1954 and All That - defining folk music

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 03:08 PM

Realfolk? Is that like Realale? Just asking

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 03:03 PM

Don't be so snotty Don, I am trying to have a reasonable discussion with you and explain why your analogy does not work."

"Snotty?"

Ron, I'm not going to get caught it in a petty, nit-picking argument with you about whether my analogy works or not. Any analogy is only a general comparison for purposes of illustration, and if someone has a mind to, he can start finding fault with it and lose the thread of the discussion.

I have stated my case, and my reason for it, quite clearly above, in my post of 21 Mar 09 - 06:09 p.m.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, I have read both of the books you mentioned above.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 02:39 PM

"but what chances are of actual folk getting published or being bothered to adopt such an approach? Not very likely at all really."
Sorry - you've lost me; can you explain?
Stanley Robertson, Scots Traveller - has published at least four books, Duncan Williamson, Scots Traveller, at least half a dozen, we've (retired electrician and retired office worker) have just recieved an open-ended offer to publish our Travellers collection, MacColl and Seeger published interviews of The Stewarts, excellent book on Jeannie Robertson - or are we talking about your undefined 'real' folk? not sure.
Still don't know if a string orchestra performing at one of your 'designated folk venues' would miraculously transform into a folk ensemble.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Howard Jones
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 02:30 PM

"I like Folk as Flotsam* because, although a traddy, I like people - everyday people, coming to a folk club after a hard day's work in the fields (or on the cabs, the Job Centre, the hospital, the school, the building site, the ministry, or computer terminal) to sink a few pints and sing whatever they want to sing without someone telling them it isn't folk."

I don't think anyone would object to people getting together to sing whatever they like. What people are questioning is whether what you describe should be described as a folk club.

If I go to a jazz club, I expect to hear jazz. If I go to a Mozart concert, I expect to hear Mozart. Is it unreasonable to expect to hear folk music at a folk club?

What you are describing may be a very enjoyable way to spend an evening, but calling it a folk club is misleading.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 02:25 PM

Jim - read any of Ron Cohen's books such as "Rainbow Quest". You can also check Robert Cantwell's "When We Were Good", Dick Weissman's "Which Side Are You On", or Scott Alarik's writing. All recognize the influence of singer-songwriters through the ages.

At the same time, I do not think that any of them, nor would I, disagree with your definition of the traditional side of folk music.   I am not disagreeing with your desires for folk clubs. You should be entitled to program any style you like. The rest of the world should have the same opportunity and the contemporary definition of folk music has just as much right to claim title to the words.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 01:23 PM

not bad for half a dozen whining traddys, don't you think?

Not bad at all - I'm sure there's maybe half that number passed through my hands too but what chances are of actual folk getting published or being bothered to adopt such an approach? Not very likely at all really.

We know that's the reality; the question is what you think about that reality.

Right now, sitting here listening to the newly remastered edition of Jordi Savall & Le Concert des Nations' 1993 recording of Handel's Water Music I really don't care that much to be honest. Music is so much bigger than what I think and I'm increasingly seeing it as a petty concern. The reality is so much greater than any ideal; as I said over on the other thread:

I like Folk as Flotsam* because, although a traddy, I like people - everyday people, coming to a folk club after a hard day's work in the fields (or on the cabs, the Job Centre, the hospital, the school, the building site, the ministry, or computer terminal) to sink a few pints and sing whatever they want to sing without someone telling them it isn't folk. This is where the Horse definition wins out, because it comes from the folks themselves, not the academics telling us how it ought to be, but obviously isn't.

Although a Traddy, I'm with the folks on this one; the academics can go fuck themselves. And that's not by way of 'anti-analytical primitivism' - just that the 1954 definition only works if you want it work, otherwise it's very much The Horseshit Definition and means nothing at all without being complicit in the sort of academic fantasising that gave rise to such nonsense in the first place.

Is Folk Music of the Folks or the Academics anyway? I know which I prefer.

* Folk is rather like Flotsam - just so many otherwise disparate diverse artefacts floating around in a particular context regardless of origin or eventual destination. It's all Flotsam.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 01:07 PM

"Music is not meant to be put on a shelf and looked at."
No, as a veteran club organiser and singer of some thirty years standing (and sitting), I totally agree; but with live folk music, just like books, it is nice to know where to look for it when you want it.
"I'm sure you are aware that there are at least 500 books that adhere to a broader definition of folk as well."
Have to admit I didn't know there were that many, but I can't think of one that sets down an alernative definition in black-and-white.
Was really responding to SS's half-a-dozen whining traddies snide.
One of my problems with all this is the insults to injury bit.
At the height of my folk-clubbing, while I always had one or two permanent clubs to go to, I always made a point of visiting as many others as possible, sometimes four or five times a week.
Gradually these prove so unsatisfactory that they dwindled down to my two regulars.
Not only was I listening to less and less 'folk proper' but quite often the standards were appalling in the terms of what the performers were doing.
We got pop wannabes who would have been booed off the stage of the back room of my local, music hall performers who couldn't manage a comic song if it would save them from imminent execution, and would-be opera singers who would make Florence Foster Jenkins sound like Maria Callas.
The folk scene was becoming a refuge for rejects who weren't good enough to make their way in their own chsoen forms - a cultural dustbin.
Clips I have been guided to on this forum convince me that nothing much has changed in this respect.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:12 PM

I can point to several books on my shelf that relate the history of the folk revival and incorporate a broader definition than the 1954 interpretation. Of course, the 1954 definition is open to interpretation as well, it is just that some folks have a more finite set of standards. There is a danger when music is collected of losing the setting and standards that made it "folk" in the first place. Music is not meant to be put on a shelf and looked at.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 11:40 AM

Ron - do you really think so? I'm sure there are at least 500 folk clubs that don't bother defining 'folk', but books?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 11:28 AM

Jim - I'm sure you are aware that there are at least 500 books that adhere to a broader definition of folk as well.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 11:16 AM

"Folk is as it is, and I don't think a half dozen or so whining traddys is going to change that."
I count something like 500 books on my shelf with my version of 'folk' as the subject - not bad for half a dozen whining traddys, don't you think?
How many do you have adhering to your non-version of the term?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 10:39 AM

It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of that being the very case, although I doubt if anyone is ever tempted to delve deeper into the traditional stuff.
...
I say again, by defining folk as I have done throughout this thread, I'm not postulating an ideal, rather reflecting on the reality

But how are you defining folk, other than as "what you hear at a folk club"? We all know that the way the word 'folk' is used in practice has nothing to do with the 1954 definition. We know that's the reality; the question is what you think about that reality.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 09:03 AM

" I don't think you're really so obtuse that you actually don't understand what I'm saying. When you tell me that you have steaks for sale, and I plunk down my money, you can't really blame me for getting a bit ticked if you hand me a wad of tofu. Is that so difficult to grasp?"

Don't be so snotty Don, I am trying to have a reasonable discussion with you and explain why your analogy does not work.   

If you are handed tofu instead of steak, you know what you have been handed and your reaction is easy. When you ask for a steak, that is just the start. Do you want a porterhouse, t-bone, sirloin or something else? You might make an assumption that you want beef - but steaks can come from other animals and fish.    When you walk into a store, you do no ask for "folk music" and expect to know what the contents will be.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 08:43 AM

A lot of people use the term "folk music" in a way that does not fit the 1954 definition. I suspect that rather more use it that way than not.

There is absolutely nothing that anyone can do about it.

Make up your minds; what matters to you most, the music or the definition?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 08:23 AM

"I say again, by defining folk as I have done throughout this thread"
Different definition for each club, I seem to remember.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 07:19 AM

Thanks for My Son David, Dick - a masterful rendition & pretty much as I sing it myself (as learned from Thor Ewing, as learnt from Ewan McColl, as learnt from Jeanie Robertson).

*

...if "folk" were more inclusive, would it not draw more listeners and potetential performers who may delve deeper, learn more about its beginnings and keep the traditional stuff alive?

It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of that being the very case, although I doubt if anyone is ever tempted to delve deeper into the traditional stuff. And even if they were, this wouldn't be keeping it alive, because it died the death long ago (for my personal feelings on this see my blog The Liege, the Lief and the Traditional Folk Song, which collects some of my polemical musings from the sadly defunct Harvest Home forum, once affiliated to the sadly defunct Woven Wheat Whispers).

I say again, by defining folk as I have done throughout this thread, I'm not postulating an ideal, rather reflecting on the reality - obviously an uncomfortable reality for many of you, but a reality non the less. Have a listen to Folk On Two, or look to see who's performing at a Folk Festival Near You and see what I mean.

Folk is as it is, and I don't think a half dozen or so whining traddys is going to change that.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 06:56 AM

Jim - sorry about the divisive comments. I don't know why I come into these threads. I guess because I want to learn. But I do not want to be scared away from something I have a passion for by academics. And I ceartainly do not want to be one who frightens new potential converts away.

Captain, - that is the kind of spine tingling beautiful I love hearing in sessions. It would be wonderful to attend sessions dedicated completely to "traditional folk". I hope I am naming it correctly. But it won't happen where I am.

I have to say that I also enjoy sessions which are mixed bag. And I fear that applying parameters to the label "folk" to only include the traditional song about the man of the field, ship, coalmine or woman at the loom, etc. limits the genre to a tiny blip that will eventually slip of the radar.

If "folk" were more inclusive, would it not draw more listeners and potetential performers who may delve deeper, learn more about its beginnings and keep the traditional stuff alive?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Betsy
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 06:50 AM

Thankyou Albertos - you made me chuckle.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 06:44 AM

this is not folk music.the other Dick Miles
http://www.carlinamerica.com/titles/titles.cgi?MODULE=LYRICS&ID=905&terms=Co

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 06:05 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJhyDS_jd3I&feature=channel_page

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 05:34 AM

Howard Jones,
Sorry - didn't see your last posting.
I wish I'd said that - exactly what I mean.
Ditto D McG
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 04:36 AM

Why is it that whenever a subject like this comes up - bang - sound of breaking door and in comes the heavy mob telling me what I should and should not be discussing. This will be the 'Folk Police' everybody talks about I presume (maybe they've opened a special 'forum protection branch' to make sure we don't disturb the little niche they've constructed for themselves on the ruins of what used to be a thriving and healthy scene where at one time I could go and listen to ballads (some of them even more than 2 minutes long) and shanties and bothy songs and bawdy pieces and all the other things it used to be worth leaving a warm television for).
If I drive across the county to visit a 'folk club' I've just read about and some burke gets up and sings American Pie, and another mutters something private enough to be unintelligable into his armpit, and another stumbles his or her way through something I vaguely recognise but I can't quite make out the tune or the words (which they are reading from a sheet of Andrex) and are not projecting loud enough to quite reach the third row, and, as they have forgotten their glasses they have to ask the audience what the next line is......... what do I do - suffer in silence and stay at home next time I see the word 'folk' advertised in the '''entertainment''' columns?
That's what I, and thousands like me did - we left the clubs to wallow in the shite-holes they'd been turned into by the 'anything goes merchants'?
Sorry - I'd rather try to win back a little of what we had before the tat-purveyors moved in:
a) Out of respect for the old singers I had the pleasure to meet and who gave me their songs, like Walter Pardon, who knew what folk music was and took the trouble to get it right before he stood up in front of an audience - and
b) So that others can experience a little of the enjoyment I had out of folk music before it was re- (or de-) defined.

"Just enjoy it and stop putting fucking labels on it"
Certainly ******* not; get back to Coronation Street and mind your own ******* business.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 04:33 AM

I detect traces of what I've heard called "violent agreement" in this thread. What seems to be being confused is why anyone wants a definition. About half the people on this thread seem to object to the idea, and they want to be free to sing anything they like. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, actually, when it outside a context where other people are paying to hear you. But the other half are saying that they want a definition so that before hearing anything or knowing anything about the singer, they can make some sort of prediction of what they might hear. And this is useful because it enables them to decide whether or not to go to a certain club, or buy a CD speculatively and so on. I cannot believe anyone on this thread thinks it a good idea that you can never make such predictions beforehand.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Howard Jones
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 04:26 AM

It occurs to me that there are two quite separate issues here. One is the meaning of "folk song", and the other is an attempt to define "folk" as a musical genre, mainly from a UK/US perspective. The two are quite different.

Folk music (traditional music if you prefer) is unique in that it shows a process of evolution. All songs, even folk songs, must have been composed by someone, however folk songs have been passed on and changed by generations of singers. That makes them different from "literary" compositions which continue to be played more or less as written.

The 1954 definition tells about this evolutionary process. It tells us nothing of the music itself. A 1954-compliant folk song from Indonesia sounds quite different from one from Britain or America.

The second definition is aesthetic - a musical genre as characterised by a certain sound. Music genres are identified by their characteristics - a certain musical structure, use of certain instruments. The trouble is, these characteristics are very difficult to put down in words and in any event are only guidelines rather than strict rules.

So, within "folk" in this sense, we have 1954 traditional music; we also have (like it or not) a range of other music, whose only unifying characteristic appears to be that it is usually acoustic, and it is trying to set boundaries to this range which presents so many problems. I think we all have a general idea what it means, it is applying it to specific examples which is difficult. But this is the point that Jim Carroll and Don Firth, for example, are making - that if you go to a "designated folk context" you should be able to know in advance what to expect. It is too much to ask now that it should be exclusively 1954 folk - with a few exceptions, hardly any folk clubs since the 1960s ever adopted that approach - but I agree that it should at the very least be based around that style of music.

The OP's suggestion that folk music is anything played in a "folk context" doesn't work - firstly, the logic is self-referring ( as I pointed out in a previous post) and secondly because different folk venues have different policies - some are strictly traditional, some are "anything goes". If you accept the "anything goes" approach then what is the point of trying to define it?

I suggest this test: if you were to put on a concert entirely made up of the type of music being offered, would you market it as "folk" and would you expect it to please a largely "folkie" audience? So, if someone wants to perform a Buddy Holly song, or a Robbie Williams song, or a Beatles song, at a folk club, ask yourself, "would I bill an entire evening of this material as 'folk'"?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Albertos
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 04:20 AM

When I read threads like this I realise what a bunch of wankers a lot of folkies are. They can't even begin to understand music if they have to have a "definition" supposedly published by some unknown collection of self ordained tosspots. Music is music wake up and smell the cocoa!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 03:31 AM

Define the air and the wind; define song and merriness of the heart. Define love. Leave folk music alone.


A

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 01:56 AM

Why go by the "1954 definition" when we can go by 19th century definitions? Isn't older better?

No, older is not necessarily better. Such heavily loaded terms vary in their definitions at different times. If "folk" didn't even exist in such usage before the 19th century, how can we feel so positive about its "correct" definition? What did they call the same phenomena before the advent of the term "folk"? And does anyone else feel uncomfortable with the fact that the term emerged hand in hand with certain notions of nationalism, the flipside of which is often ethnocentrism? These were the connotations of folk /volk from the late 19th century, the idea that there were discreet, "pure" ethnic ("national") communities which produced distinctive material culture through which their character could be known and through which, materially, "us" could be defined in distinction to "others."

Moving forward, how could we seriously trust a Cecil Sharp-era concept of "folk"? Didn't nationalism drive his work, as he pursued a notion of what was "English" through ascribing a repertoire of songs.
Let's say Karpeles was the next wave, but she inherited Sharp's legacy. These were people that had recently witnessed surges of industrialization which they feared were a threat to the "purity" of xyz nationalities. "Folk" in many ways meant to covey that which was.
The continued process of industrialization, mass media, and...most effectively....globalization forced people to rethink such quaint concepts. Anthropologists, ethnomusicologists, other theorists etc etc have surely redefined "folk" may times since the 1950s. And one cannot say that, oh well, they are academics whose ideas have not application to how we perceive "folk" on the ground...because the original idea of "folk" is an academic concept. (There seems to be a bit of double-standard in these discussions where academics are simultaneously disregarded as irrelevant while also cited as authorities.)

Gibb

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:45 AM

Ron, I don't think you're really so obtuse that you actually don't understand what I'm saying. When you tell me that you have steaks for sale, and I plunk down my money, you can't really blame me for getting a bit ticked if you hand me a wad of tofu. Is that so difficult to grasp?

It's past my bedtime. I'm going to bed.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:04 AM

If the poster, flier or record label does not say "folk music", would that change the contents? Do you honestly rely so much on a label that you could not tell if you are holding a tomato or a lemon?

Sorry, your analogy is not cutting it. You are relying on a crutch that is not required.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 11:22 PM

Actually, Betsy, we cross-posted. My comment was in response to Sinister Supporter's.

And I'm sorry, Ron, but my comment is right on the money. When the concert poster or flier or record label or song book says "Folk Music," that's packaging and labelling.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 09:56 PM

Don - your analogy does not work.

Food is something you taste, smell and see. Music is something you hear. Either one can be packaged with a label, but it really doesn't matter until you experience the product.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Betsy
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 09:07 PM

Hiya Don ,as someone once said "two countries divided by a common language " - I don't know what to deduce by your comment.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 08:43 PM

In short, deuces wild. And every other card wild.

Why don't we go into the grocery store and peel the labels off everything?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Betsy
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 08:40 PM

It's all in your own heads - if you agree with parameters of 1954, a definition which was written when times were different - i.e. no wide - scale Tele (in the UK ), no mass media etc.etc. then you limit yourselves.
Stop beating our selves-up. We're all old enough to know whether we as individuals consider The Wild Rover , or Streets of London is a folk song - it's in our own minds.
I personally, would be happy never again to play either song again in my lifetime , however in those family , friendly gatherings, which one attends from time to to , some arsehole always expects because I am a "folksinger" and I have them both complete wit Kumbaya -which they learned at Scout camp or the female version of it.
Bad examples you might say , but, I know of plenty of people who have been put off Folk music for life by a badly rendered Watercress-o.
Just enjoy it and stop putting fucking labels on it .

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 08:02 PM

Or...

I, like [dozens] of others, would define [Folk Music] according its [context] rather than [the 1954 definition]. So, being pragmatists rather than pedants, we look for [it] in [designated folk contexts].

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 07:53 PM

I'm with you 100% Sinister.

Everyone knows a tomato and as long as it tastes good and we know where to find it, there is no problem at all - no matter what a botanist may say.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 07:45 PM

People who look for tomatos in the fruit aisle are going to be at a loss and they will never be able to make sauce again.

I, like millions of others, would define a tomato according its culinary usage rather than its botanic taxonomy. So, being pragmatists rather than pedants, we look for them in the vegetable aisle. Is there anyone who would object to this I wonder? The sad thing is, I bet there are...

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 06:09 PM

The vast majority of the songs I sing are traditional songs and ballads.

But not all. I also do a few poems set to music (such as Byron's So We'll Go No More a-Roving, or Yeats's The Song of the Wandering Aengus, or James Joyce's Golden Hair [melody composed by a friend of mine], along with couple of songs from Shakespeare's plays—and so on. I don't try to pass these latter off as "folk songs." I tell my audiences what they are.

I try not to bill myself as a "folk singer." Other people usually do that for me. But I consider myself to be a singer-guitarist who sings a variety of songs and plays a bit of classical guitar, but the majority of the songs I sing are traditional songs and ballads; what most people refer to—or, at least, used to refer to—as "folk songs." I want people to know what I do so they can come to a performance with a fairly good idea of the kind of songs they're going to hear. I don't want people to come if they are expecting me to do a program of songs I have written, because (unlike many) I know my limitations and, although I write other things, I don't write songs.

I especially don't want them to stay away because they think they would be hearing songs written by me instead of hearing an evening of primarily traditional material.

Likewise, I don't want to go to a concert or other venue where the performer is billed as a "folk singer" expecting to hear traditional folk songs and ballads, and instead I hear only songs that he or she wrote, with nary a traditional song or ballad all evening.

I will, however, go to a performance by a singer-songwriter whose songs I like.

I do not want to go to an open mike which, I am told, is devoted to folk music, and be told that I can't sing because they want only singer-songwriters.

Time was when if someone says to me, "I hear you are a singer. What kind of songs do you sing?" I could respond that I sing folk songs, and that person then has a fairly good idea of what I do. If that same conversation occurs now, they haven't a clue as to what I sing.

Likewise, I don't like pop a couple of pieces of bread in the toaster, then open a jar of orange marmalade (according to the label) and find it's actually a jar of gherkins.

Clear?

Don Firth

P. S. Also posted on the other thread currently running.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 06:08 PM

"but things are very different over here."
I'm well aware of how things are over there; I spent 30 odd years singing at and helping run clubs there, that's why I still bother.
"but the real 'folk' are much more democratic and will use the word 'folk' in its widest sense."
The real folk don't give a toss and don't use the word in any sense. We never cross their minds and they certainly have no concept of what happens at clubs and festivals; that's why ball's in our court and why it's up to us to get it right - whatever right is. It certainly isn't junior schoolyard "finger-in-ear" name-calling.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 05:49 PM

A tomato is a product of a flowering plant that contains seeds. A botanist would classify it as a fruit, or actually a berry. Yet every supermarket continues to hide this fruit in the vegetable section.   

People who look for tomatos in the fruit aisle are going to be at a loss and they will never be able to make sauce again. This will bring an end to pasta and pizza as we know it.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 05:24 PM

the real 'folk' are much more democratic and will use the word 'folk' in its widest sense. To them just about everything that goes on in folk clubs and festivals is 'folk'.

Yes Yes Yes!!!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 05:16 PM

We who live on Fantasy Island can define away as much as we like but the real 'folk' are much more democratic and will use the word 'folk' in its widest sense. To them just about everything that goes on in folk clubs and festivals is 'folk'. You can scream as much as you like, Knut, but the tide will still come in.

You need new terminology if you want to define things down to the last demi-semiquaver. Oh and you'll have to keep it very quiet otherwise the real folk will come along and nick it.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 05:11 PM

I'm not saying what Folk should be, I'm saying what it is. Thus do I differentiate it from Traditional, just I think of myself as a Traddy rather than a Folky, simply because of the utter nebulousness of the latter term.

My heart lifts at Jim's account of the state of play in Ireland, but things are very different over here. Now, instead of getting pissed off at the Folk / Trad disparity, or the state of play in the UK clubs, festivals etc. I've decided to operate on a far more inclusive understanding of what we think of as Folk, based, as I say, on the empirical evidence - on the reality of the situation and not on an ideal.

Folk is rather like Flotsam - just so many otherwise disparate diverse artefacts floating around in a particular context regardless of origin or eventual destination. It's all Flotsam.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 04:50 PM

"Are you prepared to make amends by defining the genre in less woolly jumper terms?"

Are you? Seriously - the only thing that keeps me coming back to these discussions, and stops me giving up on the 'folk' label altogether, is the lack of an alternative definition of 'folk'. You tell me: if you don't want 'folk' used to mean 'traditional', what do you think it should mean?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 04:13 PM

"Sorry. Can't be too serious about this. I just want to sing and listen and learn. and I am tired of labels."

Well said Virginia!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 04:09 PM

Virginia,
The devisive havoc already exists, largely due to the fact that folk clubs no longer do what it says on the tin.
I'm happy for you that you are happy with the way things are - some of us aren't and are prepared to spend time trying to do something about it.
Snide 'finger-in-ear' and 'wooly jumper' comments are as divisive as it gets.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 02:31 PM

Howard... a mobius strip, more like. There is no edge to fall off and so the discussion/argument whatever, never ends. See seventh circle of hell.

I already asked who the "community" is that distinguishes folk from other music. I have some really "impotent" questions to ask. Like:

Who the folk are you and who made you the final authority on the genre?

What are your folking qualifications?

Do you have any idea the kind of devisive havoc you have wreaked among well meaning folk?

Are you prepared to make amends by defining the genre in less woolly jumper terms?

Take that folking finger out of your ear. I am talking to you.

Sorry. Can't be too serious about this. I just want to sing and listen and learn. and I am tired of labels.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 08:49 AM

"Laudenum" - nothing so boring.
Jim

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 08:37 AM

"whather we want to spend our declining years producing collections for what appear to us to be a rapidly declining audience for what little we have to offer."

I was under the impression that folk and traditional arts was having something of a dramatic incline in interest, and especially amongst twenty-somethings. Which suggests to me, that it might in fact be a most serendipitous time to start dusting off those archives...?

As for expecting visits from white rabbits and suchlike, I'd take it easy on the laudenum there Jim... ;-)

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Howard Jones
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 08:25 AM

So, according to the OP:

A "folk song" is any song performed in a "designated folk context"
A designated folk context is anywhere where "folkies" gather
Presumably "folkies" are people who like folk songs.

We seem to be in a logic loop here.