Is traditional song finished?

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 09:11 AM

What I'm saying is that the modern cultural phenomenon we know as the revival, should be gently teased apart from Traditional music as a body of material which comprises a part of everyone's cultural heritage. The two things are not identical, and aught not to be treated as such - IMHO.

Too right, CS - something I've been saying here all along.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:08 AM

crowsister thay are the same thing and they are not the sanme thing:please explain the difference between Roy Harris and Bob Lewis and Gordon Hall or Bob Blake singing Lord Randall,all would sing it unaccompanied both are heavily influenced by listening to traditional singers.
no ,no no, there is never black and white and there is always grey areas.,as regards styles it makes no difference how the song is learned [whether by listening to recordings or one person in the flesh or listening on the flesh on you tube,you and Suibhne are talking unmitigated #####.
this stupidity of having to seperate traditional singers from singers of traditional songs is crap,what is important is that the songs are sung and that singers listen to good source singers[not any old source singer] to get to the roots of the music .
the value[imo] is in how the songs are performed,not the label of the singer,[imo]it is valuable to listen to Phil Tanner but not Gordon Hall[both traditional singers]there are good and not so good traditional singers

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:19 AM

Not quite because the lady playing Dvorak on her cello in a folk club will only be there because there's nowhere else for her to play. I've heard her, and many like her; enthusiastic amateurs who come in fulfillment of the 1954 Definition by giving such otherwise composed music an idiosyncratic folk character in the the context of a community; and - well, empiricism is the key to all this and THERE'S NOTHING EVEN IN THE MOST ORTHODOX READING OF THE 1954 DEFINITION TO SAY DVORAK CAN'T BECOME FOLK MUSIC even in a revival context. The 1954 Definition is not about GENRE, it is about the Human Context of Music; it is about FOLK as an adjective, not a noun.
   more old bollocks:
all music was composed sometime,
traditional music has often been altered,that is the difference,but modern folk music does not have to be,despite some definition made by well meaning nincompoops who should have known better
but you cant exclude performers beacuse they are playing music of whom there is a known composer,I have no objection to some person playing a classical piece providing it is only occasionally that it happens when the folk club becomes full of classical musicians doing floor spots,then the whole ball game is changed,and the organiser has to get a grip on the situation,or rename his club the enthusiastic amateurs classical and dvorjak club

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:26 AM

Oooh dear, Valmai Goodyear and I played arrangements of a tune by Carolan and a tune by Neil Gow in a folk club the other day. Should we have our buttons cut off?

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:31 AM

"In the club with a cello."
Sorry Tom - we're talking definition - is what she does 'folk' -if so/not, why or why not? She adheres to your "anything performed in a folk club' qualification.
"The word 'Folk' now refers to a performance/participation ethos just as much as it does to a repertoire of old songs."
No it doesn't Tom - it is very much a case of the Humpty Dumpty "Words are what I want them to mean" ethos. Nobody has mentioned 'old songs' Travellers were still making and transmitting folk songs right up to the mid-seventies.
"I am not insisting. I am assuming an almost universal usage by a wide population."
And I am insisting that there is no 'universal usage' by the 'wider population', of the term, almost or at all. The term 'folk. has been hijacked by a diminishing number of clubs to include anything they care to perform there. Meanwhile it continues to be used by academics, researchers, folk collection editors of song collections, teachers, scholars - all of whom we use to obtain our information and raw material.
"Have you no telephones in Ireland Jim? "
Oh, come on - do I have to phone a bakers first to find if they sell bread? - give us a break Tom. Do you honestly expect anybody to have to cross-question a club organiser to find out if what they are selling is what it says on the tin (assuming of course that they are contactable)?
"You are creating a problem and causing conflict where none is necessary."
No I am not Tom - the problem has been with us for many years now in the form af declining numbers of clubs, disappearing audiences and enthusiasts, lack of credibility in terms of media access, refusal of funding for performance and research, access to support for work carried out on folk music, general recognition for our music, and above all THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE MUSIC WE WISH TO HEAR. As I said, you've ripped the labels off the tin.
"I think the PRIMARY function of any club or venue for *entertainment and socialising*"
Then why call it 'folk' or 'classical' or 'jazz' - why not simply 'social entertainment centres'? I suggest that choosing a title for your music commits you to a great degree to honouring that description.
"Neither are 'folk clubs' responsible for the re-definition, it's a media and popular phenomenon."
Nope - it's the 'anything goes' crowd. Neither the media nor the general public have shown any great interest one way or another whatsoever as far as the UK is concerned.
The story is somewhat different here in Ireland. Since the change of fortune of traditional music here it is very much the dog wagging the tail and not the other way round - and will continue to be so for a very long time to come.
"... it re-defined a word already in use to mean something different."
No it didn't - it articulated the existing use to cover music and song more comprehensively - the term was in full use and accepted in relation to song, music and dance from at least the beginning of the twentieth century.
"The two things are not identical...."
No they are not - they are two sides to the one coin; one supplied the raw material for the other - they are as inseperable as that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:39 AM

"you and Suibhne are talking unmitigated #####."

Well thank you Dick, if you say so...

>exeunt<

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: glueman
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:41 AM

It's absolutely nothing to do with clubs JC. Folk has had the wider meaning in record shop racks, the broadcast media and print since the 1960s at least.

"Neither the media nor the general public have shown any great interest one way or another whatsoever"

Yes they have. They call ballads by singer songwriters on unamplified instruments 'Folk Music'. Crow Sister's previous assumptions were entirely mainstream. There's nothing reactionary, perverse or counter-intuitive about calling that sort of music 'folk' and hasn't been for decades. Whether you include classical, jazz, pop, blues and so on is for the advocate to prove but self-penned song stories played on a guitar are most certainly folk. Ask anyone outside a folk club.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 10:42 AM

this stupidity of having to seperate traditional singers from singers of traditional songs is crap,what is important is that the songs are sung and that singers listen to good source singers[not any old source singer] to get to the roots of the music .

Not true at all, GSW. The only thing that is important is that the songs were sung by traditional singers - anything else is a conceit revivalist recreation. As I've said, I wouldn't care if no one sang these songs again. That they have been sang by the masters is enough; that they are sang again by folk enthusiasts both amateur and professional is of no importance whatsoever to the legacy of Traditional Song and the culture in which it occurred. The further we drive this divide, the better it will be for the status of Traditional Song because it won't be suffering from association with a largely disparaged cliché ridden folk scene.

Listen to the source singers and marvel; their like will not be heard again.

more old bollocks:

Despite what I said above there it is my belief that people should be free do anything anywhere in the name of anything they choose. That Folk Clubs provide an open platform for enthusiastic amateurs & professionals alike is a reality that I have no problem with, just as long as they don't confuse what they're doing with the real thing from which it derives at whatever sort of remove.

I have often made the analogy between Folkies and Model Railway Enthusiasts - the difference being you would never hear a model railway enthusiast saying, as you have here, this stupidity of having to separate real trains from OO-scale models is crap. Know your place that's what I say; this is the road to true happiness.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 11:18 AM

I'm beginning to lose patience...
SoB says
"Listen to the source singers, Their like will not be heard again"
That would be a nice trick if you could do it.
To set the record straight, you and I never heard them in the first place...! (Unless you possess a Tardis)
Would love to hear these mythical Source Singers....Pray tell me what recording equipment was available in the 13th and 14th centuries? Are they available today on CD?
And surely, even if such equipment was available in the dim and distant past, wouldn't that make the original performers "Singer-Songwriters"? The very people who are ruining Traditional music today?
All we can listen to today are recordings of early artists, post 1900. All of whom learned their songs from people who existed before recording techniques existed.
Therefore, All the "source" singers that you put on pedestals, are in fact revival singers, the very group of people who are ruining the traditional scene in this century.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
And I await your rebuttal with interest.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 11:24 AM

"listen to the source singers and marvel"
not in the case of Gordon Hall OR Ted Chaplin or the fiddler Harkie Nesling.
No, even with source singers there is very good and not so good and average.
you are putting source singers on a pedestal regardless of merit.
you say the folk scene; is largely disparaged cliche,in the opinion of people like yourself who [imo]are off their trolleys.
the real thing in my opinion is not Gordon Hall,but it is Phil Tanner,throw away your labels and use you ears and listen and judge on musical merit,

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 11:32 AM

I would rather listen to Ron Taylor revival than Gordon Hall [SOURCE].and you sir[suibhne] sound like you have been copying Peter Bellamy.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 11:42 AM

And...
Some proof for you SoB.
On the Leader LP "Unto Brigg Fair" Folk songs from Lincolshire, there is a wonderful version of Rufford Park Poachers sung by Joseph Taylor.
I quote.
"This tune is unique, and must be possibly the finest song that Joseph Taylor sang."
Did he nick it from someone else? (Revivalist) or did he make it up? (Songwriter).
"Sorry pal, you can't sing that sort of stuff in my club....On yer bike."

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: the Folk Police
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 11:43 AM

"Fatty!"
"Spotty!"
"Fatty!"
"Spotty!"

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:15 PM

"Therefore, All the "source" singers that you put on pedestals, are in fact revival singers, the very group of people who are ruining the traditional scene in this century."

No, they aren't. The term 'source singer' has an accepted meaning, examples include Harry Cox, Doug Wallin, Addie Graham . . . these people are NOT revivalists in any sense of the word. Whether someone prefer to listen to a given source singer, or another who is a revivalist is another, separate question.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:18 PM

GSS - Musical ability is no indication of musical quality nor yet a signifier of cultural significance, which is what we're talking about here. At least it's what I'm talking about here.

Ralphie - Remind me, at what point did I say anything about singer-songwriters?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:35 PM

I think you miss the point Mr/Ms Gander
Where did Harry Cox get his songs from? Or did he write them...
Don't get me wrong. I love hearing singers and musicians recorded in the early 20th century, and have had the pleasure of meeting many of them. But, time moves on.
Of course it's wonderful that all these archivists, collectors, whoever are digging out old manuscripts/broadsides etc.
From Child onwards. Not forgetting Doc Rowes massive body of work re the English tradition Great stuff.

You say "The term source singer has an accepted meaning"
Accepted by who, exactly?

Well, unless defined accurately. I'll find my songs/tunes where and whence I can. If thats all right with you.

All very useful as source material.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: glueman
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:44 PM

This 'musical quality' red herring keeps appearing above the waves of disapproval. A traditional song, even by conservative definitions, is still traditional if it's performed out of tune by a toothless crone so long as sufficient words and notes make the thing recognisable. The notion that the songs were performed in a way we recognise as professional is the anomaly. No doubt some made their way into formal situations where virtuosity was the rule but song memorisers were more likely to be in modern musical terms, a bit crap. Certainly not up to musical hall standards of presentation.

Of all genres folk has least to say about consistent standards of performance.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:46 PM

Jim Carroll

"... it re-defined a word already in use to mean something different."
No it didn't - it articulated the existing use to cover music and song more comprehensively - the term was in full use and accepted in relation to song, music and dance from at least the beginning of the twentieth century.

Very impressive. I wondered how you'd get out of it. Make the 1954 definition retrospective. Brilliant. But it didn't articulate ALL the existing use, for instance, the usage that described The Almanac Singers as folk singers.

There is no escaping the fact that around 1940, mostly down to Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger as far as I can make out, the US folk revival got started leading to The Weavers, The Kingston Trio, Peter, Paul and Mary, Bob Dylan... That is what a lot of people who use the word folk understand by it. They have never heard of the 1954 definition and, for that matter, neither had I before I joined Mudcat.

Blaming the decline of UK folkclubs in the eighties on something that happened forty years before is not very convincing.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: olddude
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:53 PM

LOL
How many folkies does it take to change a light bulb ...

answer: none, no one can agree what a light bulb is

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 12:56 PM

brilliant Snail,checkmate me thinks.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:12 PM

Mr./Ms. Ralphie -

Sorry, but you are the one who misses the point. A 'Source Singer' is understood to mean (by everyone I've ever known to use the term) as someone who learned his or her songs from a living tradition, usually oral. A 'Source Singer' is not necessarily the composer of the song, though it might be - lots of traditional singers composed and sang their own material.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:17 PM

Only ever heard of the 1954 definition about 3 months ago (and No, I wouldn't even bother to read it, thank you!)
The only connection that I have with 1954, is that, that was the year I was born.
So any music I make cannot by definition be traditional then. (Glad to know where I stand in the pecking order. younger than Scan Tester and Oscar Woods, but, outlived George Spicer.)
Oh I must be lost then....
Nice to know how I figure in the pecking order.
Well, So sorry chaps. I will continue to play the music I love. and I don't give a stuff what you might call it. Just try and stop me..
If you don't like it. tough.
In other words.
Carry on Chaps.
I'll just carry on pursuing MY tradition, handed down to me by my Father.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:30 PM

Good Soldier Schweik

brilliant Snail,checkmate me thinks.

Oh, come on, Dick. This is Jim we're talking about.

By the way, I'd be careful what you say about Gordon Hall when you come to Lewes.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:39 PM

Jim

This comes down to statistics.

We both probably agree on the number of people who, like you, prefer Folk to refer only to a repertoire of material which has undergone a certain process (the past tense being critical here).

We disagree on the the number of people who prefer it to mean something else.

You say the second group is confined to a diminishing number of clubs who allow non-traditional material to be performed. So that would be a few thousand people in the UK at most?

I say the number is massive, because it includes anyone who has ever encountered the word in record shop racks, in radio and TV broadcasts, gigs, festivals, magazines and newspapers - on both sides of the Atlantic and in at least most English speaking countries - since the 1960s. I think that would number well into the millions.

Now - if we could run a world-wide survey and it turned out that I was right - would you accept my argument that the definition had been widened by a democratic process?

I hope you would. I can't prove my numbers claim, though I'll stand by it. I can however speak from personal experience about your claim. (I think I'm in good position to do this because I've been booked by hard-core trad clubs as often as I have by contemporary and easy-going clubs - something very few artists can say).

I'll report that you can count the number of UK clubs which restrict the material performed to '54 Folk' on the fingers of one hand. Most of the clubs who label themselves 'Traditional' will also enjoy new songs, and are happy to hear a wide variety of material. (The may, however, politely ensure that it doesn't take over). These clubs are doing well, but not many are recruiting new members, and most are populated by people well into their 60s. (Tune sessions are a very different story - very healthy and very Trad, incidentally you NEVER hear the F word in tune sessions, it's always 'Trad').

By contrast, the number of clubs (not all of whom use the F word, of course), where you hear some traditional material along with trad-sounding new songs plus others people just fancy doing, runs into the hundreds, or thousands if you include singarounds and open mics. These are doing much better, and often have younger people in them. Tthese places DO support traditional song along with the rest, so they ARE valuable both from a performance/community point of view, AND from a repertoire/educational point of view.

This a GOOD THING, not a threat to The Tradition.

All you have tov do, Jim is accept the substitution of the word Traditional for your word Folk. Pretty much everyone else has, so I don;t know why it should be so hard.

You made a little story about buying soup in another thread. I'll retell it my way.

John Christmas likes tomato soup. Once upon a time, long long ago, the only kind of tinned soup you could buy was tomato. But then they started making other flavours of soup as well.

John Christmas goes into a shop and asks for a tin of soup. He's thinking of tomato, but he doesn't ask for it, because he only ever buys tomato soup and he's forgotten that they started making other flavours 60 years ago.

The nearest tin happens to be lentil, but the shopkeeper thinks John won't mind as he only asked for soup, so presumably he likes all types of tinned soup.

John buys the soup without examining the label, (which actually says Lentil in big letters on it), then he goes home and opens the tin. Oh no! He HATES lentil soup.

Now, whose fault is it?

The Romans had a phrase which the lawyers have adopted - Caveat Emptor.

I'm not asking you to cross-examine club organisers. Just to understand that they are labelling their soup correctly. If you want to make sure it's tomato you need to read the label carefully. There are usually plenty of clues.

Tom

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 02:03 PM

Bryan,understood.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: MikeL2
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 03:33 PM

hi dan

..........brilliant !!!

.....and when they think they have defined what a lightbulb is and written it down.....someone will come up with something slightly different.....lol

cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 03:42 PM

Bryan:
"Make the 1954 definition retrospective."
I suggest you read - or even just look at the title of D K Wilgus's 'Anglo American Folksong Scholarship Since 1898; or even English Folk Song - Some Conclusions (1907) or English Folk Song in the Southern Appalachians (1917) and take note that The Folk Song Society came into being in 1899. All these adopted as their subject what the present revival knew as folk song, and took as their inspiration William Thom's 1846 definition of 'folkore'. '54 was a relative latecomer to the scene and did little more than draw together the various thresd of information.
I have to say I find the silences in these discussions just as telling as the responses.
So do I regard the lady with the cello as 'folk' in the present sense?
No Cap'n - I don't dispute that Dvorak miiiiigggggght one day become folk; though I doubt it; I do suggest that it ain't happened yet, no matter how many times it's performed at Boggart Hole Clough Folk Club.
Do club organisers feel they have an obligation to provide what it says on the tin?
If the existing definition is now redundant - what has replaced it (leaving aside SO'P's "anything that takes place at a folk club" silliness).
Do I, as potential audience, have any right to expect anything remotely resembling the accepted definition of folk song which my, and just about everbody I was involved with's understanding of the term is based on?
Whatever failings the existing definition might have, I knew what to expect when I first became involved - all gone now.
Tom - just seen your posting. Please do not use loaded language - I am not and have never been a member of..... the group who would RESTRICT folk clubs to the 1954 definition - I personally have never met anybody who ever advocated such an idea.
In terms of club presentation I would fit fairly neatly into the 'I don't know what folk music is but I recognise it when I hear it) camp.
My point has been right along that folk song forms provide perfect templates for new songs, but what is being proposed steps far beyond that - we really are talking 'Jumpin' Jack Flash', Dvorak and The Beatles here.
Would I accept the results of a survey? Depends on how the question was phrased and to how many people, but of course I would.
I have conductd such a survey with people I have worked with throughout the last nearly 50 years. The impression I have gained has been that most would have drawn their conclusions largely from the folk boom which took its inspiration from the material described by the '54 definition (which includes The Almanac Singers, The Weavers, The Kingston Trio, Peter, Paul and Mary and Bob Dylan, Bryan).
Your John Christmas example is somewhat silly Tom as it presumes that one minute there was only tomato soup and the next there were hundreds of types.
What your analogy does underline is the need for labels and the necessity to honour the contents.
"Caveat Emptor." Bit of a cynical way to get anybody into your folk club isn't it?
At least we had an idea of what we meant by 'folk', could relate it to song collections and recordings - it appears to me that you offer none of tehse; in order to do so you would have to agree among yourself what the word means - as it stands it means nothing.   
".....and No, I wouldn't even bother to read it, thank you!"
Which should leave you with all the information at hand for you to make a rational informed decision Ralphie... would that everybody were as open-minded as you!
Jim Carroll
PS Now are guest has gone, leaving me with afully operational sound system, gawd bless 'im, I hope to respond to earlier points directed at me - later.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: glueman
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 04:04 PM

A response of genius JC. This bit was particularly splendid - "I have to say I find the silences in these discussions just as telling as the responses". From someone who's addressed none of the issues it's nothing short of remarkable. This board really is a complete waste of time, isn't it?

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Tootler
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 04:09 PM

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Goose Gander - PM
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 01:12 PM

Mr./Ms. Ralphie -

Sorry, but you are the one who misses the point.

No I think Ralphie has a point. I agree that the term "Source Singer" is used in the folk music world as meaning the person from whom the [version of] the song was first collected, but they are not a true source. That has to be the person who first wrote the song which, for much of the time, we do not know.

I prefer to think of source singers as representing a snapshot in time. They give you an idea of the song and its mode of performance by a particular person at a particular time. I am not saying this is unimportant, the recordings made of these singers are extremely important, but they do not tell us about the song in the generations before that particular person nor about subsequent changes to the song. The latter we will know about and modes of performance have changed over time and certainly did in the generations before the "Source singer" was recorded. These latter changes we do not know about, nor ever will unless someone invents a Tardis.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 04:28 PM

"Do I, as potential audience, have any right to expect anything remotely resembling the accepted definition of folk song which my, and just about everbody I was involved with's understanding of the term is based on?"

Err, actually - given that you're talking about a time long gone by - no, I don't think you do.

You have every right to expect something remotely resembling what a majority of the population might describe as folk song in 2010 - and you'd get it.

"I knew what to expect when I first became involved - all gone now."

No, not gone at all - just called by a different but universally understood name. Go looking for Traditional Song, and you'll not go far wrong.

"I am not and have never been a member of..... the group who would RESTRICT folk clubs to the 1954 definition"

Well you did a good job fooling me - I thought that was the whole point of your objection. You seem furious that you might accidentally go to a venue with Folk in the title, and then hear some music which does not fit the 54 definition - so therefore isn't folk. (Actually my comment wasn't loaded - I was describing a type of club so i could talk about it, but we'll let that go).

"My point has been right along that folk song forms provide perfect templates for new songs, but what is being proposed steps far beyond that - we really are talking 'Jumpin' Jack Flash', Dvorak and The Beatles here."

If you're allowing new songs formed from templates borrowed from traditional songs then you'll allow ALL of mine, and 99% of the songs you'll hear in every club in Britain. But you've never said that before - you accuse people like me who borrow bits and styles from traditional songs, play them in folk venues, and then don't object when others call it folk frauds and interlopers.

If you want to know how many clubs with the word Folk in the title (that's the label issue, yes?) encourage 'Jumpin' Jack Flash', Dvorak and The Beatles, I'd say very VERY few.

You'll hear stuff I probably wouldn't call folk occasionally in clubs calling themselves Folk Clubs, but it's quite rare. You'll hear it in some singarounds and open mics, and some will call it folk because of the context, but that's ok - the context argument has also been proven by communal acceptance.

If that's all you're worried about than I think you need to relax.

"If the existing definition is now redundant - what has replaced it (leaving aside SO'P's "anything that takes place at a folk club" silliness). "

The definition is NOT redundant. Merely, the word used to describe it has changed. I have given you the loose, vague, but nevertheless true new definition of the original word many many times.

Google 'Folk song definition'..

I just did, and this came top:

Definitions of folk song on the Web:

a song that is traditionally sung by the common people of a region and forms part of their culture
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Folk music can have a number of different meanings, but most commonly refers to Traditional music. The original meaning of the term "folk music ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_song

A song originating among the working people of urban and rural areas, and handed by oral tradition; A song in this style which may have been written in recent times
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/folk_song

I'm happy with all of that. Why can't you be?

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 04:40 PM

Then you want to change the meaning of an accepted word or phrase. Fine, but that does make it difficult to have a conversation. And the idea that a traditional singer such as Harry Cox is not "a true source" because he or she is not the one who wrote the song is just ridiculous, but then Ralphie also has told us that source singers - traditional singers - are actually revivalists.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:05 PM

No Cap'n - I don't dispute that Dvorak miiiiigggggght one day become folk; though I doubt it; I do suggest that it ain't happened yet, no matter how many times it's performed at Boggart Hole Clough Folk Club.
jim, what are you on? can I have some?
I never suggested anything of the sort,I said quite categorically,that the occasional folk spot of this sort was acceptable,but if all the spots were of this nature the organiser had better get a grip of the situation,does that imply it is folk music?no it does not.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Tootler
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:05 PM

Reread my post properly. I was not advocating changing it. I accepted that that is the usage in the folk music world. I was merely pointing out that Ralphie had a point and that it was a valid one, IMHO - though I did think calling the "Source Singers" revivalists was stretching it a bit.

That does not in any way alter the fact that the particular usage of the term "Source Singer" irritates me, but I accept that that is how it is used.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Tootler
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 05:23 PM

Sorry, I was replying to Goose Gander. Your post snuck in just before mine, Dick.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:00 PM

Anyone fancy a pint?

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Banjiman
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 06:06 PM

Yes please. Old Peculiar...... or is that a member of the forum?

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:29 PM

You misunderstand Bryan. This has not changed into a "What is Folk?" thread.

The question here is why "Traditional Music" has to be the only thing describable as folk, when "Traditional Music" seems sufficient, of itself, as a definition.

It does what it says on the can, does it not?


Don T.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:31 PM

"You have every right to expect something remotely resembling what a majority of the population might describe as folk song in 2010"
"No, not gone at all - just called by a different but universally understood name"
I take it you've carried out your survey Tom - when can we have the results?
"Well you did a good job fooling me"
It appears to be you not reading my posts Tom - never claimed at any point in my arguments to have supported '54 only clubs - perhaps you would like to point out where I did?
"...99% of the songs you'll hear in every club in Britain."
Another survey - not my information from this forum nor my personal experience - read this thread and others on the same theme.
"The definition is NOT redundant. Merely, the word used to describe it has changed."
Right - potatoes are still potatoes as long as you don't call them potatoes - I think I've got that.
"I'm happy with all of that. Why can't you be?"
I am - but as I said, neither my experience nor the information I've received from here or elsewhere. It doesn't work for the research side of my work, but I have no problem whatever with it for my 'potential audience' persona - especially considering that the greatest influence on my involvement wrote more songs using folk forms and is more regarded for his having done so than any other performer in the revival.
I'm not sure where 'anything performed in a folk club' fits in with all this though.
"I said quite categorically, that the occasional folk spot of this sort was acceptable"
Sorry if I misunderstood you Cap'n - was responding to the original statement that anything performed at a folk club was 'folk' - still got no feedback from Tom on this one I'm afraid.
".....addressed none of the issues"
Sorry Glueman - up against it here - which "none of the issues" haven't I addressed?
Tom;
If I ever had doubts about my stance on clubs (and have occasionally had a few during these arguments) your "Caveat Emptor" dispelled them with one flick of the typing finger. Any performer or club organiser who places the onus on the audience for what they are given by a club in the name of 'folk' or 'jazz' or 'chamber music' or blues'...... needs all the protection they can get from such sharp practice.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 07:45 PM

Sorry Don - missed this one.
"It does what it says on the can, does it not?"
No it doesn't; MacColl, McGinn, Rossleson, Tawney... and all the other songwriters composing using folk forms did not write traditional songs.
As Tom rightly pointed out, the Wiki.. definition includes "A song in this style which may have been written in recent times" - but we are being asked to accept songs which bear no relation whatever to folk forms - including everything not sung by a horse!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 08:03 PM

""Do I, as potential audience, have any right to expect anything remotely resembling the accepted definition of folk song which my, and just about everbody I was involved with's understanding of the term is based on?
Whatever failings the existing definition might have, I knew what to expect when I first became involved - all gone now.
Tom - just seen your posting. Please do not use loaded language - I am not and have never been a member of..... the group who would RESTRICT folk clubs to the 1954 definition - I personally have never met anybody who ever advocated such an idea.""

OK Jim, which of the two underlined comments is true? They are mutually exclusive, are they not?

Don T.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 Mar 10 - 08:22 PM

I don't believe Jim's attitude is doing traditional music any favours, but no they're not incompatible. There are many venues that call themselves "folk" where traditional music of any kind is effectively forbidden, and if that was what Jim was complaining about, I agree.

Meanwhile (round here in central Scotland) there are a lot more traditional music sessions of various kinds than there were a few years ago, so I can happily ignore the nothing-before-Dylan places.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: glueman
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 02:07 AM

JC, what's the difference between MacColl and a tinpan alley popular music composer? (no, this isn't a gag with a funny punchline) And if you say I 'must be an idiot' not to know, why isn't this folk...EE

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 03:15 AM

"From: glueman - PM
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 02:07 AM
JC, what's the difference between MacColl and a tinpan alley popular music composer? (no, this isn't a gag with a funny punchline) And if you say I 'must be an idiot' not to know, why isn't this folk...EE"

Yes. This is the part of Jim's argument that for me really undermines the sustainability of his complaints against folk clubs that give their audiences music by singer songwriters.

It reads to me, I'm afaraid, as "I want to hear traditional music AND modern compositions in folk clubs - but only so long as those modern compositions were written when I was a young man. Because only songs composed when I was a young man, are any good." This is of course is a fairly common refrain from anyone over thirty-five, ironically except most folkies who continue to dig new songs in the folk idiom. And I guess that's why they keep going to folk clubs who provide them with such entertainment.

Despite being impressed by some of MaCcol's Traditional Ballads I don't find Ewan MaCcoll's own compositions very interesting. They can be nice to hear sung at singarounds, as indeed is everything in an 'anything-goes' environment, but I wouldn't buy a recording of them. I find them pleasant songs intended to be accompanied by an acoustic a guitar but I don't place them together (in my head) with traditional songs AT ALL. As popular products of the revival they belong fully to the revival as far as I can see, as do ALL revival folk band compositions. Including THIS Which is hippy-dippy shite of the highest order, and quite fabulous for it.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:08 AM

"I take it you've carried out your survey Tom - when can we have the results?"

No need to be sarcastic Jim. The evidence of popular cultural influence I have placed before you is empirical.



" never claimed at any point in my arguments to have supported '54 only clubs - perhaps you would like to point out where I did?"

I don't have time to trawl through - but your robust defence of the 54 against subsequent definitions leaves an indelible impression. I'm very very surprised to now read that you allow modern songs written in a traditional style to be Folk (these being of course outside of the 54). In which case, why do my songs not qualify?



"...99% of the songs you'll hear in every club in Britain." Another survey - not my information from this forum nor my personal experience - read this thread and others on the same theme."

Err - how many UK clubs have you been to in the last 10 years Jim?

I speak on these issues because I believe I have a reasonable handle on the national situation. There are of course others who are far better placed than me to do so, but for various and very good reasons they don't want to talk publicly on these issues - whereas I feel some of the opinions expressed here need to be challenged because they are manifestly unfair, and I'm not afraid to say so.

Why do I think I have a handle?

1) I have performed as a paid guest at well over half the current UK folk clubs.

2) I have performed as a paid guest at all types of club; very trad, contemporary and anything goes, something not many artists get to do.

3) I have canvassed by telephone pretty much every single club in the land at some point in the last 6 years, usually more than once. (This was for the purpose of securing bookings, but necessitated a discussion on the type of music preferred there).

4) I started and moderated the Folk Club Organisers forum, where discussions on what goes and doesn't go in a folk club were not uncommon (as others here can verify).

5) I kept a weather eye on ALL the UK folk web forums (not just Mudcat) during my career, and especially during the period when I was a director of folkWISE.

6) I have talked at great length on a very regular basis with touring musicians of 30 and more years standing, and read a lot more from colleagues on the private Britfolk forum.

7) I've been to a lot of clubs, sessions and other folk gatherings all around the country as a consumer/participant.

So, no I haven't done a survey, and no I'm not an expert, but I think I'm as well placed to provide educated guesses as anyone else.



"The definition is NOT redundant. Merely, the word used to describe it has changed."
Right - potatoes are still potatoes as long as you don't call them potatoes - I think I've got that."

Ever heard of spuds Jim?



"I'm not sure where 'anything performed in a folk club' fits in with all this though."

We live in a democracy. If people wish to organise, or happen to inherit, events where anything goes, or where anything now goes, and then apply or leave the label 'Folk Club' to it, they are breaking no law. A majority of UK clubs have a relaxed policy on material (a gentle hand on the tiller), and a significant minority have a very relaxed policy (no hand on the tiller). Taken as a whole, this adds up to a genuine community. And if a community is using a word for a specific purpose then that use is valid in the language, and anyone who denies it is being unfair. Granted this particular definition has not reached the on-line dictionaries yet, but there is so much evidence for it that I suspect it will soon.



"I said quite categorically, that the occasional folk spot of this sort was acceptable"
Sorry if I misunderstood you Cap'n - was responding to the original statement that anything performed at a folk club was 'folk' - still got no feedback from Tom on this one I'm afraid.

I've said it many times Jim. Please read the previous sentence.



"If I ever had doubts about my stance on clubs (and have occasionally had a few during these arguments) your "Caveat Emptor" dispelled them with one flick of the typing finger. Any performer or club organiser who places the onus on the audience for what they are given by a club in the name of 'folk' or 'jazz' or 'chamber music' or blues'...... needs all the protection they can get from such sharp practice."

I'm glad you have doubts Jim. I sometimes fear you are painting yourself into a corner out of sheer obstinacy.

Caveat Emptor is universal. It applies to music events as much as soup or vacuum cleaners. Jazz venues present radically different types of Jazz (you need to check it'll be a style you enjoy), Ralph's comparison with RnB is another - in fact it goes for every rock venue in the country. This is NOT sharp practice (and it is insulting to organisers to suggest it is). It is the legitimate use of generic terms which happen to cover more than one style of music.




Jim the reason I'm not giving up on this this because I want you to understand one thing.

I know you'll not change your mind on the Folk / Traditional swap. You can't teach an old leopard new spots. It would be great if you would allow songwriters like me who use old styles and elements in their work to play in folk clubs without being blamed for the collapse of the folk movement, but I think that may be beyond you too.

What I would like you to understand (because I hope it'll reduce the number of insults coming from your keyboard) is that those who use the word 'folk' in ways that you don't agree with are doing so for adequate reasons.

They are not doing so because, like Humpty Dumpty, they just want to be awkward.

They are doing so because their friends, colleagues, mentors and other influences are doing so. And as such, because we live in a democracy where only legal language is fixed, they are using the word as correctly as you are.

Its called plurality. And it really is not a problem.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: the Folk Police
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:31 AM

This may help...

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:38 AM

Trying to get back to the OP's question.
If it had been phrased
"Is traditonal song collecting finished?" A fair question.
I would say probably yes.
There might be a few singers who have one or two gems that have never been heard before, and have been handed down through the generations but, with the prevalence of global communication available nowadays, I find it unlikely.
The days of village communities where people seldom travelled more than 5 miles from the place that they were born are long gone. (apart from Stoke, obviously!).
Yes, there might be undiscovered regional variants of already collected songs. as yet undiscovered.
But, thats probably it.
But, reading the original question (as writ), it just re-opens the bun fight that happens on a regular basis here.
It's odd that these discussions don't happen amongst musicians.
An example. I wrote a tune for a dance side in 1988 (in a quasi Traditional idiom).
10 years later, I heard someone playing it in a session. Asked the chap what it was. He said it was ages old, and he'd even changed the name! Have to admit, I was secretely pleased. Have heard it on numerous occasions since!
Maybe it will still be played in 100 years time. Now that would be nice.
All I am saying is that everything was written by someone once upon a time.
Therefore, everything will become traditional one day. We're just arguing about the length of time.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: glueman
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:47 AM

"Including THIS Which is hippy-dippy shite of the highest order, and quite fabulous for it."

CS, that's premier league roundhole. Who hasn't got room for that blissed up, youth dew, angst-lite RH that can make the A30 look like the lost highway?
MacColl is the key to unpicking all those backroom gurus with their, 'I can't hear the lyrics' and 'give me another definition' locked up contradictions buried so deep in self-fulfilling explanation pits. the best thing McColl ever did.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:50 AM

(Can you tell I'm not enjoying editing all my dammed interviews about the End of the World?)

Hi Ralph

"everything will become traditional one day. We're just arguing about the length of time."

Yeeees, I'd say anything that's good enough to be remembered stands a chance of becoming traditional. But new works are not just remembered, they're recorded and broadcast to millions and this can affect the remembering process.

In the Olden Days we had a very slow process which didn't involve a lot of paper (though the paper was very important and shouldn't be overlooked - as shouldn't other factors like 'Song Shakespears's and court musicians), but did involve a lot of remembering and mis-hearing and mis-remebering and accidental and on purpose reinvention.

These processes do still go on, as your story proves, but they're kinda crucially different because of the way the world is now compared with how it was in the 19th C and before.

So those who make a distinction between 'The (Old) Tradition' and a/some 'new tradition/s' are right to do so imo.

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:56 AM

Don(Wyziwyg)T

You misunderstand Bryan. This has not changed into a "What is Folk?" thread.

OHMYGAAD! Now it's going to turn into a "What is a "What is Folk?" thread".

Subject: RE: Is traditional song finished?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 09 Mar 10 - 04:57 AM

The big problem with allowing for *some* modern folk-like music (be it Ewan MaCcoll or that bit of Pentangle I posted) and not others, is who gets to be the arbiter of what counts as 'folk like'?

Surely that has to be a *democratic* decision based on what most people tend to think of, create, purchase or participate in, in the name of 'folk'?

Billy Bragg for example works as contemporary 'folk' for me, but (as the phrase goes) your mileage my vary. As indeed may anyone elses. An entire generation may think Vashti Bunyan is as folk as you like! So who will appoint themselves as the official weigher and measurer of 'sufficient folkish quotient' to provide someone's music with an 'it's folk-like enough' stamp of approval, before it may be legitimately enjoyed by people at large who consider themselves folk enthusiasts?