The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #22464   Message #245195
Posted By: Bill D
20-Jun-00 - 10:25 PM
Thread Name: BS: Not 'Folk' - what should we call it?
Subject: RE: BS: Not 'Folk' - what should we call it?
once upon a time 'folk' meant something...but it was too convenient a word and FAR too easily streched to include anything vaguely acoustic and faintly resembling the 'older' music. Then a bunch of us tried calling it 'traditional'...and the thundering herd soon co-opted THAT by calling whatever they listened to in their formative years 'traditional'...even if it was no older than Dylan or Kate Wolf.

The point is, we had a couple of good words, but those who changed the music refused to find new words for what they do, and they now outnumber 'us', so *shrug*...I am reduced to saying something like...

"some of the music I like is older, acapella or acoustic, written by non-professionals about mundane, everyday things other than sex & drugs & the singers latest maudlin thoughts about 'life'...sung to simpler tunes with generally fewer chords, with often heroic themes ...and....and...." pooh

what I do is, I still call it folk/trad or 'in the tradition' to denote stuff that is newer, but with the 'feel' of older stuff...and like Art says, we know it when we hear it. There is a NEED to be able to describe music with a certain feel, whether or not we get to keep the words pure