workshops in the area.

They very nicely came down and joined us and sang some of their songs, listened to the songs we sang and I seem to remember had a go at joining in on an unaccompanied sea shanty I did which was rather fun. Very entertaining evening.

I'm afraid I'm with Duke Ellington - 'There's only two types of music - good music and bad music - and I like both of them'

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Black Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 11:10 AM

Does no-one on this board sing a song because they like the song? Does it have to have years of being sung in back-street pubs before it is acceptable?

I listen to any music, anywhere & if I like a song I will try & identify the author & singer & learn it.

If I cannot identify the author/singer I will still learn & sing the song because I like it & want to share it with others.

Sometimes when I have sung an unidentified song, someone afterwards has said 'Thats by ........." & I have learned something which may lead me to other works by the same author/singer. If I only went on categories I would miss out on a lot of enjoyable music.

If I like it, I like it & don't see why I should label it to make it acceptable.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 11:34 AM

The lines between "folk music" and "folk-styled music" are becoming blurred as time moves on.

Woody's "This Land Is Your Land" is known by school children throughout the world. New words are being written to it. Would anyone in their right mind not refer to this as a folk song?

As to the tradition, stuff, one person's tradition is another's prison.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 11:42 AM

Hey, Nick:

Your story reminded me very much of a Mudcat story. Three years ago, when the Shellbacks come to this country, Ruth and I invited several of the members to our house, here in Derby, Connecticut. ColK, Leadfingers, Suzzex Carole (now formerly of Sussex), Noreen and Theresa were here for a memorable Halloween, and then even more memorably, for a sing around with the Gospel Messengers the next day. Karen Kobela was here, too, and we sat around and swapped sea chanties and old black gospel quartet music. It was a real kick, singing along together, and hearing Colin doubling up on the bass parts with our bass, Joe Evans, on the black gospel stuff.

Thank God no one thought to ask whether everything we sang was folk music...

Jerry

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Nick
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 12:53 PM

Since I have been involved in folk(?) music and have been involved in the running of a folk(?) singaround, I have only twice (well perhaps three times but the third one was a quite strange person) come across people who have felt it their duty to tell me/us that we are doing everything wrong - singing the wrong songs / playing the wrong instruments / etc etc and in each case it was from a folk fundamentalist.

In each case they feel it important to push this message down the throats of the people who were there in a (forlorn) attempt to convert us to their doxy.

Why do they feel this need?

Might it not perhaps be better to rename what these fundamentalists do to something else rather than bothering renaming folk music which I have enjoyed (as I've understood it) over the past 40 odd years in all it's wide and wonderful forms so that I know what I am going to.

What about "Narrowfolk" as a description?

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Nick
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 12:55 PM

Or "Folkblinkers"?

"Tunnelfolkers"?

Time to go...

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 12:59 PM

Has nobody (recent) got the point?

"Folk" does not mean "good". It does however refer to music having certain definable (with difficulty) attributes. It is precisely to avoid excluding music that is not "folk" from what we do that a correct nomenclature is needed.

Reggae is not a waltz, and klezmer music is not played by the Black Dyke Mills Brass Band.

Apart from those who are determinedly of recto-cranial insertion, it is understood that the expresion "folk" of a type of music has meaning, and amongst those who bother to think there is not a huge difference about the core of that meaning - although the fringes are another question.

So let's formulate a name for the other stuff. It is unnecssary and frankly obfuscatory to take an existing term and seek to corrupt its meaning, and of no value to do so out of laziness and sloppiness.

I play plenty of faux-folk, and much of it I like as well as folk. But that doesn't make a dalmation a leopard even thought they both have spots.

Stupidity is one thing. Intentional stupidity is worse.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:32 PM

"Suppose that we reserve the T-word for songs of unknown authorship, which have survived generations of oral transmission. And suppose that we then apply the F-word to songs - whatever their origin - that the people of a specific community sing regularly, and acknowledge as their own."

As Malcolm Douglas ably pointed out recently (on another thread, I think) the question of authorship doesn't come into it. Any song can become 'traditional' if it is sung by a particular type of community over a long enough period.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Someone else
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 02:04 PM

"uestion of authorship doesn't come into it. Any song can become 'traditional' if it is sung by a particular type of community over a long enough period."

Yes it does! And that's exact;y why we need to separate the two meanings of the word traditional - apart from the legal one which means 'in public ownership.'

The Tradition is mostly agreed to mean that now-closed body of works, "of unknown authorship, which have survived generations of oral transmission." It's NOT possible to add to this part of the catalogue, because the very special methods by which it was formed have now passed into history. There is too much rapid cross-contamination today by recorded media and other means for any new songs to acquire that unique geographical separation and re-formation which makes this body of work so particularly interesting from an folklore and musical/archeological point of view. This needs to be recognised - far too many people still don;t understand. This material be good bad or indifferent - you can judge it how you like from a musical point of view - and you can do what you like with it too, but it method of creation MUST be recognised and respected - and tags attached, so people can continue to derive information from this musical element of hsitory. That's why some labels DO matter. Think Time Team.

Meanwhile we ALSO need a new or different word to describe newer songs that have become or are maybe becoming traditional (small t) by modern means (such as being "sung by a particular type of community over a long enough period"), but where the author IS known.

This is for two reasons: Firstly because until 70 years after that author's death the work is copyright and royalties are due. To call a copyrighted work tradtional is no less than theft. And secondly because even once the work has passed out of copyright and is legally in public ownership, that writer sill deserves credit for his or her work. To call a publicly-owned work of known authorship traditional is lazy, rude and ungrateful.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Ogman
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 02:05 PM

Richard Bridge, please do not mention the word "leopard", on this thread. It might get hijacked.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 05:29 PM

"The Tradition is mostly agreed to mean that now-closed body of works, "of unknown authorship, which have survived generations of oral transmission.""

This is NOT generally agreed - see Malcolm Douglas's post for 16th March 2007 on the 'What IS Folk Music?' thread.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Someone else
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 06:46 PM

Ok Shimrod you win... 'The Tradition' is NOT that 'now closed body of works'. No problem!

You and Mr Douglas have bagged that term for your wider category, which DOES include works of known origin, to which we CAN still add - yes? Fine.

But that closed body of work DOES exist, it IS closed, and it DOES need a name.

If it's not called The Tradition (which is fine with me - I'd never have called it that myself) then what DO we call it? There are plenty of posters here who'll fight you for 'traditional,' Mr Caroll for one I suspect, and he has a good case.

When the term was first coined it did mean only 'that body.' But now things have moved on, and we have this confusion, with both a finite and an infinate catalogue both having the same title.

Does that matter? Yes, it matters very much indeed - as any archeologist, lawyer, writer, songwriter, folklorist or historian will confirm. Only slack-thinking singers don't care.

It's essential, for the reasons I've outlined above, that we recognise the difference between works 'of unknown authorship, which have survived generations of oral transmission' and works of known origin which have become popular through modern transmission.

I don't care what you choose to call either (or what value you place on either, individually or as a group) - but you MUST differentiate, or you'll loose the lode-stone.

Correct attribution of the creator of a creative work is not an issue in any other discipline; art, literature, classical music, poetry, furniture design, architecture - but for some reason folk-singers have decided that because SOME songs are public property, ALL songs should be public property. But that way lies theft of intellectual property and the gradual dissolution of the broader thing we choose to call 'folk.'

Even the really old stuff was originally created by someone, then developed in critical isolation by talented singers. We should honour all them when we sing their work - specially those of us who don't have the talent to make anything of equal beauty ourselves.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 07:16 PM

The correct use of the term "Folk" is as per the 1954 definition (or close). What we need is a word for the other stuff. The horse music. If it sounds vaguely folky, I think "neo-folk" would do. But of course some people seem intent on hijacking the word "folk" to mean (like Tweedledum and Tweedledee) whatever they want it to mean.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Someone else
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:47 AM

'Folk' has gone, Richard - let it go. No-one's hi-jacking it, it just changed over time like every other word, in every language, ever. ('Wicked', for example). You can't expect a flawed definition from 50 years ago to hold water today.

Yes, people should be encouraged to add an adjective whenever possible, to reduce confusion, but 'Folk' as a name for the whole genre is now accepted and universally understood.

The real problem lies in the definition of 'T/traditional' - because the definition of this word is not universal.

At the moment two groups are claiming it as definitive (the 'closed' and 'open' groups), and those two definitions are in conflict. Then there's the third defintion used by PRS and the Courts, which overlaps with the other two, adding further confusion.

The consequence of all this is that writers sometimes go uncredited, royalties sometimes go unpaid (or are paid wrongly) and valuable historical information is sometimes lost - plus people are misled into taking a unique and very special process fror granted

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Gurney
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:29 AM

The term 'Folk Music' is very useful.... for finding music I might like in a music shop/store.

Apart from that, if you get paid, it isn't, and if you don't, it is, as JerryR said right at the top.


In my pedantic-about-music period, I spent a lot of time thinking about the question. I finally decided that life was too short to bother about unanswerable problems.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Someone else
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:43 AM

See? There's another point of view, which is quite different to the other definitions, but has validity.

And another from another thread: A "folk song" or "folk tune" is defined by its source, and is still a folk song or tune if performed in a another style. But it is not "folk music" if it is performed in a non-participatory context".

None of the disputes about 'folk' matter, in the greater scheme of things, because that word has lost it's old precise meaning - and its new uses do not lead to any confusion or damage. The word works in all the contaxted mentioned above and on the other thread.

But the dispute about 'traditional' is a very different matter, because the confusion affects artists rights and damages our ability to track and so learn from the history of music.

The 1954 defintion of 'folk,' and others of a similar purpose, are all attempting to define what we now call Trad. Let's try to fix that before Trad looses its focus too - because we ain't got no more!

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 05:07 AM

On this and other threads there are many references to the 1954 definition of 'folk,' but never have I seen it detailed. What was the 1954 definition?

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Ernest
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:32 AM

How about "folky" or "folkish" for that kind that doesn`t fit your definition (whatever that may be)?
Regards
Ernest

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 10:32 AM

"On this and other threads there are many references to the 1954 definition of 'folk,' but never have I seen it detailed. What was the 1954 definition?"

On the 14th March 2007 a member called 'Dazbo' posted the following definition (looks like '1955' not '1954')in the 'What IS Folk Music' thread. I have taken the liberty of cutting and pasting it here, because I think it's rather nifty and bears repeating. Those who, for some reason, would like their own favourite musical form re-classified as 'Folk' will probably disagree.

'Folk music is the product of a musical tradition that has been evolved through the process of oral transmission. The factors that shape the traditions are: (i) continuity which links the present with the past; (ii) variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or the group; and (iii) selection by the community, which determines the form or forms in which the music survives. […] The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready-made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk-character (Journal of the International Folk Music Council, VII, 1955, p. 23).

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:14 AM

The only disagreement I'd have with that definition is that "commposed popular music" remains unchanged when it is taken over by a community. That is often not the case. All you have to do is listen to Charlie Poole or others doing popular music to see how much they've changed it. Once a community gets it's hands on a song, they shape it to reflect the culture of their community.
The "folk process" works equally well on composed popular music. That's true of much of the body of composed music. I see it in hymns, all the time. In some newer hymnals, the line in Amazing Grace:
   "That saved a wretch like me" has been changed to
   "That saved and set me free."

The folk process is just a scholars term for faulty memory.. :-)

Jerry

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Tootler
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:01 PM

The folk process is just a scholars term for faulty memory..

LOL. I like it.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 06:40 PM

Does no-one on this board sing a song because they like the song?

I'll go further Black Hawk! I never, but never sing a song unless I like it, and I never record or sing for money, any song, unless I LOVE it.

Audiences always know if you have no connection with the songs you sing, and it's the death knell of entertainment when you do that.

Attribution is the key. Always give credit, either to the composer, or to the fact that a song is traditional. Crediting yourself with your own compositions is optional, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. If it's any good, someone will usually ask, "Who wrote that?" Much more satisfying!

Don T.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 06:46 PM

One of the problems of course is that the songs that WERE composed by individuals even hundreds of years ago by that definition cannot be folk. And if anyone argues that they are, how does that work? If, for example, "Mr Tambourine Man" is around in a few hundred years, will it be folk? If not, why? And if so, then why isn't it folk today?

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:02 PM

"Meanwhile we ALSO need a new or different word to describe newer songs that have become or are maybe becoming traditional (small t) by modern means (such as being "sung by a particular type of community over a long enough period"), but where the author IS known."

Non sequitur guest! You have given a very cogent and precise reason why only the orally transmitted tradition should be referred to as "Traditional", and with that I tend to agree.

However it does not follow that a new name is needed for anything else.   Traditional folk, and Contemporary folk, provide the class delineations between what we do, and commercial pop rather nicely, and we can add those subset titles that are needed to describe, for example, Blues.

Of course the traditional will have its own subsets, e.g. Irish, American, West Indian and so on.

Folk, to me has always represented the umbrella under which all the rest shelter, and I will never agree with those who reserve the word to the English traditional canon (if they are right, there is no sense in using the T-word at all).

Don T.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:11 PM

Peace,

Of course the songs were composed by individuals (unless they were composed by Fairies, Angels or little creeping things that lived in the skirting-boards of Tudor Manor houses and crept out at night and whispered them into serving maids' ears - sorry, got carried away there!).

Just look at that last bit of the 1955 definition again:

"The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready-made by a community AND REMAINS UNCHANGED, for it is the RE-FASHIONING and RE-CREATION of the music by the community that gives it its folk-character ..."

Thus the question of whether the composer of the song is known or unknown becomes IRRELEVANT once the song has been changed by the community. ANY song can become a folk song if it has been through the right process (ie. the process described in the 1955 definition).
The notion that folk songs are only those songs that have been composed by 'Anon.' is just plain wrong. To repeat, it is the PROCESS that a song has been through that determines whether it is a folk song or not - NOT its origin.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,wordy
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:13 PM

Comrades, comrades, we must not bicker. We must stick to the 1954 manifesto and we will overcome! Struggle is all.
(Meanwhile, when no one can see or hear me I write songs in my basement.)

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:20 PM

"If, for example, "Mr Tambourine Man" is around in a few hundred years, will it be folk? If not, why? And if so, then why isn't it folk today?"

That problem will most likely solve itself Peace. In the most unlikely event that "Mr. Tambourine Man" is still remembered by anyone a hundred years from now, the population at that time will doubtless have their own definition of traditional, as no one living will be as close to, or as affected by, the oral tradition as we are.

Two of the oldest pieces in existence cannot, by some definitions, be called "Traditional", nor according to the 1954 definition, "Folk", since they were published by clerics of the time, on parchment.

How many here would define "Summer is Icumen in", or "The Cutty Wren", as neither traditional, nor folk.

Don T.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Someone else
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:52 PM

"the question of whether the composer of the song is known or unknown becomes IRRELEVANT once the song has been changed by the community"

Shimrod. That's a dangerous argument. Why? Because it will have people believing that change and 'community ownership' are enough to negate the need for credit/attribution/copyright etc. This is because most believe that Trad = Publicly Owned.

So they'll decide that Changed/owned by community (=Trad) = Out of Copyright. Which is NOT the case - you see?

Now. I do agree with the basic principle as applied to the looser term 'folk' - because you can define that word how you like these days.

But, if we allow that Don T's definition has any credence, we must be VERY wary of using that criterion to define 'tradtional'. (If, on the other hand, Don's argument is wrong, then of course you may have the _word_ to for your process - but we'll need something else to describe Don's process).

Let me say it again: THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF WHAT 'TRADITIONAL' MEANS (and as some people still use 'folk' in this area then you can substitute folk for traditional if you want to).

Don, mine is not a non-sequiter. I'm just the advocate here.

I'm presenting, side by side, two different 'truths'.

You, presumably, subscribe to what I've called above the 'closed' truth - the anon/old/niche-development definition, yes?

I assume this because you say "You have given a very cogent and precise reason why only the orally transmitted tradition should be referred to as "Traditional", and with that I tend to agree."

I have not, actually, said as much. I have merely described this as one point of view.

I have ALSO defined the other argument - equally valid - which I read here on mudcat over and over and over again. This is the definition almost promulgated by Shimrod above: "ANY song can become a folk song if it has been through the right process" - which others might put as "ANY song can become a TRADITIONAL song if it has been through the right process." I repeat his/her quote "the question of whether the composer of the song is known or unknown becomes IRRELEVANT once the song has been changed by the community."

Now, do you see the issue?

There is a 'closed' catalogue, and an 'open' catalogue - plus the issues of copyright and the correct attribution of writers.

No problem with this all this. All these situations can be explained and understood with a paragraph or so.

The problem is that both camps (and the legislature too) believe they have unique use of one word; 'Tradition' (or possibly 'folk')

Now. Who is to judge which is right? They can't all three be. But each refuses to give up his title.

An aside:

Of course it's stupid to claim 'trad' for England (I'm English btw). Every culture has its traditions, some still flowing, some with portions sealed by historical change like ours. The English model happens to be fairly important because of its age, patina, history and influence, but it's only one of thousands. I wish it had a unique name - and maybe in time we'll get one.

Meanwhile I take huge heart from Don T's post "Attribution is the key. Always give credit, either to the composer, or to the fact that a song is traditional. Crediting yourself with your own compositions is optional, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. If it's any good, someone will usually ask, "Who wrote that?" Much more satisfying!"

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:35 PM

Yes, I do tend toward (I wouldn't put it more strongly, as my take on it could be altered by a well thought out counter argument) the closed trad (it has to be, IF oral transmission is the criterion).

Narrowing the discussion, this would give each country its own body of traditional music, in every case the one word descriptor "Traditional" would be good and sufficient to the needs of identification.

As I said above, this leaves the general descriptor Folk free for broader use.

I like the elegant simplicity of the family tree model of grouping under the folk banner, and cannot see the justification, or indeed the need for inventing new descriptors.

It would be entirely logical IMO for all non trad to be considered contemporary, as this represents only the output of a single century. I am sure that, whether WE like it or not, with the passage of time, the best of that output will become recognised as some form of "Tradition Part 2". The rest deservedly will fade away to be replaced by 21st century contemporary, and so on ad infinitum.

Thank you for your kind response to my attribution comment, it is much appreciated.

Don T.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:31 AM

I am not comfortable letting commercial (i.e. copyright) considerations drive a definition of what is traditional and what is not. It seems cockeyed, it describes the thing through its outcome, not through its essence. A bit like saying "this animal is big, so it must be an elephant".

Twenty years ago, when the birthday song was still in copyright, I'd have no problem saying that it was a traditional song, but attributable and still in copyright.

Neither do I feel beholden to a 1953 or 1954 definition for any genre of music, especially one that has been around for centuries. It feels arrogant, as if those that preceded us were too weak-minded to define what they were doing, and we came to put them right.

And though I understand and partially sympathise with those that would define the tradition as a "closed body of work to which one can no longer add", once more I feel that such a definition is driven out of changing technology considerations, and not addressing the inherent makeup of the thing described; therefore, also false, especially when so many agree that the folk process continues still today (see related thread of a month or so ago).

As people have already said, the whole need for putting labels to music is a latter-day phaenomenon anyway, driven out of a commercial wish to have identifiable sections in stores.

In the end there are clearly several views of what is traditional and what is not, and I can live with that. I don't feel the need to change the label "folk", and I am happy to let the meaning be adapted and expanded with time. And if the label scares people away, as Richard (rightly) says, well sod it, if people will judge by labels, so be it - the ones that have brains will still listen before making up their minds.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:45 AM

And just to show the fallacy of labels, some examples:

"Classical" music is still being written today - there are several contemporary composers of classical music, named so in the media.

"Jazz" is still being written today. "Traditional jazz" is mostly defined by style and age, though I believe there are pieces still written today that are called "traditional", if only to differentiate from "modern" or "freestyle".

And if we leave the world of music for a moment, a centuries-old piece of furniture or porcelaine is more easily recognised as "antique" if it can be attributed. But it can be called "traditional" even if it was made yesterday - because it is the style, the essence, that drives the terminology.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 06:00 AM

"Shimrod. That's a dangerous argument. Why? Because it will have people believing that change and 'community ownership' are enough to negate the need for credit/attribution/copyright etc. This is because most believe that Trad = Publicly Owned.

So they'll decide that Changed/owned by community (=Trad) = Out of Copyright. Which is NOT the case - you see?"

Dear 'Someone else',

Are you actually saying what I think you're saying?
I think you're saying (and I hope I'm wrong) that a coherent and logical description of Folk/Traditional music should actually be suppressed for commercial/political reasons? Now that's what I call dangerous!!

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,A court user
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 06:02 AM

So what is the definition of "trad" used by the courts?   Be specific and be accurate.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge at a different computer
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 06:07 AM

A defined term, properly defined, does not lose its meaning by misuse by the ignorant. Additionally, if the term has come to mean what some here think it has come to mean, then it has no meaning.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: Scrump
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 06:13 AM

(Sorry I'm late coming to this thread - thanks Richard for starting it. I still haven't had time to read it all yet)

In the most unlikely event that "Mr. Tambourine Man" is still remembered by anyone a hundred years from now

Leaving aside the issue of whether the world itself will survive another 100 years, why do you say it's unlikely, Don? It's already been around for over 40 years and still well remembered.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Someone else
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 06:19 AM

I still don't think I'm getting through.

I agree George that it's asking for trouble to let copyright define what Traditional means, but we are talking about product labels here, and writing the wrong thing on the tin can lead to digestion problems.

Let me explain. Take an extreme and not very good example: (This works better with Fiddlers Green, but we'll use Empty Handed for now).

Empty Handed is copyright GP. Not Trad. No dispute.

But if we allow that the adoption of a song by a community who make changes through natural attrition can re-define a song as traditional, then Empty Handed could become Trad - like this:

Say someone in Tasmania hears it at a singaround, but the singer forgot to mention you wrote it. He has an mp3 recorder on the table. Later, he asks a third party if it's trad. Oh yes, says the chum (because he's of Shimrod's opinion), I've heard lots of versions of that, and it's been around for ages. I think it's called 'It's not the setting sun.' Good, goes the singer. I'll put it on my next CD. And he does - as "Setting Sun (Trad).' Then you hear of it - oy, says you, that's my song. Nah, goes the singer - it's trad.

OK extreme example, but it's happened to Fiddlers Green, Galway Farmer, Ride On, Athenry etc etc etc.

Why? Because of this muddle about what Trad means.

That's why we need to sort it out.

It's no good each side just saying - the other lot are wrong, which is what keeps happening on this thread. We DO have a problem, Houston.

The only way to solve it is to change the language, so that the single word used to describe the origin of a song is not open to misinterpretation.

At the moment 'folk' songs fall into four broad categories.

1) Anon, passed down orally, public ownership. (Called Trad by all). EG Matty Groves.

2) Known writer, passed down orally, public ownership. (Called Trad by most - but should be credited with the writer's name - which doesn't always happen). EG Happy Birthday

3) Writer known by some but not all, being passed around a lot and adopted by communities etc, copyright. (Called Trad by a few who feel that Traditional merely means that a process is happening, or that a certain sound or style is enough to make it trad). EG Fiddlers Green.

4) Known writer, copyright (Not usually called Trad - but often called Folk, whic could lead to 3) in future). EG Empty Handed.

Oh and

5) Known writer, copyright (wrongly accredited as Trad) EG The White Hare - and others in the past.

See what I mean?

Tradional is a sippery slope.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 06:20 AM

Will it continue to be remembered when all those who were alive in the time it was written, have passed on?
G.

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 06:32 AM

I get it, GUEST, Someone Else (sorry Richard, I get there eventually). OK, coming off soapbox, don thinking cap on...

Actually, there IS a word to describe what you want. Don't laugh when you read it, but it means "having been passed along from generation to generation". It is tralatitious. An example of its use: "Among Biblical critics a tralatitious interpretation is one received by expositor from expositor".

So, your category 1 above then becomes "tralatitional", and category 2 "tralatitional attributable". The remainder is just "folk".

OK, who will be the fist to start a Tralatitional Music Club?

Subject: RE: It isn't 'Folk', but what is it we do?
From: GUEST,Somone else
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 06:34 AM

The legal definition is that the writer has been dead for 70 years. PRS make no distinction between Trad, Anon, and Publicly Owned - they all mean the same thing.

So if someone credits a song - or tune (it's even more commonplace with tunes) - as Trad that may be taken to mean Anon / Publicly owned. Which it may not, in fact, be.