whipoorwill, they certainly ARE at it again!! and I am just as bad..or worse...Elsie sort of took on people 'head-on'...not always condusive to productive discussion! I would rather analyze it to death!
For those who are new...this has been chewed on at length with about the amount of consensus you'd imagine! I am hoping to convert the world to MY viewpoint..*grin*..but I end up making it so complicated that no one will read far enough to agree with me!
Basically, my attuitude is..." everyone can..and should..like & sing whatever kind of songs moves them, but if we have 'NO' agreement about catagories, it creates problems when labeling bins in record stores and assembling material for databases of songs online"
Frank in the swamps said.."It would be nice if performers could be more precise about what they play, nowadays if I see in the newspapers that So and So, folksinger/songwriter/guitarist etc. is playing, it doesn't tell me a lot. Or one I've seen frequently "Folk music concert" with So and So. I often simply don't go, my free time is too rare to gamble."
that is MY point...made better than I have made it in the past....forgive me Art, but I have heard that line about 'horses don't sing' way too often! It is cute, but it solves NOTHING! There are, in the links section of the Mudcat, many lists of WWW pages where one may find songs/music of different kinds, and if I want a 'country-western' song, there is a place or two to go look. And, to get to the point: If I want to immerse myself in folk/traditional music for the day, I want to go to a record store, or a concert, or a database..etc.. and be confident that the majority of what I find there is what I expected, and not vaguely related stuff put there by those who think that 'folk' began with Bob Dylan!
You find this problem in almost EVERY area where people have different backgrounds, interests, hobbies, tastes and opinions on what is good, fun, tasteful...etc...Quilt collectors argue, gourmet food addicts argue about whether 'X' recipe is 'traditional', beer drinker argue about whether Budweiser is 'real beer' (of course it isn't!! *wink*)
so...even though is is not EASY to construct a way to evaluate whether song 'x', done at 'x' tempo, with 'x' tune, and 'x' words...etc..is 'really' folk or not, it certainly IS possible to exclude some songs...or there is no use having a logo on this forum which says " a magazine devoted to blues and folk music".....surely even those of you who kind of like 'a bit of everything' can see that statements like "if I like it, it's folk" are of little use in a 'serious' discussion about what to put into a concert, database, or record bin. I personally LIKE (and sing) a number of songs which I know are not traditional, but is I were to make a record, or give a concert labeled 'folk' I would feel obligated to do things which fit mostly 'folk/trad' related criteria. Yep...the line is often fuzzy...what was obviously NOT folk 40 years ago may be borderline now...and 40 years from now, may be totally accepted.Just because a song is done with an acoustic guitar, by a singer who also once sang 'The Great Silkie', it is NOT automatically included!! And, I'm sorry, but calling yourself a folksinger because you know 10 'Peter, Paul & Mary' songs does not work! And neither does the jump in logic that says "because I am a 'folksinger', anything I sing is a 'folksong'". There are a couple of 'traditional' tules of logic broken there!
Tsk,,,Bruce..you done pushed the button!! But I suppose this has to be done now & then, if only to stir up our brain cells and remind us that it ain't all obvious!