The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #22464   Message #244873
Posted By: Whistle Stop
20-Jun-00 - 08:36 AM
Thread Name: BS: Not 'Folk' - what should we call it?
Subject: RE: BS: Not 'Folk' - what should we call it?
I agree with a lot of the people who have posted to this thread -- Crowhugger, Mbo, and others -- that the name really doesn't matter. But I'm curious: how long have we been using the term "folk music" anyway? My guess is that the term has been around for a while, but only came into common usage relatively recently, and never had a definition that was very clear.

At this point the world at large has a vague idea of what "folk music" means -- acoustic guitars; young people who vaguely resemble the young Dylan and Baez and take themselves way too seriously; older people with who resemble Woody and Pete and are forever trying to convince us of the importance of labor union songs from the early part of this century; facial hair (men and women alike); self-absorption, political correctness, and boredom. Not a terribly flattering image, if images concern you. We have a different view of it, but we're aware of the stereotype, and recognize that, like most stereotypes, it has some truth to it.

My guess is that the common perception of "folk" music (however accurate or inaccurate it is), and the common usage of the term, is based in the 1950s. That's pretty recent, and suggests that there's nothing particularly sacred about the term. Any thoughts on that?