Sorry, I missed the PRS argument first time round – my experience with this organisation's Irish counterpart IMRO had led me very much to agree with Shakespere when he said, "Let's kill all the lawyers". Things have become a little quiet of late but that organisation, in league with Comhaltas, has spent considerable time and energy in attempting to corner the market on traditional music and stamping it with "Own Brand'. Why I should turn to self-appointed organisations with, as far as I know, no qualifications whatever in the music under discussion is beyond me. If further proof of my scepticism were needed I need look no further than the dismissal of people who have spent a great part of their lives in researching and performing this music with terms such as "academic and/or political types in search of a gig" and their conclusions as "a mere romantic notion of a rural idyll". God save me from legal profession! I can only say, I'll show you mine if you show me yours (track record, that is).
To reduce folk songs (the terms folk and traditional as far as I am concerned) to a legalistic term I believe does a great disservice to the people who created them and to belittle their contribution to our culture.
"Folk" was a term applied to an identifiable body of songs which were created in a certain way and evolved through a certain process to serve a certain part the population.
Before we decide to dismiss this art form as a romantic myth, let's discuss the characteristics that I would suggest go in to the making of these songs and see if they hold water.
Jim Carroll
PS Off to the UK till Sunday; please don't finish this before I come back…………..pleeeeeeeeeease