1954 and All That - defining folk music

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 01:35 PM

By the way, that was 700.

Whoopie. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 01:43 PM

It's becoming clear the only people who expect to hear a performance of exclusively traditional material are the six individuals who hang around Mudcat's 1954 threads.
If a death metal band performed Lord Bateman from a few hundred watts of Marshall stack those six might applaud the folk process first time around but would they return for Lord Rendal and Blackbirds and Thrushes and offer the band a residency - or head for somewhere serving up fiddles and whistles?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 02:15 PM

It's becoming clear the only people who expect to hear a performance of exclusively traditional material are the six individuals who hang around Mudcat's 1954 threads.

Seconds out - glueman meets strawman, round 94.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 02:22 PM

Presentation has quite a bit to do with it. If a rock band or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir or Kathleen Ferrier sing a folk song, the presentation removes it from the "folk context" that SS loves so much, but it does not alter the fact that it's a folk song.

Would I make an effort to hear a program of folk songs done by a hard-rock band? Probably not, especially when there are other options available.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 02:27 PM

Further comment:   to me, the words of a song, especially a folk/traditional song, are important, and I find that with most rock bands, the words get lost in the "wall of sound" that comes out out the sound system. Most of the time, I don't know what the hell they're singing about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 02:56 PM

I'm trying to winkle out a self-evident truth - folk music is both material and presentation when it comes to audience expectation. My death metal band - we'll call them Skullkrusher - might have impeccable sources but unless they use acoustic instruments they'd be unlikely to be invited back, even I suspect, to Lewes.

Now if we follow the bouncing ball of logic to the stinking gutter of plain fact 1954 has only limited consequences for what goes on in folk's name. OTOH singer-songwriters emulate the manners and mantle of the tradition (at least the good ones do) while the folk process continues with little recourse to the sustain pedal or the tremelo arm. We are, brace yourself, still looking at two brands of the entertainment industry someone noticed a hundred or so posts back.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 03:20 PM

so he can get a chance to sing Marieke or Ne Me Quitte Pas with his absolutely atrocious French accent.

Pedant alert: Jacques Brel was Belgian. In the Sinister Supporter Pantheon of Godlike Genii he ranks very highly indeed. For those who don't know:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZFr2Fh66zs

Presentation has quite a bit to do with it. If a rock band or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir or Kathleen Ferrier sing a folk song, the presentation removes it from the "folk context" that SS loves so much, but it does not alter the fact that it's a folk song.

Change folk song to traditional song and we're in complete accord on that one, Don. My main point is that we Traddy's can't have it both ways; one word will suffice, especially when the other has become flabby with over use. I think the example of the ICTM is one we should heed.

Where I get a bit fed up with discussions of this kind is that those who disagree with a particular viewpoint soon resort to attempting to belittle those who hold the viewpoint by accusing them of being incapable of independent thought and adhering to their viewpoint because they are intimidated by some higher authority and haven't the guts to question it or even examine it, thereby dismissing both them and their viewpoint.

Loathed as I am to point this out, Don, and with total respect, this is a tactic I'd most associate with your good self, and we've seen a bit of it on this thread. Examples include your likening me to Wile E. Coyote in Canyon Crisis, questioning my use of the word corporeal, and your helpful diagram concerning carts and horses. Otherwise, I'm cool with much of what you say and regard you as a Diamond Geezer. Respect.

*

This is nonesense. Why do you use this pompous sort of language?

Michael - how does Fuck Off sound?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 03:34 PM

"glueman meets strawman"

Do we Pip? Or is the truth exclusively traditional venues like exclusively traditional audiences are rarer than 1933 pennies for Good Reasons? 1954 may be cranked out like the Wizard of Oz's warnings but behind the scenes do more than a few mudcatter's actually care so long as they get what they expect to hear?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 03:43 PM

folk music is both material and presentation when it comes to audience expectation

If you define it in terms of audience expectation, that's correct. If you define it in terms of provenance, it's not.

1954 may be cranked out like the Wizard of Oz's warnings

Where do you get this stuff?

but behind the scenes do more than a few mudcatter's actually care so long as they get what they expect to hear?

If nobody cared I don't think this thread would have reached 700, or 100 for that matter.

Besides, the reason I care (as I said earlier on) is that for a long time I wasn't getting what I could have expected - and would have greatly preferred - if only I'd known it was there. Because the label 'folk' had been applied to something else - something which nobody seems able to define, other than as the kind of thing that gets labelled as folk.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Goose Gander
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 03:45 PM

I guess you don't want to answer my question.

But I'll take a stab at it.

Maybe you need to wrap your thesis in fancy language because 'folk is what happens in folk clubs' is not a particularly compelling argument.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 03:53 PM

So we have stuff that can be clearly defined but has no dedicated outlets - so presumably a tiny audience - and a heap of stuff that defies definition but everyone knows what to expect and turns up for in droves.
I'll do my periodic reminder that I like and collect traditional music recordings. In fact I'm thinking of filming (on film) some remaining performers - which has no bearing on the logic I lay out before yuz.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 04:10 PM

SS, nit-pick alert. If you're saying what I think you're saying, first, I know Brel is Belgian. The atrocious French accent I spoke of is not Brel's, it belongs to the guy who insists on singing Brel's songs to folk-oriented groups.

If I abandon the word "folk," it's because the way it has been used within recent years, it's come to mean anything that anyone wants it to mean. And as to "traditional," there are those who are trying to misappropriate that word also and apply it to things written recently by singer-songwriters, e. g., "Writing folk songs is 'traditional,'" obviously trying to turn that word flabby also.

As to occasionally using the tactics which I deplore, I must plead guilty. My apologies for that. But I find that it's a bit contagious and I will try to inoculate myself against it. I wish others would also.

But I still question you use of the word "corporeal."

By the way, I do like your stuff on YouTube, whether it is ultimately judged "folk music" or not. A lot of it most definitely is.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 04:48 PM

Has anybody said they only want to hear Folk/traditional music at a folk club? Searched the thread and I'm buggered if I can find such a statement This is still a question of definition, not preferences.
This argument is full of straw men and unanswered questions.
Still trying to work out where SS gets his 'we traddies' reference
Traddie my arseum!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 05:14 PM

But I still question you use of the word "corporeal."

I picked up the word in a musical sense from Harry Partch (who also ranks very highly indeed in the Sinister Supporter Pantheon of Godlike Genii) - in particular from his book Genesis of a Music. Much of Partch's concerns were with speech intonation with respect of song, and to this end (& others, such as perfect non-tempered thirds) he divided the octave into 43 microtonal divisions according to Pythagorean principles. Consequently he had to build a lot of amazing instruments to perform it on giving rise to my favourite Partch quote: "I am not an instrument builder, rather a philosophical music-man seduced into carpentry." One of Americas finest sons!

Lots of Partch on YouTube, including the BBC4 documentary up in 6 parts. Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cKnTj2cyNQ

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 07:08 PM

Sinister, I'm not familiar with the work of Harry Partch, but I will endeavor to educate myself. Thanks for the link.

I may have to postpone my education temporarily, as income tax comes due fairly soon, and not only is that tax man breathing down my neck, but my son and his lovely lady will be arriving in a bit from California to visit for a few days and I won't have time to do it when they get here, so I have to get the bleedin' tax return done now (gotta keep those multi-million dollar bonuses flowing to those fired CEOs, and all that!).

"I'll be back!"
             —Arnold Schwarzenegger as "The Terminator."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 07:27 PM

So we have stuff that can be clearly defined but has no dedicated outlets - so presumably a tiny audience - and a heap of stuff that defies definition but everyone knows what to expect and turns up for in droves.

Well, we have stuff that can be clearly defined. Most of the rest you've made up.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 09:42 PM

By the time y'all settle on a definition it'll be as applicable to the then-today as is the 1954 definition TO today.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 02:25 AM

"It's becoming clear the only people who expect to hear a performance of exclusively traditional material are the six individuals who hang around Mudcat's 1954 threads."
I've already asked - but can anybody supply us with an example of this or is it the last gasp of of dying argument by somebody who has run out odf ideas?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 02:37 AM

Sorry,
Before the serial 'correctors' leap in: I intended to type 'run out OF ideas.
By the way 'Rifle'.
"sound bytes - the correct spelling"
Although it is a new-ish word, the spelling that seems to heve been settled on appears to be 'soundbite' - even in the semi-literate 'Wiki'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Howard Jones
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 04:30 AM

"It's becoming clear the only people who expect to hear a performance of exclusively traditional material are the six individuals who hang around Mudcat's 1954 threads."

In case I'm one of those this comment is aimed at, it's certainly not true in my case. Whilst my preference is for traditional material, I include in my repertoire many songs and tunes by modern writers. There are plenty of traditional songs which leave me cold, and some non-traditional songs which inspire me.

I certainly don't expect to hear only traditional music at a folk event (although I would be disappointed to hear none). I don't mind hearing music which is not traditional being performed, and I perform some myself, and all I ask is that if this is to be described as "folk" it should show some affinity with traditional forms (although not necessarily imitating them). I don't even mind music which clearly comes from another genre, provided it is performed in a style which is appropriate to a folk venue. I just disagree that this last category should be called "folk".

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 04:32 AM

Still trying to work out where SS gets his 'we traddies' reference
Traddie my arseum!

For 35 years I've delighted in Traditional Song as a both a singer and listener - and if I listen to Traditional Song, then it will be invariably sung by a Traditional Singer, unless I'm in a singaround when it will be sung by a Singer of Traditional Songs, such as myself. Thus do I call myself a Traddy. What's the problem? It's what I do. Sure it's not all I do, but such are the joys of cultural pluralism.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 05:16 AM

It's like this - Radio, TV, Record companies, Shops, Clubs, Festivals, practically anything one can think of that decides common definitions - have come down on the side of folk being This Thing. It's loose edged what-not, a bit like jelly but even so there are few real surprises. It rarely tastes of cake let alone Lobster Thermidore.
Except on Mudcat.
On Mudcat it's an intensely problematised Thing that resembles a fine wooden box, a box with French polishing and dovetail joints. It's suggested here that traditional music is barely available having been crushed beneath a commercial hegemony of plastic boxes but is something folk woild clamour for if only it was given a little exposure.

I don't believe that to be the case. I believe that even among folk fans traditional works, presented in what the performer imagines to be an authentic way are 'difficult'. That doesn't make them wrong or bad (I loves 'em), it makes them inaccessible and that inaccessibility means they make up a modest proportion of what audiences who keep these events going will pay to watch - except of course in Lewis.
Observation leads me to further believe the debate comes down to True Believers, those who think there's a musical pyramid with the tradition on top like the eye on a dollar bill and those who keep the tradition close to their hearts without feeling it's either on top or trapped in a cellar waiting to be let out before returning again in glory (to continue the splendid religious analogy earlier).

I use the term True Believer because there's an ongoing suggestion other posters don't actually like traditional music but have had their vital faculties weakened by cheap plastic boxed from Lidl and Aldi, which is snobbery in a different hat.

There's a splendid definition of folk music above by Tug the Cox and I commend it to all those with a hole in their arse.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 05:57 AM

Well, Sminky, I think you WILL hear a prejudice against "singer-songwriter" music around these parts.

Thanks for the confirmation, Joe.

Here in the UK we've had singer-songwriters for quite some time (several hundred years in fact). Some of the current ones are listed above. Centuries ago they were known variously as minstrels, troubadours, waits, though they tended to compose to order. However, in between, we've had countless unknown individuals who have sung "the songs he/she has written". They sang them to their friends and fellow workers, at work and maybe later in the village pub. And people joined in because these songs had a "communal aspect".

Some of the songs were obviously not very good and they vanished, never to be heard again.

But some of were obviously deemed so good that they spread outside the village boundaries. Some indeed spread throughout the whole country and beyond (some even spread as far as the US). But because they were passed on by word of mouth and people's memories aren't always reliable, some of the words got changed along the way.

And today, we call this type of "music that has withstood the test of time" traditional . And clubs sprang up where such songs can still be sung and heard. And, with the advance of technology, we have forums like Mudcat where such songs can be discussed.

And it's all down to singer-songwriters. And they are still around.

I do hope you change your mind about them, Joe, because we owe them everything.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 06:46 AM

It's like this - Radio, TV, Record companies, Shops, Clubs, Festivals, practically anything one can think of that decides common definitions - have come down on the side of folk being This Thing.

Have they? I was under the impression that what you get when you go to one folk club is quite different from what you get when you go to another, and that they're both different from what you get when you go to a festival, and that all of the above are different from what you get if you go to a shop and look in the CD rack labelled Folk. And the contents of that CD rack have definitely changed over time - as in, over the last five years.

Jacques Brel, Amsterdam. Donovan, Isle of Islay. Johnnie Mathis, When a Child is Born (complete with spoken-word section). Pleasant and Delightful, sung in two-part harmony, sight-read from sheet music. Can you tell me one thing all those performances have got in common?

Something called 'folk' - something with no identifying characteristics, as far as we can see - is a bit in vogue at the moment, and it's getting a lot of younger people through the doors of FCs. That's good. But tides of fashion (and marketing) go out as well as in; the editor of the NME is going to wake up one morning and decide that singer-songwriters who sound a bit like Vashti Bunyan are just so last year. When 'folk' goes out of fashion, some FCs are going to be hit hard. I think we should be trying to build something solid, by getting a few more people exposed to traditional music.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 07:20 AM

A disagreement with Pip's post above: the 'nu-folk scene' (or whatever you want to call it) has been chugging along quite nicely in its own parallel (to the 'official'* folk scene) universe for at least five years. Ages ranges of those in the audiences and on the stage range from teens to forties, with most in the mid twenties to mid thirties range. Anecdotally - according to some of the older players - it has led to a sizeable increase in people attending local gigs by relative unknowns playing acoustic music. If its just a 'fashion' it's showing remarkable staying power: I suspect, like the 'official' folk scene, though, it will ebb and flow. It has some crossover with the official folk scene and some crossover with the indie/alternative scene, but essentially is very much its own thing. It's mainly singer songwriter stuff and small groups but with less of the sensitive navel gazing stuff and more influences from psychedelia, acid folk, avant rock, american folk, blues and alt-country. You even occasionally hear the odd traditional song. Rather than seeing it as something to sneeringly dismiss as 'fashion' (come on, Pip, you're better than that!), I believe it's something to celebrate - even if the music itself and the trad qotient isn't to your taste. Personally - lack of trad notwithstanding - I find much of what I hear from the nu-folk/Green Man/whatever scene far more to my tastes than the non-trad folk music I hear on the official folk scene.

However, I suspect it will continue to exist in isolation from the official scene except a few acts who break into official folk festivals via reviews in fRoots etc and a few clubs that crossover between the two scenes (the Magpie's Nest et al)... I don't even think most of the acts and audience are even particularly aware of the official folk scene or that arsed about it. Which, of couurse, is entirely as it should be. I might start a thread linking to some of these people: it would act as a refreshing palate cleanser.

* By official, of course, I mean the sort of "designated folk contexts" understood to be such on Mudcat: clubs, festivals, singarounds etc.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 07:29 AM

And it's all down to singer-songwriters. And they are still around.

INCOHERENT RAMBLE ALERT!

A fascinating thesis, Sminky, but one would do well to take a closer look at the actual nature of your average minstrel, troubadour, or wait. The Troubadours, for example, were aristocratic poets of the medieval Languedoc, and the role of the Waits and Minstrels is more akin to that we find today being fulfilled by drum n' organ duos as typified by Les Alanos from Phoenix Nights - musical troupers in other words, grafting away at the daily grind and given the punters exactly what they want for fear of their livelihood. I don't think one can equate your average singer-songwriter with such people, let alone think they will be in any way responsible for the traditional songs of the future.

I think the problem is one of craft and continuity; once upon a time, when these Traditional Songs were written, the conditions were such that craftsmen of every persuasion were an integral aspect of society - rural, coastal or otherwise. There existed a continuity of master craftsmanship (as celebrated by Kipling in A Truthful Song) reaching back thousands of years. Sadly, for whatever reason, with but few exceptions, that continuity has been broken. The rule, the aesthetic, the feel, the touch are long gone; we've lost the beauty once embodied in even the simplest piece of home-crafted treen, and the once glorious interiors of our public houses have been gutted and made over by bodgers whose abilities would have made a Victorian apprentice boy blush with shame.

In Durham, for example, there is a pub called The Shakespeare whose intimate middle snug has been cherished by drinkers for over 200 years. Last time I was, it was no more; the ancient wainscoting stripped away to make a modern style booth on account of the present incumbent being of the opinion that his punters didn't know the snug was there. 200 years of history gone - and we won't be getting it back because joiners and interior decorators these days wouldn't know where to start.   

I think of our latter day singer-songwriters are akin to the DIY bodgers that typify the present age and their bland housing estate style of living. At best, their songs are a bogus pastiche of the picturesque that lingers on, somewhere, but only just; I see the modern barn conversions and for once in my life I am glad I live in a town. Of course there are exceptions - I've named a few on this thread already - those whose songs do manifest considerable craftsmanship and which have already been absorbed into a sort of tradition, which is to say, people are singing them and making them their own. But that is not to think of them in the same way as we think of Traditional Songs, just be glad of the anomalous talents we see around us.

As a rule, however, I think this is why I am a Traddy; it is why I love old songs, old things in general, to touch a world that is long gone. However, whilst I might relish a song sung by my Irish great-grandfather who worked as a tailor on The Castle Garth Stairs in Newcastle back in the 1870s, I wouldn't have liked to have visited his dentist. So in this respect, I am a fervent modernist; I flit between worlds on a whim, glad that I might touch the past with the one hand, but seize the future the other. I do not resent all change, and even though I might be at odds with the crap-begets-crap school of thinking, there is a school of DIY that I absolutely love, that of an outsider folk architecture that creates its own functional picturesque without worrying too much about the past or the future. I see this in allotments and boatyards everywhere I go, so maybe in this respect I might even applaud the most average singer-songwriter (or singer of traditional songs) and might even, at a stretch, uphold the virtues of GEFF.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 07:31 AM

By official, of course, I mean the sort of "designated folk contexts" understood to be such on Mudcat

As far as I know, Mr Cringe, there is only one person in the known universe who understands what a "designated folk context" is.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 08:12 AM

Dunno 'why designated folk contexts' raise such ire. If responses on Mudcat are anything to go by intellectualism and anti-intellectualism are wielded freely in folkspeak and rebuffed or embraced depending on whose side the word-monger is. One would imagine the promoters of '54 might be keen on taxonomic precision but responses suggest linguistic exactitude is frowned upon by and large, in favour of homespun saws and tags.

1954 definitions require mass adherence to be definitive and I see no such concensus.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 08:13 AM

Snail, I'm desperate for the phrase to enter the folk lexicon... come on, you know you want it too!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 08:22 AM

"If responses on Mudcat are anything to go by intellectualism and anti-intellectualism are wielded freely in folkspeak and rebuffed or embraced depending on whose side the word-monger is."

Amen to that. I find the familiar pedantry of the 'you failed to dot your i's and cross your t's!' kind loathsome here. But I think I dislike 'plain English' aggression moreso. As it smacks to me, of inverted snobbery - where here in this preserver of antiquation of all places, one would presume it would ideally not exist!
Long live eloquence. Must be one of the reasons I like to read Victorian childrens literature...

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 08:44 AM

I'm sure there's something I disagree with in SS's last, but so far I'm struggling to find it. I'll let you know.

Rather than seeing it as something to sneeringly dismiss as 'fashion' (come on, Pip, you're better than that!), I believe it's something to celebrate - even if the music itself and the trad qotient isn't to your taste. Personally - lack of trad notwithstanding - I find much of what I hear from the nu-folk/Green Man/whatever scene far more to my tastes than the non-trad folk music I hear on the official folk scene.

People keep reading a sneer into what I think are straightforward statements of opinion. It must be the text equivalent of David Baddiel's Man Afflicted With A Sarcastic Tone Of Voice ("Oh, *go on*, I'm finding it *really interesting*... No, what?").

Yes, Green Man and all that stuff (no, what?) is a lot more than just a fashion - and yes, they're a lot more to my taste than a fair amount of Designated Folk. (If I had to choose between Jez Lowe and Espers I'd go for the creepy Yanks every time.) But I don't think it'll last forever. (In terms of coolness or hiposity it's probably peaked already; there's a definite nu-prog thing rolling in at the moment.) The lure of possibly hearing the next Meg Baird or Sufjan Stevens isn't going to get people into folk clubs for much longer, any more than people were going to folk clubs to hear the next Sandy Denny in the 1980s.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 09:06 AM

Something recently occured to me which may inform my position on this subject. Back in the days when I was paid to enlighten the nation's youth rarely a year passed without the new cohort containing a few extolling the importance of jungle, house, shoe-gazing, anti-folk, lo-fi, grunge or whatever, each with matching trousers and haircut.
The uniting factor was that 'nobody understood' the importance of their preferred music nor its powers of transformation but themselves.

Traditionalists remind me of the same impulse. I often got what was good about the other genres too, without feeling the need to wear the T-shirt. That's me all over that is.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 09:26 AM

I'm sure there's something I disagree with in SS's last, but so far I'm struggling to find it. I'll let you know.

I might add to my last sentence thus:

...so maybe in this respect I might even applaud the most average singer-songwriter (or singer of traditional songs) and might even, at a stretch, uphold the virtues of GEFF - and run a mile when confronted with the sort of slick professional virtuosity which in any context usually has me running out the door. This is why, as a rule, I avoid sessions, though once again every rule must have its exception; my favourite Folk Club right now is half session, half singaround and in both respects it's the bollocks. I think this why the piping of Seamus Ennis thrills like an intravenous injection of stupidly hard drugs, but that of (say) Davy Spillane barely registers as a saline drip.

Here's an earlier anecdote for those who might have missed it.

In the good old days in England Sam Smith's pubs carried music licenses and sold cheap (though barely drinkable) bitter such as Old Brewery, which at one Durham public house could be had for a quid a pint, thus making it very popular with musicians. Thursdays was the Folk Club; Tuesdays the Trad Jazz, and Mondays was the Irish Session, the players of which took themselves Very Seriously Indeed, and rightly so in terms of the impeccable standard of their playing which existed in direct correlation to the utter tedium it inspired in the casual listener, such as myself.

Said public house was also the scene of many an hearty outrage; one night, for example, I was in there when a fight broke out in the bar between several inebriated men of the same family after a funeral. It was a Tuesday, and the Dixieland Jazzers played on as the chairs flew, and the men brawled, and the locals stood there as if nothing was happening. A lovely summer night it was as I recall, the sun shining, the doors open, and everything at peace with the world; a peace barely disturbed by the proceedings in the bar.

Anyhoo. One Monday night in the autumn of 1999 after an arduous coach journey from London I popped in for a pint (those who say to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive have never travelled by National Express). The Session Musicians were through in the club room, playing their particular brand of music with fierce concentration and earnestness - a music which filtered through to the bar as a mildly irritating ambience: difficult to ignore, but not really loud enough to engage your attention, especially when one was in there on one's own, enjoying a solitary pint of OB with a half-ounce of Golden Virginia (Job papers & Swan Vesta matches) and a copy of Heart of Darkness (if only to get a literary measure of Apocalypse Now). Into the bar comes an old lady in her slippers, hair-net and dressing gown. In the absence of the barmaid, she helps herself to a large glass of Grouse from the appropriate optic. Taking a sip, she savours the poison, pondering all the while the nature of the entertainment taking place through in the club room, where our Session friends are playing with such indefatigable gusto they might well get through the whole of O'Neill's before closing time. Then a look of realisation dawns on her wrinkled face as it all becomes clear; something at least approaching a smile plays about her lips as she turns to me (there is, alas, no one else in the bar) and utters the immortal words:
"Eh, that's that Riverdance music isn't it?"
"It most certainly is," I reply, happy for the first time since parting from my girlfriend (now wife) at Worth Abbey some ten hours earlier.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: John P
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 12:23 PM

Sinister Supporter, I'm in agreement with everything you said in your last two posts. The bit about the building resonated because my dad is an old school builder. He's old now and retired, but he was lucky enough to find a few people now and then who could afford to pay for the time it took to do the really nice work. Of course, whenever he couldn't find that work he took whatever there was, which usually meant intense physical labor outdoors in a climate that ranged from months of freezing cold and snow to months of skin-blistering heat and humidity. There's a huge and beautiful gate on an estate that he built decades ago that he still goes to check on from time to time, just make sure it's still there and not sagging.

I also agree with what you said about which songs make it into the tradition and why. Oh, and the tediously earnest session players. One of the things I love about them is that traditional music, as much as anything, is local music. So now we have people all over the world studiously learning everything there is to know about a tradition from somewhere else. Nothing wrong with that, and I'm glad they're doing it, but it brings two different ways of looking at traditional music front and center.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 12:32 PM

The term is sometimes written incorrectly (or ironically) as "sound byte". [citation needed]

this apparently from Wikipedia......

"1954 definitions require mass adherence to be definitive and I see no such concensus."

and hopefully we never will

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 12:43 PM

"a half-ounce of Golden Virginia"

Now there's a phrase that shall be forever evocative.
Not exactly 'Madeleines' - but my own equivalent nevertheless...

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 02:40 PM

There is no 'mass concensus' for any definition of folk music - we've never managed to engage the masses.
The only times we even approached doing so was when Sharp got the songs accepted in the schools, where they were hammered to death by Miss Pringle on the school upright - and during the folk boom when is was represented by The Clancys and The Dubliners and The Spinners.... none of which were perfect but were all far nearer the real thing than the 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along' approach being proposed here.
I'm wodering where does one go for accredition to be a 'designated folk context'; fill in an application form maybe, sit an exam, give the EFDSS a bung....... no, seriously!!!!
Still no answer to my 'exclusively folk venues' question - I'll take that as a 'nowhere' then.
As for the Dog and Duck v Pindar of Wakefield definition.....
You're 'avin' a larf!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 04:36 PM

I'm listening to Fairport Convention's rendition of Richard Thompson's Poor Will and the Jolly Hangman whilst reading Jim Carroll's latest missive, eonough said.....

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 04:54 PM

I've been listening to Pentangle's jazz-rock traditonal.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 04:56 PM

Hush my mouth. That should read jazz-folk.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 05:24 PM

"1954 definitions require mass adherence to be definitive and I see no such concensus."

Do they? Since when?

This reminds me of a colleague at work who seriously believed that complex technical problems could be solved by voting on a series of alternative solutions. The most popular solution just HAD to be the right answer - even though most of the voters had little detailed knowledge of the relevant area. Needless to say this stupid 'method' was shown repeatedly not to work, but this made little difference to this person's 'faith' in it!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 05:27 PM

Ooh, listening to things that Jim Carroll wouldn't consider folk - daring! Me, I'm listening to Scott Walker. What do I win?

(Serious point: if you use the 1954 definition of 'folk' you can listen to what you like, play what you like and play in whatever style you like. And if you don't, you can also listen to what you like, play what you like and play in whatever style you like.)

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 05:40 PM

I sense a lot of anger.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: John P
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 05:44 PM

This morning on the ride to work I listened to Malicorne, Cream, Genesis, Jethro Tull, The Beatles, Telynor, Ranarim, and a nyckelharpa recording (don't remember the player's name). Oddly, I like all this stuff, play all this stuff, and still like the 1954 definition. Let's see, Malicorne had both trad music and not trad, Cream had some old blues (trad enough for me) and some new blues (borderline), Genesis and Tull are straight-ahead prog rock, with great songwriting. The Beatles are unabashedly pop, with many of the songs so widely played in so many styles that they may as well be folk, at least according to most. Telynor and Ranarim all trad, with both trad-sounding and modern-sounding arrangements. The nyckelharpa tunes are all hard-core Swedish trad, except that the composer is known for a lot of that material.

Aren't definitions fun?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 06:13 PM

I've just been listening to Mozart (47-45-42) and playing Freecell.
Wonder where that leaves the definition.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 09 - 06:16 PM

Fraid It wasn't in a designated folk context, so it doesn't count.jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 04:27 AM

I'm listening to Scott Walker.

Who also ranks highly in the Sinister Supporter Pantheon of Godlike Genii - in fact, wasn't it Julian Cope's 1981 Scott Walker compilation that gave us the phrase Godlike Genius?

So what Scott you been listening to, Pip? I tend to be happiest with the revised version of Boy Child - the one that begins with Montague Terrace & includes Angels of Ashes. I don't ordinarily go for Best Ofs but it is my belief that Boy Child represents something of a hidden masterwork, bringing together the jewels from his first five (seriously flawed IMO) albums into something of a cohesive whole - although at 70 minutes I think I might have added Two Ragged Soldiers and Two Weeks Since You've Gone. Check out the video we made for We Came Through:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_ktTtAZfV4

This was serendipitous, as we were listening to Boy Child whilst filming our ascent to the top of the car park & We Came Through lasted exactly the duration of the journey. Note the Mondegreen in the lyrics though - these come from the Boy Child CD cover which gives when error dies whereas it is Guevara dies, which pre-echoes Bolivia 95 on Tilt in which in a typical Scott Walker scenario we find a soldier praying over Che's corpse. Here's the original production footage & sound as filmed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqf3TRP7XYs

I bought The Drift on the day of its release when we were on holiday in Norfolk a few years back; a work of intense beauty, although I must admit it doesn't get played all that much. I especially love the Donald Duck Fuck You and the scenario of the ghost of Elvis Presley discussing 9/11 with the spectre of his dead twin Aaron is almost too much to bear. I played Tilt the other day whilst putting the finishing touches to my Green Man mask (I regard Farmer in the City and Bolivia 95 as amongst the most perfect songs ever written) followed by Climate of Hunter - which is an unfinished masterpiece but still engages the heart.

I could talk about Scott Walker all day, and what a fine day it would be...

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 04:38 AM

none of which were perfect but were all far nearer the real thing than the 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along' approach being proposed here.

Jim - no one's proposing anything, least of me, just observing & accommodating the facts of Folk as they stand - and accepting that Folk is as Folk does, and being happy we might still call our beloved songs Traditional.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Howard Jones
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 04:54 AM

But, SS, you started this thread by asking to define folk music. If you're saying that one might hear all kinds of music in a "folk context", I can't disagree - those are the facts, although it tells us more about the events than the music. What I do disagree with is your contention that all kinds of music can therefore be considered "folk".

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 09 Apr 09 - 05:14 AM

Howard: you started this thread by asking to define folk music.

Wrong! Go back to my OP & you'll see that my original title was simply 1954 and All That. It was added too by Joe as he felt it wasn't clear enough as to what the thread was about. In the OP I outline my intentions quite clearly:

I'm opening this up specifically to discuss what relevance, if any, the 1954 definition has to do with what actually happens in the name of Folk in 2009.

*

Howard: What I do disagree with is your contention that all kinds of music can therefore be considered "folk".

Even the 1954 Definition doesn't outline Folk in terms of genre; indeed, context has always been the defining factor of which music was called Folk and which wasn't, thus do we have the Folk Music of every culture on Planet Earth, in all its ever increasing richness & diversity reflecting as many influences and cross-cultural pollinations you might conceive of but it all might be described as Folk Music. All I'm doing is taking a look at what goes on over here in Designated Folk Contexts (Cubs, Festivals, yada yada yada) and concluding that Folk remains a matter of context rather than genre.