The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #97052   Message #1905246
Posted By: Declan
10-Dec-06 - 07:55 AM
Thread Name: Folklore: What are the Motives of the Re-definers?
Subject: RE: Folklore: What are the Motives of the Re-definers?
Guest 6:43

I think your separation of the debate into strands is very useful, although your examples with regard to style are a bit limiting and seem to refer almost exclusively to singing (with or without "Sueezebox" accompaniment).

I find the Countess' original definition a bit paradoxical - a "static body of information" which "continues to evolve", but I can see how these two notions might not be entirely mutually exclusive.

Fortunately in the context of the Irish traditions, (certainly the dance music, but also the singing traditions), I would find that all three of Jim Carroll's criteria are still met. There is a lot of new material being created (of variable quality, but there were always bad tunes, and some of the newer ones are excellent), it is accepted by those in the community who are interested in it (was the tradition ever widely accepted by the whole community, and it is trasmitted both within and outside the community, both orally and by means of modern communications technology.

Personally, as I said above, I believe that it is the fact that is transmitted which makes the music traditional. While the means of transmission is not necessarily the traditional one, I don't see how it makes a tune/song any more or less traditional whether I learned it orally from an old man in a thatched cottage, or recorded on an MP3 player via a download from the internet.