The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #97052   Message #1905332
Posted By: The Borchester Echo
10-Dec-06 - 10:24 AM
Thread Name: Folklore: What are the Motives of the Re-definers?
Subject: RE: Folklore: What are the Motives of the Re-definers?
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

They're not, and that's the point. The tradition continues to evolve as it always has done, but now it does so in a very different way and on a vastly accelerated timescale. The 'static body of information' is a term to define what was handed down orally/aurally until the first collectors who, often for the first time, wrote down the tunes and lyrics a century ago. Before that, musicians incorporated new instruments and what they heard from wherever: the musical theatre, popular songs and the classics. Now, all musics from the world over are available at the click of a mouse. They can be, and are, incorporated though there is, of course, far less excuse for non-attribution. But there is a continuing tradition. of which the work of people like Chris Wood is an example. This is so not helped by those who write f*lk-tinged pop songs and then, inexplixably, eschew their royalties and pass their work off as 'traditional'.