1954 and All That - defining folk music

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 01:16 PM

I'm sorry, Jim, but you've lost me completely. I asked for a definition of the "recognisable parameters" that you believe should guide what goes on in folk clubs and you gave me a list of songwriters. I don't think I was being dishonest in assuming that these were people you admired especially since you started the list with MacColl.

If I have misunderstood, I apologise. Please explain what you actually meant.

Why oh why do you insist on making liars of so many of us?

WHAAAAT?!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Goose Gander
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 01:04 PM

Sinister Supporter -

Looking again at your original post and those that followed, a few things occur to me:

First of all, you are comparing unlike things. The 1954 definition was for all intents and purposes an anthropological definition, something that could be applied across time and space to any number of vernacular musical forms. As Jim Carroll has pointed out, the use of the term 'folk' in the definition is consistent with its use in folklore, folk dance, etc. Your re-definition (regardless of whether you think of it as so, that is basically what you are doing) applies to the folk clubs you frequent in England. This isn't even apples and oranges, it's more like hothouses and cultivated forests.

Secondly, I'm still not sure how you feel about the state of affairs you describe in folk clubs. In some of your earlier posts, you sound positively giddy regarding the 'anything goes' approach, and then you go and tell us that this "has been the cause of much despair in my life for a most of that time."   

Finally, what exactly was your purpose in starting this thread? You tell us, "The main purpose of this thread was, in essence, to sort out the wheat from the chaff - the wheat being Traditional Song, the chaff being all the other stuff currently being done In the Name of Folk, and carries the greater pragmatic weight by way of definition." – But this is NOT what you said in your original post.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 12:38 PM

Were they Pip Radish's questions? My first instinct was to answer them, my second was I hadn't got a clue what he was talking about.

What I'm asking for is a suggestion as to what is the minimum amount of change to be considered folk music according to '54. Is it two person transfer, sixty people, one verse change, 5 lines? The reason I ask is I've repeatedly come across a theoretical acceptance of recent music even from 1954 hard-liners but have yet to see an example which is acceptable to them. It's like a mirage, the nearer you get to it the more illusive it becomes.

I'm tempted to believe folk is like a game, with the tradition being Mornington Crescent.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 12:28 PM

Oh right I knew there was something else, from the song bag of St. Ewan McColl.

The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face is a 1957 folk song written by for Peggy Seeger, who was later to become his wife

Is it now? Does in meet the 1954 criteria?

To me it's always been a somewhat insipid pop tune, identified with that wonderful decade, the seventies

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 12:16 PM

Bryan,
You have an uncanny habit of stating as a fact the opposite of the truth when it comes to my opinions.
The list of songwriters I gave are certainly not my ersonal taste; can you please explain on what you base this statement. Some of them are cerainly, but I gave them as writers who were writing using traditional forms and styles - just as I said. If oyu disagree, feel free to argue, but please do not attribute opinions to me that are not my own - it is extremely dishonest.
Why oh why do you insist on making liars of so many of us?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 12:15 PM

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Pip Radish
Date: 11 Apr 09 - 04:31 PM

OK, quick quiz. SS, glueman, Rifleman, whoever (you know who you are): complete the following sentence.

I don't mind people using the word 'folk' in lots of different ways because:

(a) I don't care how people use the word 'folk'.

(b) I think it's a good thing that people use the word 'folk' in lots of different ways.

or

(c) I think it's a good thing that people use the word 'folk' in the ways that they use it.

Anyone?

Phrasing the same question in three different ways...Your point is what exactly?

Me a gun nut...hardly. Mr Phil Beer picked up on the Rifleman allusion sometime back, so that's old news, somewhat like this pointless 1954 definition.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Goose Gander
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 11:57 AM

"Until transference is based on an agreed form of change and quantified, romantic idealism will be a barrier to widespread acceptance. The cynic might suggest the avoidance of mass take up through institutionalised equivocation is precisely what aspects of the tradition have become known for."

Glueman, I suspect that you are Taking the Piss in a Designated Folk Discussion Context.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 11:36 AM

Not squared but softened on the corners George. My reading of recent turns goes like this: faced with some fairly damning evidence there was agreement among the more thoughtful of 1954 protagonists that the definitions didn't cover all the bases as they were written by fans; collectors, amateurs and tyros - a position it's hard to argue with.

One of the weaknesses of '54, though I'm happy to argue other fault lines, is the emphasis on transference through change. This had been left vague, deliberately perhaps in view of the consequences of pinning down what 'change' implies, but nonetheless requires a definitive and agreed unit of adaptation if Folk54 was to move beyond a late flowering of C19th romanticism and into something like a real label people can use.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 11:19 AM

Just checking in to see if this particular circle has been squared yet...

Nope.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 11:17 AM

"(a) not to insult them and (b) to answer questions they put to you."

Top tip Radish: before I arrived here I was not given to websults, sadly one learns to rough up in rough company. As the 54 gang were both rude and condescending almost to a man, try checking the mote in your own peeper.
If I've missed a question put to me directly you might tell me where and, after you've responded to my points, I'll endeavour to reply.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 11:11 AM

(b) to answer questions they put to you.

I didn't answer them either. What was all that about anyway, Pip? Some dastardly trick I'll be bound...

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 11:10 AM

Jim Carroll

C'mon Bryan, I'm sure you know what these parameters are: MacColl, Seeger, Matt McGinn, Cyril Tawney, Pete Smith, Eric Bogle, Con 'Fada' O'Drisceol, Adam McNaughton, Ed Pickford, Enoch Kent.....

That isn't a list of parameters, it's a list of names, names of people who represent your tastes. I could put up a similar list which would include some of those names but not at the top and many others involved in folk clubs could come up with their own (probably overlapping) lists. They don't amount to "recognisable parameters".

Who sets the parameters; the club committee using a bit of common nouse - that's who

Exactly, Jim, according to their own tastes and perceptions which may not entirely agree with yours.

(you know them - the ones who should also be setting the standards).

I'll leave that till you finally get round to responding to my earlier post.

Did anybody declare the folk revival dead?

Perhaps not in those words although I think you did say "moribund" at one point.

I am now being asked to give up my seat to a bunch of squatters who couldn't find their 'folk' arses with both hands, and who haven't either the energy or the imagination to find a name of their own - sorry, I'd rather fight my corner a little longer (like, for the rest of my life).

That's really sad. There are people out there who use "folk" to describe music that doesn't fit your taste. There is nothing you can do about it. Are you really going to dedicate the rest of your life to defending the meaning of one word? Better to spend the time promoting the music whatever it's called. After all, it had existed for a very long time before 1954.

The enthusiasm you have shown in the last few posts is a welcome change from your previous negativity.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 10:28 AM

Any response to my earlier points from the folkier than thou tendency?

Top tip, O adhesive one: if you want answers from people, it's usually a good idea (a) not to insult them and (b) to answer questions they put to you.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 09:19 AM

Any response to my earlier points from the folkier than thou tendency?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 08:47 AM

Are you going to Scarborough Fair?
And if so, why? Why do you call it a fair? What do you mean by 'going', anyway?
- Simon and Garfinkel

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 07:58 AM

Sailor Ron
That's the technique
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Sailor Ron
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 07:49 AM

'fingers in ear'! Paul Robson used to 'cup' his hand round his ear. And besides folk, spirituals, popular songs he also, on occasions , sang opera.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 07:19 AM

Meant to say, even if you don't use the technique in public, it's great for ironing out the bumps when practicing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 07:08 AM

Crow Sister,
Keeping pitch in unnaccompanied singing can be notoriously difficult
Hand over ear certainly helps.
I think it first came into use in the UK via A L Lloyd who picked it up from Rumanian singers (can't be too sure of this though)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 06:44 AM

I thought it was to get imperfect pitch.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 06:40 AM

"It is used so the singer can hear the sound of his/her voice and so, keep in tune."

Never knew that.
Though I've never seen an opera singer, or a choral singer feel the need for the same technique I must say. It sounds just a bit theatrical to me! I don't see why any singer should genuinely need to resort to such methods in order to stay in tune - unless there's lots of loud instruments perhaps?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 05:19 AM

Do you know, I really think that we're beginning to get somewhere with this! There have been some very interesting and thoughtful contributions among the last few posts (much more civilised than some of the previous insults and backbiting). I'm particularly impressed by Howard Jones's contribution above - I agree with every word. I applaud your eloquence and insight, Mr Jones!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 05:16 AM

"MacColl didn't put his finger in his ear"
Oh, come on - I've been hammering that point since I joined this forum. I knew Ewan and Bert and I know why they sang the way they did.
The technique is centuries, probably millenia old. It is used so the singer can hear the sound of his/her voice and so, keep in tune. If some of the people who took the piss out of it used it themselves, perhaps we'd have less out-of tuners.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 04:56 AM

You raise some interesting points HJ and I'd agree with many. The fact remains that the romantic and abstract were lost at the point 1954 attempted to bring a critical language to the idea of folk. I talked about folk being an 'unstable' entity and much of that instability is due to (what I perceive as) a deliberately evasive use of language which sanctions anyone who styles themselves as emblematic of 'the common man' to insist on his interpretation.

Until transference is based on an agreed form of change and quantified, romantic idealism will be a barrier to widespread acceptance. The cynic might suggest the avoidance of mass take up through institutionalised equivocation is precisely what aspects of the tradition have become known for.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Howard Jones
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 04:31 AM

The bit in the original 1954 definition about anonymity seems to be derived from the rather romanticed image some of the early collectors had. But lets remember that these were not academic researchers but enthusiasts, driven by not only an interest in the music but often also by socio-political notions of a society and way of life which was already dramatically changing, and which the singers from whom they collected represented the last generation. The methodology and ethics of collecting were still to be established.

I haven't seen anyone here trying to defend every last detail of the 1954 definition, neither is it inconsistent for this to have evolved as the subject develops and knowledge improves. Neither is the 1954 definition in all its detail necessarily relevant to a modern performer, but the concept it tries to pin down certainly should be. As a young performer, I knew about the "folk process" long before I came across the 1954 definition in Bert Lloyd's "Folk Song in England".

With modern research resources, the origin of many traditional songs and tunes is emerging. Many can be traced back, if not to a named composer, at least to an identifiable source - broadsides, theatrical shows, military bands, classical compositions.

It is not knowledge, or the lack of it, of the original authorship which is important. "Folk" is a Darwinian process: it is the evolution of the original piece, whether it came from an individual in the community or a commercial source, which makes it "folk", and gives it its particular character. Like biological evolution, the results could be haphazard, and there are plenty of duck-billed platypuses as well as a few birds of paradise.

Of course "folk" devalues the original authorship, that's the whole point. But it's wrong to say that it devalues the source singers; the folk process means individual creativity operating within a community. Most modern performers are careful to acknowledge the original sources.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 04:03 AM

that arch finger-in-earer, Ewan MacColl.

A point of pedantry here, MacColl didn't put his finger in his ear so much as cup his ear after the example the Muezzin whose melismatic influence he absorbed into his own singing to great effect, encouraging others to do likewise.

Otherwise, spiffing stuff, Jim - thanks for posting it; my heart is likewise warmed as I'm sure others will be too.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 04:00 AM

Apologies for talking over the head of common man, morphology was a word used frequently in a previous job. I could put in a link of course but look it up if anyone's interested, you never know you might learn something. Try Vladimir Propp and the Morphology of the Folk Tale for starters.
my question is about trying to take a definition from the notional and romanticised to something that'll hold water. If change is fundamental to 1954 there must be a unit of it, or we're dealing with an abstraction and all the subjectivity and confusion it brings. I'm trying to draw out what the least number of lyrical or notational morphs are required to denote folk, so that rather than, say, folk policemen (I prefer vigilante) making it up as they go along to put the rest of us in our place, those of us not in on the joke can see if '54 is said romantic abstraction or something more tangible.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 03:56 AM

Why the 'Either/Or contruct', Sinister Supporter?

Not so much Either/Or as Subject/Object, which is a curious dichotomy in itself when it comes to humans studying other humans. Otherwise, I was simply asking a question; if a song is removed from the natural habitat that defined it as a folk song in the first place, is it still a folk song when those criteria (i.e. those of the MCMLIV Shibboleth) are no longer being met? Interesting to note that Garfinkel first came up with Ethnomethodology in 1954 as well...

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 03:40 AM

Sorry,
Was looking for something else and just found this. It's the last sentence of the series of programmes on the tradition 'The Song Carriers' by that arch finger-in-earer, Ewan MacColl. Not really relevant, but still brings a warm feeling.

"Well, there they are, the songs of our people. Some of them have been centuries in the making, some of them undoubtedly were born on the broadside presses. Some have the marvellous perfection of stones shaped by the sea's movement. Others are as brash as a cup-final crowd. They were made by professional bards and by unknown poets at the plough-stilts and the handloom. They are tender, harsh,, passionate, ironical, simple, profound.... as varied, indeed, as the landscape of this island.
We are indebted to the Harry Coxes and Phil Tanners, to Colm Keane and Maggie MaccDonagh, to Belle Stewart and Jessie Murray and to all the sweet and raucous unknown singers who have helped to carry our people's songs across the centuries."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 03:20 AM

Just thought I'd swot up on the work of one of those 'patronising academics' and I came across a quote in a collection of essays by Alan Lomax which had made its way onto the shelves only partly read (thanks for that folks).
He opens an essay entitled 'The Good And The Beautiful in Folksong' with:
"Since a folksong is transmitted orally by all or most members of a culture, generation after generation, it represents an extremely high consensus about patterns of meanings and behaviour rather than individual significance".   
One could quibble about the 'all or most', but, for me it sums up what I believe to be the communal nature of folksong; I've never believed that the phrase 'voice of the people' was randomly chosen.
SS
"Jim - please read my post of 13 Apr 09 - 04:32 AM will you?"
I had read it and to some degree I sympathise with your point; however....
I came through the door marked 'folk' nearly half a century ago. Even then, it was a term recognised for what it was, albeit not particularly pleasantly, by a fairly large number of the population via 'Miss Pringle and her school upright'. The folk boom to some degree warmed up that image a little and we fought for our place in the sun by setting up and performing at 'folk' clubs. I now have a foot in both camps and am involved in 'folksong, folklore, folktale, folkmusic, folk dance and folk custom' where the term is still current and is being used to document and research constantly. In order to shift my position on the term, it seems I would have to become both Norman Bates and his mother at the same time (which he did of course - and look where it got him).
I am now being asked to give up my seat to a bunch of squatters who couldn't find their 'folk' arses with both hands, and who haven't either the energy or the imagination to find a name of their own - sorry, I'd rather fight my corner a little longer (like, for the rest of my life).
Your point about the debasing of the term is a valid one (one I have been making to the hoots and catcalls of 'folk police' and 'finger-in-ear for a long time), but for the life of me I can't see the point of debunking a still workable definition (as I said, much in need of updating), apparently in order to accommodate the debasers - sorry.
Thanks for the reminder of the lovely 'Pissing In The Snow' collection Don.
A well known 'dusty academic' collector from Ulster once assembled a similar collection of bawdy tales from his area and, after some difficulty, found a publisher to handle them. The publisher spent a long time dissuading your man from calling them 'F****** In The Frost'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 07:16 PM

Aren't thesauruses wonderful!??

(Or should that be "thesauri?")

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Goose Gander
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 06:55 PM

"What news of song morphology? Presumably a definition based on cultural exchange will have a ruling on the least number of variation transfers?"

Huh?

And that should have been 'Either/Or construct' . . .

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 06:50 PM

What news of song morphology? Presumably a definition based on cultural exchange will have a ruling on the least number of variation transfers?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Goose Gander
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 06:47 PM

"What is the minimal level of transference metamorphosis to be considered folk?"

That is actually a good question, but it's probably unanswerable. It's a matter of degree rather than quantification.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Goose Gander
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 06:45 PM

"And does a song stop becoming a folk song once it is collected and that transference ceases?"

Why do you assume that collecting a song stops the process of transference? Folklorists have understood for decades that there is a reciprocal relationship between oral transmission and print. Likewise, American scholars such as D.K. Wilgus, Archie Green and Norm Cohen have demonstrated the role of recordings in transmitting songs. A.P. Carter collected songs from 'folk' sources, revised, rewrote and recorded those songs as commercial 'pop songs' and, through the much-maligned (by some, anyway) marketplace, sent those songs right back to the Folk (folks) who had been singing them for years.

Why the 'Either/Or contruct', Sinister Supporter?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 05:56 PM

And does a song stop becoming a folk song once it is collected and that transference ceases?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 05:33 PM

What is the minimal level of transference metamorphosis to be considered folk?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 05:04 PM

So an individual known author can create folk music so long as it is "no longer recognised as the work of an individual author".

Seems pretty straightforward to me - if it's "one of those songs that we sing" and gets passed on as such, then it's a folk song.

AND THIS IS NOT A VALUE JUDGMENT. Some folk songs are crap; some composed songs pin back the ears of everyone for miles around. They're still not the same thing.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 04:49 PM

"Not when you accept that folk is a process, not a style of composition or a type of song."

And there are enough people that accept that folk is MORE than just a process - and even the process is open to debate.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 04:22 PM

Note the following, SS:

Told by Leo McKellops, Anderson, Mo., May, 1933. An old story, known in many parts of Missouri and Arkansas.

"One time there was a fellow come walking into town, a-hollering how he's going to quit farming and preach the gospel. He was just a big country boy, all pecker and feet, the kind of a fellow that couldn't find his butt with both hands in broad daylight. Anybody could see he didn't know enough to pour piss out of a boot, with directions printed on the heel. But he stood right up in meeting anyhow, and told everybody he had a call to preach."

The story continues. Click HERE and scroll down to "50. The Call to Preach."

And it was undoubtedly around long before that. I think the emperor Caligula said it about Claudius just before, he, Caligula, was assassinated by his many enemies, who then appointed Claudius the new emperor.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 03:54 PM

a million miles from SS's 'make it up as you go along as long as it is in a designated folk context'.

Jim - please read my post of 13 Apr 09 - 04:32 AM will you?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 03:42 PM

Hi Bryan, pleased you had a good time.
"What are those parameters? Who defines them? Where can they be found?"
C'mon Bryan, I'm sure you know what these parameters are: MacColl, Seeger, Matt McGinn, Cyril Tawney, Pete Smith, Eric Bogle, Con 'Fada' O'Drisceol, Adam McNaughton, Ed Pickford, Enoch Kent..... all using traditional styles and formats to compose new material. It has even been claimed that songs like Freeborn Man and Shoals of Herring actually passed into the tradition; (not by me, I hasten to add).
Set those parameters, as most clubs I went to did, and your audiences are given the choice of what they wish to listen to - a million miles from SS's 'make it up as you go along as long as it is in a designated folk context'.
Who sets the parameters; the club committee using a bit of common nouse - that's who (you know them - the ones who should also be setting the standards).
Did anybody declare the folk revival dead? - must have missed that one; certainly weren't me.
More later when I tackle your earlier posting.
"Tricky stuff this tradition."
Not when you accept that folk is a process, not a style of composition or a type of song. It's what happens to a song once it is passed on that makes it folk.
Example;
This part of West Clare has had an extremely strong songwriting tradition; during our collecting here we must have recorded dozens of songs composed around incidents or features of the area. These included around 12 political songs from the Irish War of Independance, 3 about local elections (including when DeValera was elected for Clare), 4 on the sinking of the French ship, The Leon X111, 3 on the local single-track railway, comic songs about drunken sprees, fashion, local murders, hair styles, fairs and markets... you name it. The largest section of these were praise songs of the area (Lovely Old Miltown, etc, and emigration). Although nearly all of these must have been composed well within the lives of the singers and in spite of our efforts, we were unable to discover the names of 1 single composer. The composers had never claimed ownership of the songs and the singers either were unable, or were not interested in finding out, so the songs simply passed into the local repertoires. When we recorded the same song from different singers, they were invariably different versions.
Even when singers kept notebooks to jot down their new songs the written version differed, sometimes considerable, from the sung one.
The same applied, to a lesser extent with the Travellers.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 03:35 PM

It did not originate in a recent television show.

I first heard it on a TV show, then I heared it four more times in the following weeks. Coincidence? Odd how these things work - what goes around, comes around...

IFMC 1954.

One wonders how the ICTM view the 1954 definition now that they've changed their name? Note the current remit: to further the study, practice, documentation, preservation and dissemination of traditional music, including folk, popular, classical and urban music, and dance of all countries. I think I'll join & find out.

And this comes from someone who defended A. L. Lloyd's fabrications in a recent thread!

My only defence of A L Lloyd was that he indicated he'd messed around with the PBOEFS songs in the intro & notes; the full extent to which he did this has been explored elsewhere. I did not defend him for doing this, rather I feel a deep sense of betrayal having held the PBOEFS as sacred since I was 14. That's 34 years. I tell you, this was a bitter blow to my folk faith.

So feudalism lasted thousands of years in the British Isles?

Maybe I'm subscribing to the historical sentiment Rudyard Kipling expressed in The Land which covers 1600 years at least.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 01:38 PM

Back from a very enjoyable weekend at Gosport and Fareham Folk Festival.

Seems to have been some relatively intelligent discussion amongst the name calling. I can't cope with it all so I'll pick out a few points.

Jim Carroll

But I believe that what goes on in the clubs should lie within recognisable parameters

What are those parameters? Who defines them? Where can they be found?

Pip Radish

Anyone who didn't know better would think that we were all in agreement.

I have said, a number of times that I think Jim would find much to his liking at The Lewes Saturday Folk Club as, I believe, would you.

OK, quick quiz.

I'm not sure if you are inviting me to take part in the quiz but it doesn't matter whether I mind people using the word 'folk' in lots of different ways because there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. What I do object to is the tendency to declare the folk revival dead just because some people use "folk" in a different way. It seems to me to be more important to concentrate on the music than worry about the word.

Spleen Cringe

Using Snail (sorry Bryan) as an example, despite not actually knowing him, in terms of taste and activity he appears a bit of a classic 1954er, but he clearly has a healthily anarchic streak that rails against being boxed in as such.... marks out of ten for this pithy analysis, Bryan?

Well, not really Nigel. In my 35 years on the folk scene before I joined Mudcat I had never heard of the 1954 definition. I seemed to get by without it. I am happy to describe what we do at the LSFC as "folk" even if it isn't all 1954 compliant. I'm not sure about the "healthily anarchic streak". I gather some strange things go on at some places calling themselves Folk Clubs but I rarely if ever encounter it so I don't feel the need to get over excited about it nor do I feel I have any right to tell them to stop.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 01:25 PM

So an individual known author can create folk music so long as it is "no longer recognised as the work of an individual author".

Tricky stuff this tradition.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 01:22 PM

GUEST, Strippers Routines, the expression "he couldn't pour shit (piss) from a shoe (boot) if the instructions were printed on the heel," along with miscellaneous variations thereof, is one I have heard from time to time for decades. It did not originate in a recent television show.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 01:11 PM

"The work of known authors can be folk"
Only if it is taken over by the community, adapted and changed to the extent that it appears in distinct versions and is no longer recognised as the work of an individual author.
"The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready-made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk character"
IFMC 1954.

More later,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 12:26 PM

"The work of known authors can be folk"

Cheers Shimrod, I'll get to work on my list.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Goose Gander
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 12:15 PM

"Baring-Gould was of the opinion that the Traditional Singers were too ignorant to fully appreciate the symbolism of the songs they sang . . . . This speaks volumes for the regard in which our heroes were held, and such, indeed, is the way of the folklorist; driven to falsify the facts to fit their pet theories . . ."

You are painting with a very broad brush. Baring-Gould was condescending toward the singers from whom he collected, therefore ALL folklorists are 'bad guys' and liars? And this comes from someone who defended A. L. Lloyd's fabrications in a recent thread!

"Conspiracy? Perish the thought! After all, this is only the legacy of thousands years of feudal suppression we're dealing with here."

So feudalism lasted thousands of years in the British Isles? That is a very interesting statement. But perhaps you yourself are a folklorist, and hence are 'driven to falsify the facts to to fit your pet theories'?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 12:00 PM

"My hash would be settled by the simple expedient of traditionalists stating the work of known authors can be folk."

Your hash is settled! The work of known authors can be folk ... and who said that they couldn't?