hread #58230   Message #3976795
Posted By: Dave the Gnome
15-Feb-19 - 04:32 AM
Thread Name: Who Defines 'Folk'????
Subject: RE: Who Defines 'Folk'????

And all this still has sweet FA to do with the original concept of the thread. Which was interesting.

---

Maybe so, Dave, but the subject drifted off the original topic way back in 2009, or maybe earlier. Perhaps the thread would have stayed on topic if it had been titled Whose Music Defines Folk?

But to answer that question (did I note that you yourself failed to answer it?), I would say that the Copper Family and Ewan MacColl best define "folk" in the UK, and Pete Seeger in the US - and they all illustrate vastly different definitions. I wouldn't venture a guess about "definers" in Ireland, Scotland, Australia, and NZ - although Jimmy Crowley might be a pretty good "definer" in Ireland.

As for purists, I was blown away to see a Mudcatter find the term offensive. I would define a "purist" as someone who has a narrow, rigid understanding of something and an inability to accommodate opposing or broader perspectives. Well, maybe it IS offensive, but it's a fact of life in so many realms of discussion. But I think I'm a purist in many ways myself, and I'm proud of it. I'm a stickler for accuracy and attribution in any research I'm involved in, and many people think I'm a "purist" because of that - and they're right.

But yeah, I'll vote for the Coppers, Ewan MacColl, Pete Seeger, and Jimmy Crowley. They define what I think folk music is and ought to be. But as with definitions, I assert that such things are matters of opinion.

-Joe-