The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #136607   Message #3122358
Posted By: GUEST,999
26-Mar-11 - 09:52 PM
Thread Name: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition?
Subject: RE: Folklore: Folk, 1954 definition?
This is the best discussion of the 1954 definition I have ever read, here or anyplace else. I used to disparage the Brit view, but since, I have come to appreciate the standpoint of those who hold to that definition. I'm a Canadian, and the history of my culture is likely rough around the edges for a folk who have a remembered-past that precedes all we have in this country, and that includes the Viking ships sunk near Channel Port aux Basque about 1000 years ago.

The British Isles (no offense meant to those who recognize Erse or Welsh as their mother tongue) had to deal with the government of William the Bastard (aka the Conquerer and the First) lived through the Romans, Vikings, French and Margaret Thatcher. Such cannot be said of others.

That in itself pretty much ensures that longevity isn't the problem. But looking at some threads and taking them to heart, I do see the change that takes place in song when left to the devices of common folk--which I perceive us all to be. Personally, the song that came first is the starting point for all that follows--good, bad or indifferent. Losing that starting point makes us penurious despite our protestations that that isn't so.

I love this thread.