I went to see Dave Swarbrick playing in our local pub a few nights ago. What he was playing was definitely folk music, even though the whole of his set included not one sung note, unaccompanied or otherwise. He was mainly playing tunes from the mid 1700s, and an interesting point he made was that some of them only existed today due to a concerted effort to write them down in the late 1700s, due to fears that they were dying out and being forgotten. Plus ca change!!!

It's also worth noting that a number of what Jim C and some other contributors see as "the old songs" were probably not in existence at the time some of Swarb's fiddle tunes were committed to paper...all songs were new at some time, after all.

I can see where Jim's coming from, but things change, and in much the same way as some songs and tunes written in the first half (or so) of the 20th century have become part of the "canon", I suspect that some were deprecated as "modern rubbish that won't stand the test of time" by "traditionalists" of the era. Where I really *do* take issue with Jim, though is:

"I have no doubt whatever that, apart from a tiny handful of 'custom songs' and those sung at sporting gatherings or in the schoolyard, the singing traditions of these islands are as dead as Monty Python's Norwegian Blue. They died when people stopped making songs that reflected their lives and events of their communities and passing them on to enable others to adapt them to serve the same purpose; they died when they/we sat back and let others make their/our culture for them/us, becoming passive recipients of a manufactured 'product' culture rather than relying on the innate talents we all posess."

The music scene as a whole has certainly evolved, and its evolution may not encompass folk traditions to the extent wished by some, but the above does a great disservice to the huge numbers of youngsters (and oldsters!) that are out there making music for little or no reward and not consuming "manufactured product". The manufactured product has been there in mainstream culture since recordings became possible...there was as much dross being manufactured for passive consumption 50-60 years ago as there is now. Our annual "Local and Live" festival in this modest-sized town in the SE of England can draw on at least 160 bands and artistes living within 30 minutes of the town, all of whom write and perform their own material, much of it in a "folky" tradition, if not exactly conforming to the strict demarcations some might wish for...but they're out there making it for themselves and probably represent at least as big a proportion of youngsters as those involved in the folk club scene of 50-60 years ago.

What *has* changed hugely is the types of song being created. And the reasons are nothing to do with the music scene per se, but with the way society has developed. In Ireland, for example, a large proportion of the population is only 1 generation removed from the land (virtually everyone I knew when I was working up and down the West Coast in the late 70s, supporting offshore survey operations on the Porcupine Bank, for instance, was from a farming family). The population is also more homogeneous than it is in England. Therefore, I suspect that the government funding and private bequests to encourage "real traditional" music amongst youngsters will fall on more fertile ground that it would in the more fragmented society we have in England. Nowadays, at the village and small town level, a tiny proportion of the population will be involved in working on the land, therefore it's unrealistic to expect much re-creation or new development in songs of the land or the seasons. Similarly, we no longer have the large areas of homogeneous industry that give birth to the songs of working life/ working people such as miners, weavers and the like. Where I grew up in Yorkshire, there were 5 mills in my small village and every single family had several members working in them, whether on the floor, or at supervisory/ managerial levels. So songs about weaving would have relevance to the whole village, owner or piece-worker.

The village now has no working mills and most people both work in the service sector *and* travel outside the area to widely-dispersed locations to do that work (rather than walking the 5 or 10 minutes from their terraces, all in the same direction, to work with the people they lived and socialised with, as in my youth). So songs that: "were created and re-created by working people to articulate their lives and feelings and aspirations" cannot realistically continue to be added to the "canon" given the social upheavals of the last half century. Naturally , therefore, many of the songs and tunes that are being created in the "folk tradition" today tend to be more concerned with *individual* hopes and aspirations, rather than collective ones, and some are quite introspective. But they're still being created, in large numbers, by "angry young men and women" who feel they have something to say abut their lives and conditions.

"Our culture got 'Barry Bucknalled', shifted up into the attic to make room for newer, disposable stuff that we no longer had a hand in creating. It is argued, here and elsewhere that this is a good thing, that the old songs no longer have a use simply because they are 'old'. If this is true....."

I just don't think it is true, at all. What does happen, though, is that as the total number of songs increases with time, some will wax and wane in popularity. Old songs that are very good will *not* die out (though some that are merely "good" may not get dusted down very frequently!). While I appreciate what Jim C says about categorising, definition, documentation and research, I think too much of this can detract from the actual process of making music *now*. I'm sure the farmers gathered in barns in the 1700s for a good sing and a dance weren't worried about whether what they were doing fitted neatly into some category approved by a researcher. They were just having a good time making and sharing music...pretty much as a lot of people are still doing. To me, someone like Kat Gilmore is making music in a "folky" tradition whether she's partnering Jamie Roberts or accompanying Danni Gibbins' (admittedly often introspective, but she's still young) songs in her previous band "Tiny Tin Lady". And is local fiddler Geri Holden any less "folky" because she also plays a mean jazz saxophone? And am I any less "into" the folk tradition because I (gasp!) also like quite a lot of rock music?

One of the things that puts some of my younger musician friends *off* folk venues is the perception they have of them being stuffed full of old people gazing wistfully back to a golden age and sucking their teeth at anything that doesn't fit their own prejudices. I've recently being going to 2 different venues locally. One is dying on its feet...it's a hotbed of factionalism, with the "unaccompanieds" ostentatiously going to get drinks when a guitar comes out, or a guitarist phoning up to ask if "there are any accordian players in tonight...I won't bother coming down if there are". I won't be going back to it. The other one is completely inclusive, and thriving, though Jim C might baulk at the idea of it being called a "folk" event at all. However, when I was there last week, we had a variety of ancient songs, unaccompanied and accompanied by guitars, mandolins, accordians and concertinas, plus some 60s and 70s "standards" (including a slightly updated "Feel Like I'm Fixin' To Die Rag"!) and the odd song written in the last few years that's become "viral" in local pubs and clubs. I played Russ Barenberg's "Drummers of England", learned off YouTube from Will Fly's rendition (thanks, Will!) and some of the participants refused to believe how recently it was written. I've now taught it to 2 other guitarists who were at that evening, and I suspect that it will also become "viral" locally, as it's just a nice, memorable tune.

So to summarise this long post....IMO the "future of folk music" is safe in the hands of a much bigger group of young singers, musicians and listeners than some people appear to believe. The direction in which it's evolving may not be to the taste of some, but that was the case 50 years go, and probably 100 years ago, too. It's easy to believe, from the ceaseless media output of manufactured dross, that we've become passive consumers, particularly youngsters, but it simply isn't true across society (though ti may be for some sections). Youngsters are making their own music as much as they ever did and a fair bit of it falls (albeit not as narrowly as some might wish for) into the "folk" category.

Rob