The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #97052 Message #1904615
Posted By: Willie-O
09-Dec-06 - 12:36 PM
Thread Name: Folklore: What are the Motives of the Re-definers?
Subject: RE: Folklore: What are the Motives of the Re-definers?
To call it "re-defining" implies rather specifically that it--the terms "folk" and "traditional" were conclusively defined in the first place.
Which they were...by numerous people, at different times, in very different ways. Whoever the first hapless wise one who ventured a definition--whether it was Child, Sharpe, Seeger, Broonzy, or Jesus Christ--everyone since has been a "re-definer".
Times and traditions change. If you want to put a shingle over the entrance to your "folk club" explaining what kinds of music are acceptable there, feel free. But that's all you be able to conclusively define.
BTW, I think I would quibble with your and Rabbi-Sol's definition of "hard rock". The equipment those guys--the real rockers--need doesn't fit through the door of any known folk club. I'm guessing you don't like music that may be traditional in origin but is recast with modern (post-60's) instrumentation and amplification.
Anyway, I think you answered your own question quite conclusively there. Everyone of course wants their own style of music included. Beyond that, not many people (Mudcatters excluded) care about the "definition", as much as about the "upcoming gig" or even the "money". Your search for motives (as if you hadn't already made up your mind what they are) suggests some grand conspiracy to ruin folk music...shame about that.
Well...I'd write more but I have to go practice my mandolin for my hard rock gig tonight.