Who Defines 'Folk'????

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 03:58 PM

Might I suggest, once more again yet, that there is no single definition. Folk means something specific to ethnomusicologists, while it has a (many) quite different meaning(s) to concert goers, and yet another to literary historians.

Just try to pick one before you start to argue.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 04:21 PM

If you're talking about the real traditional "folk", I'll say Bascom Lamar Lunsford.

If you're talking about folksong revival, I'll say Mike Seeger.

If somewhat more pop and protest/political "folk", Pete Seeger.

In another "folk" arena, which I am not able to characterize to my satisfaction, Bert Lloyd or Ewan McColl.

In what I'll call "classical concert folk", Richard Dyer-Bennet.

You see, you need to sort them out in order to get comparable groups to be preeminent in.

And then there's the horse who doesn't sing.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 04:29 PM

Why, *I* do, of course.....

The important question is, How do I get everyone to pay attention? ☺

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 04:46 PM

Ra over the others for me by a mile when it comes to Jazz. Though I also worship at the temple of Pharaoh Sanders...

Folk? I really don't know. I'm tempted to say Shirley Collins and Peter Bellamy for the revivalists. All the best traddies are Scottish: Lizzie Higgins, Jeannie Robertson, Stanley Robertson, Willie Scott, Davy Stewart.

... or whoever turns up at your local singaround.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Sep 09 - 11:23 PM

All best traddies Scots??? Harry Cox? Sam Larner? Joseph Taylor?   John England? Walter Pardon? George Dunn? Cyril Poacher? Phil Tanner? ......

Hoots & Heuch & awa' wi' ye, laddie! Or, alternatively, sod-off!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Mr Red
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 05:22 AM

Well Alan Lomax was a pretty good definer of folk. Peter Kennedy, his mate, was too. C# and Maud Karpeles didn't do too bad on both sides of the pond. And Child?

Ewen Macoll did a sterling job of conning the world into thinking some of his songs were traditional to the point that he "collected" one of his own from a Canadian lumberjack!

But one defining luminary for a genre that spreads from the Norman conquest to the crass commercialism of the 21st century?

Spaw - as ever - contraversial.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: glueman
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 08:19 AM

"Ewen Macoll did a sterling job of conning the world into thinking some of his songs were traditional to the point that he "collected" one of his own from a Canadian lumberjack!"

Surely the ultimate guerrilla situationist commentary on the impossibility of pure folk?

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Sep 09 - 05:18 PM

In my opinion, Ellington did not define jazz. They said that because he was considered by
academics to be a so-called "serious" musician.

I believe jazz was defined by Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker and New Orleans traditional music and be-bop. Coltrane has to be in there somewhere. Miles, because he
"edited" the solo.

Bix defined his era.

There can never be a single person to define folk music because that would belie
what folk music is, a product of many people over time.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Sep 09 - 03:13 AM

Sun Ra is interesting in a bizarre sort of way,

Strongly suggest you revise that and take a closer look at not only Ra's contribution to the development of Jazz from late 1940s onwards but also his celebration of everything that went before, between and beyond. John Coltrane studied in Ra's school - owing much of his sound to John Gilmore, one of the unsung giants of the tenor saxophone contented himself to stay in Ra's ranks (with an occasional foray into Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers) for his entire career. Sun Ra doesn't just define Jazz, in many ways Sun Ra is Jazz; a baffling intergalactic ideologue whose extended residency on Plant Earth is evidenced by a recorded legacy that would take an entire lifetime to get to grips with.

Calling Planet Earth!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Sep 09 - 02:53 PM

"Ewen Macoll did a sterling job of conning the world into thinking some of his songs were traditional"
Don't supppose it makes the slightest difference to those who have made up their mind about 'EWAN' MacColl - but a few facts on the subject
Although he was proud of the fact that his songs were taken up by the communities he was writing about, unlike many 'snigger-snogwriters' who appear regularly on this forum to tell us that their particular introspective musings are 'folk', (but would be first to throw all their toys out of the pram if they woke up one morning to find that they had been taken at their word and all their songs had been placed in the public domain, where all true folk songs belong) MacColl never claimed that they had become 'traditional'. He was openly of the opinion that the tradition was moribund and had all but died out, so even though some had been taken up (particularly by Travellers and fishermen), there was no living tradition to absorb and re-make them into folk songs. Perhaps someone can point to him saying otherwise - (won't hold my breath)
There is no doubt that some of his songs were taken up, so much so that he was accused by various people of 'stealing' Shoals of Herring from a traditional singer and claiming it as his own. Professor Horace Beck claimed it to be "typical of the songs to be found among Kerry fishermen" and re-named it 'Shores of Erin'.
We recorded around six versions of 'Freeborn Man', mainly garbled fragments (which pretty well bears out MacColl's claim of a moribund tradition) from Irish and Scots Travellers, and once again he was accused of "stealing", this time from Travellers, on this occasion by a Scots academic. As well as this unsubstantiated accusation, Jeremy Sandford (sociological writer - 'Gypsies', 'Cathy Come Home' etc) in his 'Songs From The Roadside' stated that three of the songs written for 'The Travelling People' Radio Ballad were adapted from existing Travellers songs, though, like previous claims of other songs, he never produced evidence to back this up and, to my knowledge, none has ever been forthcoming.
None of MacColl's songs sounded anything like 'traditional' - hardly surprising, they weren't intended to. Who knows, perhaps he just did his homework on the subjects he was writing about and went and wrote good songs!!!
Anyway, the bottom line is that people can't have it both ways; if, as is often claimed, we still have a living folk tradition, then it is legitimate to identify some of MacColl's songs as 'traditional', even though he never made such a claim. If we don't, it isn't - simple as that.
"Who defines folk?"
The term has been defined and fully accepted by those working on the subject since 1846, when it was first used (and immediately generally accepted) by William John Thoms. The 1954 definition was merely a fine tuning to specifically apply it to song and music (this also was immediately widely accepted by those working in the field).
To date, it has never been re-defined to the satisfaction of those involved. The necessary consensus for re-definition does not exist, so the existing one stands and continues to be documented.
So who gets to define it? Nobody - it's been done
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Sep 09 - 07:07 PM

So who gets to define it? Nobody - it's been done

Missing the point there, old man; this isn't about definition as in the 1954 Doctrine, rather it's about seeking for the work a single individual who might be said to define folk in the same way that (say) Duke Ellington can be said to define jazz. As far as I know Duke Ellington didn't set forth a doctrine for the actually definition of Jazz, which is, unlike Folk, is a living, breathing, creative art form.

As far as such an individual exists at all, maybe Ewan MacColl fits the bill - that past-master of personal, political, historical and cultural revisionism that would seem to be the very essence of this thing we dare call Folk, much less The Tradition. Hmmmm - now there's an idea for a thread...

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Sep 09 - 07:36 PM

Whooops, my mistake; knee-jerk reaction without reading down the thread.
Apologies (about the latter part of my response)
1954 wasn't a doctrine, just a definition which will serve adequately until a better one comes along.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Mr Red
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 06:12 AM

Surely the ultimate guerrilla situationist commentary on the impossibility of pure folk?
If folk was pure it would be bottled and sold in vast quantities by Proctor & Gamble. Folk is a nebulous concept. It is not purely music. Poetry and mime, drama, and customs and a even old wives tales. Football (soccer) singing on the terraces - I shudder at the thought of doing it, but if that ain't folk - well - we don't deserve to discuss the "definition".

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 06:51 AM

Right - Talking of soccer terraces: I once asked Bert Lloyd whether the song from Carousel, You'll Never Walk Alone, has now become a folksong: it has become the anthem of Liverpool Football Club & I bet 90% of the fans who sing it on the terraces every Saturday couldn't tell you its provenance. Bert said, 'Folk in function but not in form'; I said 'In folk surely the function defines the form to some extent'. He replied 'Ah, yes, to some extent'. & there the conversation ended. But there is a huge body of soccer chants, many adapted, others, like Walk Alone, just sung straight. As Mr Red sez, If they're not folk ...

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 06:55 AM

Indeed, You'll Never Walk Alone has become Liverpool FC's quasi-official [or even official] motto — it's inscribed on the club ground's gates [like the death of Young Collins!] ... so how about that for folk process?

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 01:14 PM

Not being a regular attender at the match, I first heard it as "You never wore Cologne" - would that be a Mondegreen, do you think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Aeola
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 03:21 PM

There's no end in sight to this one, but the adage that springs to mind is 'different Folk for different folk!', I think I read somewhere recently that Folk is being taken to some primary schools in the Northwest!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 03:27 PM

The Folk Police define Folk, just as the Jazz Police define Jazz...and...the rest of us don't take a blind bit of notice of them.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 05:06 PM

"The Folk Police define Folk,"
Just as the 'rice pudding police' define rice pudding - sure they do Lizzie.
Drink your tea and we'll go for a walk later - there's a good girl!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Peace
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 07:54 PM

"Who Defines 'Folk'????"

Anyone looking for an argument.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Sep 09 - 09:55 PM

But once again we have wandered into that other meaning of 'define' and lost the point of this thread, i.e. who is the person who most REPRESENTS THE CONCEPT of Folk. Is it too late, after so many posts, for Joe slightly to emend the name of this thread to specify this meaning and save these constant barren revisitings of the old 'what is folk?' chestnut? [Can one revisit a chestnut? perhaps we need another thread on mixed metaphors!]

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: glueman
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 04:59 AM

"sure they do Lizzie. Drink your tea and we'll go for a walk later - there's a good girl!"

Who defines folk? - misogynists apparently!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 06:05 AM

"The Folk Police define Folk, just as the Jazz Police define Jazz...and...the rest of us don't take a blind bit of notice of them."

In that case they don't represent a threat, do they? Unless, of course, your fragile ego can't cope with differences of opinion or any hint of criticism (?)

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 06:22 AM

"The Folk Police define Folk, just as the Jazz Police define Jazz...and...the rest of us don't take a blind bit of notice of them."


I think it's more serious than The Folk Police actually - they are the Folk Dementors, blindly & maliciously enforcing the law of a council that no longer exists, but don't dare to tell them that...

Jazz Police? Maybe not, Jazz isn't like folk in that it actually exists - which is to say it's a living breathing cultural phenomenon; one of the many truly Traditional Folk Musics of the Peoples of Planet Earth - much as Traditional English Folk Song was, once upon a time before the revival came along and killed it off for the good of our souls.

Shame this thread has drifted into the realms of What is Folk? rather than its original intention which was more of a chance for celebration than debate.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Mr Red
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 06:25 AM

Well whoever the musician is that defines folk



I bet he can't define it like Bill Monroe could...............



I'll get my coat.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 06:46 AM

Yes, right SO'P: the thread has gone haywire becoz of the ambiguity of the word 'Defines' in its title. I appeal again to Joe for a new title to resolve this impasse...

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 04:10 PM

"they are the Folk Dementors, blindly & maliciously enforcing the law of a council that no longer exists"
Where?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: glueman
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 04:34 PM

'"they are the Folk Dementors, blindly & maliciously enforcing the law of a council that no longer exists"
Where?
Jim Carroll'


Right here. The ones who say doubting the nonsense is the same as genocide.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jamming With Ollie Beak (inactive)
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 04:37 PM

Who Defines 'Folk'????

The EFDSS Liberation Front.

Charlotte OLivia Robertson (Ms)

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 06:19 PM

"Right here. The ones who say doubting the nonsense is the same as genocide."

I've told you a million, billion times, 'glueman' not to exaggerate!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 09 - 07:27 PM

"Right here. The ones who say doubting the nonsense is the same as genocide."
Congratulations - that's the nearest you've come a responce; now perhaps you'd like to explain where, who and how this is "maliciously enforcing the law of a council that no longer exists".
On the other hand - perhaps it's as well not to get too close to anybody who thinks that everybody who disagrees with him is mad!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: glueman
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 02:44 AM

"Right here. The ones who say doubting the nonsense is the same as genocide."

Sadly Shimmy, that's precisely what was said.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 03:04 AM

where?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: glueman
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 03:26 AM

search Jimbo

The Glueman

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 04:30 AM

Well, 'glueman' I've been through this thread and nowhere can I find any mention of genocide. This terrible word has certainly been mis-used in the past but wantonly introducing it in a discussion about folk music takes mis-use to a whole new level!

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 04:49 AM

"maliciously enforcing the law of a council that no longer exists".

It was me that said that, Jim - as a wee joke I must admit. I must admit I'm losing the will here! Genocide? WTF? What happened to Gaia? Or was that another thread?

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Mr Red
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 05:18 AM

Who defined Gaia? the Greeks or James Lovelock?

And is this thread drift or orbit prececession?

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 05:31 AM

Sums it all up really - a pair of tossers who have both lost it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 06:24 AM

Sums it all up really - a pair of tossers who have both lost it

Keep the faith, old man! You're one of the few people around here who make consistent sense. In fact, if anyone on Mudcat can be said to Define Folk, it's your good self.

Respect.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: glueman
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 07:14 AM

"if anyone on Mudcat can be said to Define Folk, it's your good self"

So true.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: glueman
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 07:28 AM

Glueman - "Right here. The ones who say doubting the nonsense is the same as genocide."

Shimrod - "I've told you a million, billion times, 'glueman' not to exaggerate!"

Here you go Shimmy, from this very board a couple weeks ago:

"It's a bit more aggressive than ignoring history. He wants to destroy it.

I have no doubt that the burden of responsibility for the destruction of Bosnia lies predominantly on one side, and I have tried to set out in the final chapters of this book my reasons for thinking so.

One sure way of judging the historical claims of the main perpetrators of violence in Bosnia is to look at what they have done to the physical evidence of history itself. They are not only ruining the future of that country: they are also making systematic efforts to eliminate its past. The state and university library in Sarajevo was destroyed with incendiary shells. The Oriental Institute, with its irreplaceable collection of manuscripts and other materials illustrating the Ottoman history of Bosnia, was also destroyed by concentrated shelling. All over the country, mosques and minarets have been destroyed, including some of the finest examples of sixteenth-century Ottoman architecture in the western Balkans. These buildings were not just caught in the cross-fire of military engagements; in towns such as Bijeljina and Banja Luka, the demolitions had nothing to do with fighting at all - the mosques were blown up with explosives in the night, and bulldozed on the following day. The people who have planned and ordered these actions like to say that history is on their side. What they show by their deeds is that they are waging war on the history of their country"

There we are, discussing the 'folk process' is the same as genocide.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 09:32 AM

Yes, 'glueman' I do remember that particular posting - but, at the time, I couldn't really work out which side of the argu ... er, discussion the poster was on. I also think that as a contribution to the er, ... debate it was somewhat ill-judged. Nevertheless I assumed that the poster was making a point about the deliberate destruction of history for ideological reasons - not genocide as such.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: glueman
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 11:37 AM

Nice line in hair-splitting their Shimmy. Folk and nationalism have always been in harness. Cut The Tradition and it bleeds us and them.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Goose Gander
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 12:04 PM

"Folk and nationalism have always been in harness. Cut The Tradition and it bleeds us and them."

Strawman/Glueman never gives up. If anything, folkies are mainly a left-leaning bunch who instinctively recoil at chauvinistic nationalism.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: glueman
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 01:38 PM

You really don't believe folk and nationalism are bedfellows MM?

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Goose Gander
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 02:04 PM

'Folk' and 'Nationalism' are both abstractions. Give me something a little more specific, and I can answer your question. I do know that among British folkies, chauvinistic nationalism is anathema, notwithstanding the efforts of some on the right to latch onto folk music and folk dance.

Of course, there is positive 'nationalism' that is also associated with folk and folk-like things - being proud of your heritage does not necessarily mean disparaging or stomping upon someone else's.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: glueman
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 02:16 PM

But it so often does. It's one of those instances where the folk revival as a branch of British post-war socialism is out of kilter with much of the rest of the world, though that gap is narrowing all the time.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: Goose Gander
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 03:03 PM

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. To make any meaningful statement on the subject, you need to provide a specific example(s).

"It's one of those instances where the folk revival as a branch of British post-war socialism is out of kilter with much of the rest of the world, though that gap is narrowing all the time."

So 'folk' in the rest of the world is some sort of fascist movement? Evidence, please.

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: glueman
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 03:21 PM

Didn't mention fascism, but you don't need to look too hard in europe to see it aligned to nationalism. Unless you also doubt that's true?

Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Sep 09 - 03:34 PM

Hold on there, 'glueman' - whoa!!

How does favouring the view that folk song is a limited and definable genre make me a fascist and a nationalist?