1954 and All That - defining folk music

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Goose Gander
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 02:19 PM

But Sinister Supporter (name?) seems to believe that all of the above (plus rubber squeak toys and computer programs) all fall under the umbrella of 'folk' (as long as they are performed in a 'folk context') . . . or have I misunderstood you, SS.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 02:32 PM

But for a term to have any value, it has to have some boundaries.

It does have boundaries, just as Flotsam has boundaries; the boundary is context.

If some of my buddies and I showed up at your club with electric instruments and performed Slayer's 'Reign in Blood' in its entirety, would that be Folk Music?

Personally I feel a bunch of guys doing cover versions of heavy metal is Folk Music by default, but would it be worth the effort of setting up all your gear just for a couple of songs in a floorspot? One things clear, from past evidence you'd go down a storm at Fleetwood.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 02:43 PM

MM, it's only an issue in a folk club context. At a festival people attend shows they'll like or head for the bar if it's not their bag. All perfectly natural.
The main reason I don't attend clubs (or church services) is I wouldn't want to offend by yawning or standing up and leaving the room if I didn't like what was on offer. If staying is part of the deal it makes for small attendances lead by the musical tastes of the few regulars, or a very conservative/inoffensive booking programme.

A range of styles under the folk umbrella is the ideal; unaccompanied traditional, accompanied trad, traditional with contemporary instruments, modern lyrics on old tunes, right through loops, freon horn drones, Xpelair samples from the Gents, Bert Lloyd overlays and sequences. All with the greatest respect for the nameless ones who went before.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 02:43 PM

"If some of my buddies and I showed up at your club with electric instruments and performed Slayer's 'Reign in Blood' in its entirety, would that be Folk Music"

talk about taking things to the extreme just to prove a point, whatever that point is.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 02:52 PM

If you wish to be strict about following the 1954 definition, NOTHING sung if a folk club is really folk music. Once you take the song out of the context of the community, it is merely entertainment.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: John P
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 03:11 PM

I've no idea because I can't hear the difference.

Well, maybe this is the problem. Many of us hear strong differences between traditional music and contemporary music. This is why we would like them to be separate genres. This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the song is any good. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not people should sing it, or where they should sing it. It just means it's a different genre of music.

Before I read this thread, I had never heard of the 1954 definition, and yet I've been playing traditional music -- and defining it the same way as the 1954 definition -- for most of my adult life. In saying this, I'm not trying to tell anyone else what to play, or making any judgments about what's good and not good. I'm simply saying that there are two quite different genres of music encompassed by the "folk" label, and they are mutually exclusive.

The 1954 theory is somewhat like the theory of evolution. No one would say it covers every possible scenario, or that it supplies the whole answer for anything. It is, however, a theory that describes and accounts for a set of observed phenomena. It tells us how and why the music sounds like it does, has the variants it has, and has spread the way it has.

I don't know why anyone thinks that those of us who are arguing in favor of the 1954 definition are trying to put music on a shelf, draw rings around anything, or tell anyone what they should or shouldn't play. Most everyone has been at some pains to say quite the opposite. No policing! Just a discussion of the definition of a word. Traditional music is certainly not on a shelf for me. It's a living, breathing thing and can be handled in almost any way that anyone likes. It is as much a folk song when done by a rock band as it is when sung unaccompanied -- something that can't be said about most singer/songwriter music. I've often thought that giving a singer/songwriter a big recording budget tends to change the music from "folk" to either pop msic or country music.

Traditional music is just not the same as contemporary song, and no amount of saying "it's all folk" is going to make many of us start using the word "folk" to describe anything that gets done in a "folky" context.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Goose Gander
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 03:14 PM

"It does have boundaries, just as Flotsam has boundaries; the boundary is context."

So now I understand (I think): Anything played in a 'folk context' (including death metal) is folk music. So it's not the *music* at all that makes it *folk*, it's the context(?).

What you describe as folk clubs, etc. sounds like open mike night at any one of a half dozen coffee houses within walking distance of my house. Therefore, these are folk clubs and this is folk music? Or does it only become folk music when you call it folk music (in a 'folk context')? You are using the word to define itself, a circular argument and hopelessly imprecise.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 03:34 PM

When I said "I can't hear the difference" I almost qualified it but didn't want to labour the point. I can perceive differences because my expectations are fulfilled but as SS suggested it's mostly about context.
Such differences as there are come down to lyrics, style or instrumentation, none of them totemic or particular to folk. It comes back to this 1954 more/less thing. I find the transcendent and numinous in the tradition (especially on a scratchy 78) but I find it in Robert Wyatt and Bellowhead, Major Lance and Edith Sitwell.

You say there are strong differences between the tradition and contemporary music John P, can you point out how exactly?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 03:43 PM

I can't help but agree wholeheartedly with John P's comments just above.

####

Thanks for the comments on British folk clubs. I figured they all couldn't all be either as rigid or as sloppy-loose as many posts made them seem. I would, indeed, like to make it to the British Isles sometime in the near future, but due to my physical limitations, it seems pretty unlikely. By the way, how are the British Isle in general for things like wheelchair accessibility?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 04:00 PM

By the way, two comments:

First, be it noted that, no matter what it has come to mean now, initially, the word "folk" referred to "the rural peasant class." In these days, despite incredible disparities in personal wealth, power, and social position, we like to think that we live in a "classless society," and that the word "folk" has come to mean "people in general." Not a particular group or class, but to all people. This, of course, renders a term like "folk music" essentially meaningless. All music becomes folk music. [Do I hear a bit of whinnying and neighing off in the distance?]

And second, in reference to George Papavgeris' comment just above, "If only they had gone for a non-exclusive 'description' rather than a rigid 'definition' back in 1954, we would have had no problem," I take that "definition" as a description rather that a list of rigid prohibitions, and since it is a good description of what I have always considered to be "folk music" (before 1954 and now), I have no problem with it. If one reads the "1954 definition" (in italics in the first post in this thread) without prejudice and reflexive knee-jerking, one can see that it is a pretty good, well-thought-out description. It does not include bodies of music such as symphonies, string-quartets, opera, or short-lived commercially written popular music. Nor does it include songs written last Tuesday morning while sitting on the commode in the company men's room and sung for the first time at a folk club or open mike the following Saturday evening, preceded by the announcement, "This is a folk song. . . ."

One of the advantages of eliminating all definitions (especially the ones we don't particularly like because they don't include what we would like to include) is that we don't have to spend any time learning a cohesive language in which we can communicate with a fair degree of precision. It allows us to merely point and grunt.

Think of all the tax money we spend on education that we can now save!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 04:06 PM

Pip - so are you saying that English Ballads or a traditional blues song are not folk songs?

Certainly not. I'm saying they're all traditional songs, which I guess we'd all agree makes them folk songs.

'ang on I'll unplug me Strat....

Why would you want to do that? I think they had electricity in 1954, and I'm sure they didn't say not to use it.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Art Thieme
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 04:16 PM

The 1954 attempt to define this music sounds good to me--as far as it goes. To the extent that a given folk presentation stays within the parameters of all that I did musically over the years, that defines folk music for moi well enough for most practical purposes.

Buy my issued recordings. Listen to 'em. There will be my views on this topic graphically depicted in the ear of the behearer.

Other than that, I don't seem to need these semantic exercises now.

Art

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 04:20 PM

There seem to be about half a dozen separate but connected arguments going on here. It's a shame this seems to have turned into another 'definition of folk music' thread.

A few points:

1. The "folk process" is probably alive and well in those bits of the rainforest where the inhabitants have yet to make contact with the modern world.

2. In the UK context "traditional music" has become a genre: its a body of work from the past that is sung or played usually in a particular context in a particular style. You can take it out of that context and sing (or play) it in a different style, but that's the exception rather than the norm. Personally I rather like those exceptions when they're done well (so keep that Strat plugged in and cranked up, Rifleman!) but can totally understand why others wouldn't. I don't think it's likely that the 'traditional music' canon can be added to in an age of modern technology and communication. Even on the Steppes of Siberia the Tuvan throat singers are groovin' to the sounds of Sonic Youth...

3. Folk music can either mean 1954 definition folk music (which describes - imperfectly or otherwise - a process not a type of music; or it can mean folk club music/folk scene music - a context not a type of music; or it can mean what the general public/media/music industry think of as folk music (everything from Waterson Carthy to the Corrs to KT Tunstall to James Bl*nt to a metal band with a bit of acoustic guitar) - a marketing concept not a type of music. There's no point in trying to bolt any stable doors: the horse has bolted and he's singing his little head off.

4. The one thing that unites the three variants on 'folk music' above is that none of them describe a genre/type/style of music - they are all simply convenient shorthand for describing something else.

5. This leads me to the conclusion that there is no such thing as folk music.

6. Don't get me started on the folk. What have we/they/it got to do with folk music?

a)I'd suspect that 1954 folk music, to paraphrase Morrissey, "says nothing to us about our lives". I'd suggest it was the soundtrack to the lives of some of our ancestors. Everyone likes a sing song, don't they? And once upon a time we didn't haave radiogrammes and the like... Now this music is the tipple of choice for a proportion of those who identify with folk music. It may also all be a bit arbitrary because it's dependent on who was collecting what and when and with what agenda.

b) As far as folk club music goes, it's up there with train-spotting and ferret-fancying as a Great British Minority Enthusiasm. Nothing wrong with that, but only the music of a very narrow band of the folk who happen to like going to folk clubs rather than consuming a different sort of music in a different context.

c) The folk probably tolerate the marketing guru's take on folk far more than the first two, because it fits in with the other stuff that saturates the airwaves, the adverts and so on that is part of the fug we all have to breathe. Plenty of the folk bought "Beautiful" by James Bl*nt. Plenty are happy enough to sing along to "American Pie" in the pub. If it's about the folk as in the people, there's yer folk music!

7. So maybe folk music, which we've already established doesn't exist as a type of music, also no longer exists as the music of the folk.

8. Personally, I'd sooner listen to the sound of my own ears being forced though a traditional Spong meat mincer than have to sit through another bearded loon puking his way through Hotel California or have to endure another throw-yer-head-back-and-mewl-and-emote The Fields of friggin' Athenry, but that's not the point is it? It's not about what I want. It's about what we've got.

And we haven't got folk music. Because there is no folk music.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: John P
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 05:08 PM

Such differences as there are come down to lyrics, style or instrumentation, none of them totemic or particular to folk. You say there are strong differences between the tradition and contemporary music John P, can you point out how exactly?

The differences aren't at all about style or instrumentation. They are about lyrics and melodies. I don't have the learning, inclination, or time to do a thorough analysis of the differences between traditional and non-traditional melodies and lyrics. The best I can offer is an assignment: listen to 100 traditional folk songs. Then listen to 100 contemporary songs. If your ears work the way mine do, the differences (and similarities!) will be extremely obvious in about 95 of each 100. The other 10 songs will be in a gray area somewhere.

After listening to and playing traditional folk music for the last 35 years or so, I can hear a melody and say, "that sounds traditional" or "that sounds modern". When I'm wrong, it's usually because the modern song was written by someone who has been listening to and playing traditional music for most of their life. But then, that's my one quibble with the 1954 definition: there are newly composed songs that, for me, fit in the traditional music genre because they are melodically and lyrically indistinguishable from traditional music. I don't know if these should be considered folk songs or not, and it doesn't really matter much to me.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 05:21 PM

"there are newly composed songs that, for me, fit in the traditional music genre because they are melodically and lyrically indistinguishable from traditional music."

I agree. And some of them don't even sound like folk.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 05:22 PM

"I'm saying they're all traditional songs, which I guess we'd all agree makes them folk songs."

I guess it boils down to a disagreement that "Folk" and "Traditional" are interchangeable words.   I agree with you 100% on the aspects that make music traditional, and disagree that "traditional" means the same as "folk".

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 05:28 PM

I guess it boils down to a disagreement that "Folk" and "Traditional" are interchangeable words.

Actually I've given up on making that strong claim - too quixotic even for me. What I meant was that some people here say that the "folk" category consists mostly of traditional music, while others say that it consists of traditional music and a lot of other stuff. So the one thing we can agree on is that if a song's traditional, it can be called a folk song.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 05:38 PM

Spleen - well put. Mostly, anyway.

I'd suspect that 1954 folk music, to paraphrase Morrissey, "says nothing to us about our lives".

I know what you mean - I quite fancy singing The old cock crows, but if I did I'd have to point out that every single line was a lie ("I like to hear the old cock crow early in the morning"... well, er, no actually). But still - no death, no heartbreak, no horror, no riotous boozing, no opportunistic seduction? No nights that you wish had lasted seven long years? (You don't have to answer that one.) No morns that look bright and clear, but the forest won't yield me no roses? You must lead a sheltered life.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Howard Jones
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 06:10 PM

SS, what you're describing is a philosophy, not a definition. You're celebrating that ordinary people are coming together to make music. I agree, that's worth celebrating. However, according to you, when people get together to make music, of whatever origin, that's folk. It's a point of view, but I don't think it's one that many would share, and neither does it reflect everyday language or experience.

There are recognisable genres of music, although they many not be easy to define, and playing them out of their usual context doesn't alter that. A jazz piece is still jazz, whether it's played in a folk club or a jazz club, just as Bach is still Bach, or hip-hop is still hip-hop, wherever it's played. Similarly, a folk song is still a folk song whether it's played in a jazz club or a classical concert hall. You cannot define "folk", or anything else, simply by its context.

The "folk club" is not as unique or special as we like to think. Everywhere, amateur musicians are coming together to make music, in choirs, orchestras, jazz clubs, and countless other venues. They're all sharing the same experience of making music. To label what they're doing as "folk" because it's done by folk is actually quite patronising.

What you are really saying is that you have something which calls itself a "folk club" at which all and any kinds of music are welcome. That's great. I won't even argue with you over whether it should be called a "folk club". But to call everything that is played there, or which might be played there, "folk music" doesn't help us towards a definition of "folk" in its modern usage, which is what I had understood to be your question. The club could be called something quite different, the music would remain the same.

Why not just say that at your "folk club" people are encouraged to perform not only traditional and modern folk songs but any other genre as well? Why does it all have to be forced into the label "folk"?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 06:56 PM

Pip - you slightly miss the point I was trying to make. For me, personally, some of these songs speak volumes and are things of great beauty that articulate all manner of human emotion and experience. On the other hand, why is it that when I pop a folk CD on the player, the normal response from most of my friends - and they're nearly all music fiends of one kind or another - is not to be able to get beyond the 'funny voices' or 'archaic language' or 'odd tunes' or 'strange instruments' or horrors upon horrors utter lack of instruments? This isn't an isolated response. It's what I've come to expect. Traditional music sounds like it is made by aliens, so it would seem. This doesn't happen when I play them James Blackshaw or Nancy Wallace or The Accidental or Mary Hampson or many of the singer songwriter/nu-folk/Green Mannish albums I also have lurking on my miseryPod (TM). Hmmm...

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Ian Fyvie
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 08:03 PM

How about viewing folk in terms of what it's not - rock/pop.

Then add a few positives as well like....   problems....

.....what can we add that hasn't exceptions?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 03:25 AM

When I washed up up on these shores I was roundly - and immediately - abused for describing any non-traditional music as folk music. That flies in the face of web sites, record labels, radio programmes, shop filing systems, folk clubs (AFAIK) and festivals agreeing with my suppositions. If there was a war, it was over before I arrived.
Except on mudcat where, like those Japanese soldiers on pacific islands, the war rages on.

I would suggest that the tradition and folk are both alive and well.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 04:51 AM

Why must you use emotive language, 'Glueman'? Who 'roundly abused' you? Do you really mean someone disagreed with you? That's permitted in a discussion forum, you know!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Will Fly
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 05:12 AM

This leads me to the conclusion that there is no such thing as folk music.

Probably the most sensible thing I've seen so far on this thread - and the 3 propositions from the esteemed Spleen that preceded it also made damned good sense.

It doesn't matter whether we agree with the 1954 definition totally, partially or not at all. The process by which those songs came to be over a period of time has now stopped - and the stoppage began, unwittingly, when RVW and C# and others "meddled and muddled" as Diane Easby put it. The very act of writing it all down and recording it has been the thing that fixed it in time.

So what we have now in the UK - unless the process as defined by the 1954 words is still going on unnoticed somewhere - is a body of work that entertainers can draw on if they feel fit. I doubt that many of us who perform in clubs, sessions, singarounds, open mics (call the components of this generally acoustic scene what you will) are connected in any way to that unconscious process. We draw on the material as we find it in our chosen sources, and we draw on other materials if we so choose and if we think they're appropriate for the moment. Whether others think they're appropriate is all down to personal taste in the end.

By singing traditional material, i.e. that largely within the scope of the 1954 definition, we're not keeping the tradition alive in any sense - we're choosing material to perform which appeals to us as performers and which we hope will appeal to the audience. It's good that the body of traditional music exists, and it's good that many performers draw on its beauty for performance purposes. But let's not be fooled - it's entertainment, and I doubt that even an informal and boozy sing-song in a pub is carrying on the tradition as defined.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 05:14 AM

After my first or second post (I forget which) one of the regulars said - forget it, this ones not worth it! The kind of playground control freakery I hadn't heard since, er..the playground. What a welcome. Hilarious - except adults still think and talk like that.

SS suggested his friends thought folk music didn't speak to ordinary people, I can relate my friends think it's for nutters and pedants and wonder what I get out of it.
Fortunately the music is there for all and so long as you don't visit folk clubs, limit festival visits and don't spend too much time on Mudcat, you can listen to the stuff unsullied by people who want to write history (with committee approval in case they're unsure whether to enjoy what they're hearing or not) in their own image.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 05:46 AM

SS, what you're describing is a philosophy, not a definition. You're celebrating that ordinary people are coming together to make music. I agree, that's worth celebrating. However, according to you, when people get together to make music, of whatever origin, that's folk.

Maybe Folk itself is a philosophy? A way of life, a way of being. Maybe we should be a bit more specific here and say that Folk Music is music done by Folkies; and if that includes the late great Matt Armour and company doing When The Saints Go Marching In and Jim Eldon's inspired reconstruction of The Tide is High then so much the better. It might also include a lot of other things too, but in the end this is a music which defines its own parameters according to no other set of criteria other than what Folkies are moved to do in the name of Folk. If this argument is somehow circular then so be it; and let the circle be unbroken.

It's a point of view, but I don't think it's one that many would share, and neither does it reflect everyday language or experience.

It reflects 35 years of experience of Folk; I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Go to any cub or festival; even listen to Mike Harding's radio show; look through the Folk section of your local HMV; look through the threads on Mudcat...

There are recognisable genres of music, although they many not be easy to define, and playing them out of their usual context doesn't alter that. A jazz piece is still jazz, whether it's played in a folk club or a jazz club, just as Bach is still Bach, or hip-hop is still hip-hop, wherever it's played.

A jazz piece doesn't stop being jazz just because it's played in a folk context no more than a Fish Crate from Castletownbere stops becoming a Fish Crate because it's adrift on the Irish Sea. It is Folk; it is Flotsam.

Similarly, a folk song is still a folk song whether it's played in a jazz club or a classical concert hall. You cannot define "folk", or anything else, simply by its context.

I'd say that was true of a Traditional Folk Song, but really a Folk Song only exists in a Folk Context; take it out of that context and it invariably becomes something else. Like when the Fish Crate is returned to Castletownbere Fisherman's Co-op.

The "folk club" is not as unique or special as we like to think. Everywhere, amateur musicians are coming together to make music, in choirs, orchestras, jazz clubs, and countless other venues. They're all sharing the same experience of making music. To label what they're doing as "folk" because it's done by folk is actually quite patronising.

It is the Folkies who call these places Folk Clubs, or Folk Festivals, or Folk whatever; it is the Folkies who do these things in the name of Folk. And yes, the Folkies do not have a monopoly on amateurism (in the best possible sense of a word that all too often is used derisively). However, a Jazz Club is not a Folk Club, although there are crossovers, such as when the same individual attends both. One night he'll have his Folk Hat on, the other his Jazz Hat. But it's only when he does Jazz with his Folk Hat on that Jazz is Folk. Of course the question must then be asked would he do Folk with his Jazz Hat on? Well, I do occasionally - I'll sing a Traditional Folk Song in the context of a performance of Free Improvisation (call that Jazz? it's not even fecking music!), but to me it's all Folk Music anyway because - guess what? I never heard no horse sing a song!. And I really, really, really, deeply, honestly, sincerely, believe that to be true. To me, the ultimate Folk Context is Planet Earth, but I'm not about to bring that into the discussion, just let you know that ultimately, that's where I'm coming from. Everything I do is Folk - from THIS to THIS to even THIS.      

What you are really saying is that you have something which calls itself a "folk club" at which all and any kinds of music are welcome..

No - what I am saying is that all Folk Clubs and festivals are like this. The Folk Club in Fleetwood is just one example.

That's great.

Not always, but such is life.

I won't even argue with you over whether it should be called a "folk club". But to call everything that is played there, or which might be played there, "folk music" doesn't help us towards a definition of "folk" in its modern usage which is what I had understood to be your question. The club could be called something quite different, the music would remain the same.

I disagree. Folk in its modern usage is almost entirely about context. And would the music remain the same? Certainly the ethos would change - the weight of meaning which is carried by the term Folk Club which ensures we get a regular rosta of visiting floor singers bringing everything from self-penned ukulele songs (in the Tradition of George Formby) to Scottish strict-tempo accordionists, to singer-song writers, to unaccompanied singers of Traditional Song, to players of Segovia on classical guitar, to blues singers. They all come because it's a Folk Club.

Why not just say that at your "folk club" people are encouraged to perform not only traditional and modern folk songs but any other genre as well? Why does it all have to be forced into the label "folk"?

The label isn't forced, it's what it is; it's out there in all its empirical diversity. This is not my personal opinion, but an observation of a reality. I may not like it any more than you do, but such is life - if life offers you Lemons, you make Lemonade.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 06:08 AM

PLEASE come back, Jim. At least I understood what I disagreed with you about.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 06:21 AM

"After my first or second post (I forget which) one of the regulars said - forget it, this ones not worth it! The kind of playground control freakery I hadn't heard since, er..the playground. What a welcome. Hilarious - except adults still think and talk like that."

Was this 'abuse' that you suffered in this thread, 'Glueman', or in a previous thread? I can't seem to find it in this one.

Anyway, you shouldn't take anything said on here too personally - it's only words, after all! For example, my position was equated with 'ethnic cleansing' on another thread - a position so ludicrous that, after bringing it to the attention of the poster, all I could do was laugh!

Seriously though, people who take the position that the folk genre is limited and definable are still being accused of being authoritarian and all sorts of other crimes. In my view this represents either an hysterical over-reaction or blatant mis-representation, and does not move the debate forward - this sort of thing is the true 'politics of the playground'.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 06:48 AM

An old thread, a year ago perhaps Shimrod. It wouldn't matter at all, I certainly don't feel wounded, except there is a perception that folk is about being right, scoring points, being pedantic, cantankerous, exclusive - usually under the banner of inclusion and bonhommie (on certain terms!) - anything but the damned music, which that sort of response plays into the hands of.

Those involved would say those who 'get it' get it and those who don't are beyond help. The question is what is this 'it'. The more I read the more I conclude there is no it, or one person's it is different to another's. You want to make 1954 a shibboleth? Fine, we'll write one for 2009. As someone noted, they ain't legally binding, they're notions, abstracts, an attempt at a history from scattered fragments and high ideals.

The funny part is my taste is very traditional (when we're talking about the tradition and not contemporary folk music), something I fear is lost on the critics.
I agree with SS and Will Fly's observation that tradition or folk, it's all entertainment now. When people get that, the BS wars will be over.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 08:20 AM

Of course, I could rest my entire case on the Singers and Songs that Stunned Me thread, where what we have in a few passionate posts represents a reduction to the consummate essence of what people think of as being Folk Music, including a few Traditional Songs, but only one, so far, sung by a Traditional Singer... Hmmm - needs must I rectify that one!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Will Fly
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 08:36 AM

Well SS, I think I'd call Gary Davis a very traditional singer - just not in the UK tradition! I certainly count seeing him as an absolute privilege.

Broonzy was perhaps more urban - I won't say more sophisticated - than Davis (the Rev. had a stunning knowledge of the guitar), but he still represented one of the last of a tradition of blues singers who got it "on the hoof".

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 09:16 AM

Sorry about that, Will - missed those! I think it's these solvents I'm working with today. I missed the whole point of the thread too; whilst I have seen some Traditional Singers in Folk Clubs etc. I wouldn't say I was ever particularly stunned by them, though I'd love to know the name of the guy who sang Plains of Waterloo as a floorspot at The Bay Hotel Folk Club in Cullercoats back around 1979 - now that was stunning!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Howard Jones
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 09:39 AM

SS, I do understand what you're saying. But you were asking for a definition. What I'm trying to get across is that if you say that "folk" can encompass absolutely everything, then it fails as a definition, because it doesn't tell us anything about the music except the context in which it is performed on a specific occasion. To say it can be "folk" as well as jazz, or classical, or hip-hop doesn't help us to recognise a piece of music as being "folk" - which is the purpose of a definition.

Do the George Formby uke-players or classical guitarists really believe their music is folk, therefore they go to a folk club to play it? My guess is they think, "OK, this isn't folk, but if I go to that particular folk club they'll let me play it anyway."

What you have done is to define the music policy for your club. By extrapolating from that to claiming that all music is folk music you are implying that all folk clubs should have the same policy, and that any "folk club" which turns away the uke-players or classical guitarists has no grounds for doing so.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 09:48 AM

"what you're describing is a philosophy, not a definition."

That is the most intelligent statement that has been made in this or any thread on the subject of "folk music". Well done!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 09:58 AM

Glueman, I still don't believe that I'm being authoritarian by sticking to my point view that folk music is a limited and definable genre. And even if I wanted to 'throw my weight around', and dictate to people what they can and can't sing, how would I go about it?

The only feasible way that I can see is to be a folk club organiser and to run a club with a clearly defined policy. Surely, no-one could object to that - especially if it is a democratic policy agreed upon by all of the club's members. But I'm not such an organiser and, therefore, have no powers whatsoever. All of these unfounded accusations of authoritarianism are mischievous and stop the debate from moving forward.

Nevertheless, I am entitled to my point of view - no matter how unpopular it might be in some quarters. I think that this debate may well boil down to Pip Radish's assertion above (I think it was you, Pip?) that some people can't tell the difference between 'is' and 'ought'. The 1954 definition is a good guide to what folk music 'is' but some people think that it 'ought' to be something else and, hence, reject the definition. Incidentally, I have met this attitude in several other areas of my life and have come to recognise it for what it is.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 10:13 AM

doesn't help us to recognise a piece of music as being "folk" - which is the purpose of a definition.

If the definition of Flotsam is some anomalous artefact adrift in the sea, then the definition of Folk I'm suggesting is valid as a definition. It might define the music in terms of genre, but it does define the music in terms of its human & social context which I would have thought was more important to a music called Folk. The 1954 Definition does that too - it never once nails a genre as such, just gives a catalogue of criteria by which a song might be considered Folk. So Folk has always been a matter of contextual criteria rather than musical content - it has never been a genre as such, more of a construct.

Do the George Formby uke-players or classical guitarists really believe their music is folk, therefore they go to a folk club to play it? My guess is they think, "OK, this isn't folk, but if I go to that particular folk club they'll let me play it anyway."

My guess is they come because a folk club is one of few places they can get to play their music to an appreciative & warm hearted audience, which is generally what you find in a folk club and why the music - any music - tends to be accepted as such.

What you have done is to define the music policy for your club.

Not just our club - all clubs & festivals are like this to a greater or lesser extent. It's the wider condition of this thing called Folk Music.

By extrapolating from that to claiming that all music is folk music you are implying that all folk clubs should have the same policy

I've yet to go to one that doesn't. In fact - if there's anyone reading this who knows of an exclusively Traditional Folk Club or Singaround I'd be interested in hearing about it - if only so I might come along one day!

and that any "folk club" which turns away the uke-players or classical guitarists has no grounds for doing so.

I can't conceive of any such club. Seriously - in my time I've been to hundreds of clubs, and even the most traditional of them wouldn't be so callous as to turn anyone away. That is one of defining attributes of Folk Music - inclusiveness on a human level.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 10:16 AM

Correction!

It might not define the music in terms of genre, but it does define the music in terms of its human & social context...

Solvents!!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 10:27 AM

"All of these unfounded accusations"

They are not unfounded, the guilty party may well intervene on the thread before long with an explanation. It was a swift baptism of fire in internet folk debate.
However you look at it today's activities are pastiche. Even clubs who'd insist on unaccompanied traditional songs sung without any tonal accuracy or intrusive mannerisms - a small market and one probably incapable of local support - are dealing in re-enactment. Nothing wrong with that so long as it's seen for what it is and they don't make intellectual land-grabs on the wider folk estate.

I can't make my point better than it's all entertainment, singers of traditional songs aren't preserving anything more than public singing in member's clubs, which is fair enough. What's not to like?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 11:44 AM

"My guess is they come because a folk club is one of few places they can get to play their music to an appreciative & warm hearted audience, which is generally what you find in a folk club and why the music - any music - tends to be accepted as such."

Unfortunately, there's a lot of truth in that! It's what I've been saying for ages! Far too many people have taken advantage of the easily accessible platform provided by folk clubs. My view is that if such people can't get platforms anywhere else it's their problem, and they should not be making it a problem for folk fans like me!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 12:06 PM

singers of traditional songs aren't preserving anything more than public singing in member's clubs, which is fair enough. What's not to like?

Realising after five years of regular attendance at a folk club that traditional material isn't just another specialism - like "sung by Donovan before he went electric" or "made famous by Hank Williams" or "about my recent relationships" - but a vast ocean of music, with enough songs to keep any singer going for a lifetime. I didn't like that.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 12:48 PM

"that traditional material isn't just another specialism"

Oh yes it is, don't kid yourself. It's a minority taste, always has been, electrification not withstanding. I won't hold my breath waiting for a mass conversion to 'the cause'

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 01:58 PM

Try reading to the end of the sentence, Rifleman.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 02:14 PM

Oh but I did, and what I posted previously still stands, so get over. it

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 03:06 PM

If you can't spot a difference in scale between "sung by Donovan before he went electric" and "every song with the word 'trad' after it", either you're badly misinformed or you need new glasses.

But I'll gladly take the opportunity to clarify. The only thing I've really disliked about going to my local FC was the realisation, after five years of regular attendance, that traditional material isn't just another specialism, a little store of a couple of dozen songs which one performer can make his/her own - like "songs sung by Donovan before he went electric" or "songs made famous by Hank Williams" or "songs about my recent relationships" - but a vast ocean of music, with enough songs to keep any singer going for a lifetime. The realisation that I'd been missing out on all that music - I didn't like that.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 03:25 PM

The realisation that I'd been missing out on all that music - I didn't like that.

Sounds like an Epiphany to me, Pip - significant cause for rejoicing! Just on relearning The Molecatcher today; I've decided to relearn all the songs I've ever forgotten - not as easy at it sounds believe me.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 03:31 PM

Pip Radish: "a vast ocean of music, with enough songs to keep any singer going for a lifetime. The realisation that I'd been missing out on all that music"

Again very seriously not being arsey here. But yes, me too. Except I feel that partly (if not greatly) to blame for my lack of exposure to Traditional Song is that it was/has been utterly lost and overwhelmed by a surfeit of eclectic material which has - like it or no - mushroomed beneath the fungal folk umbrella.

Not sure I buy the OP's thesis myself; preferring 'Folk as Genre' (which tends to be the way most people organise music) though frankly on logic and empirical evidence, SS's reasoning seems hard to fault!

So, I'd like to see 'Traditional [Folk] Song' out from underneath the suffocating umbrella of Folk, where it is utterly LOST! And indeed will ever remain so - irrespective of whatever a tiny few would prefer to be the case.

Prioritise! The songs matter more than some verbage!

Of course while the annoyed scratch their itching sores, and grumble, thankfully there are real YET real live boys n' girls like Mawkin Causley, and Bellowhead, going out there and doing the REAL work of communicating folk songs to those who might still actually give a damn... ;-)

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 03:36 PM

Crow Sister, welcome to the madhouse...

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 04:15 PM

Indeed, I took my 11 year old, 3/4 size Les Paul totin', rock luvvin son to see Mawkin Causley and Bellowhead and they're now on his iPod - his decision.
I wouldn't know how to operate an iPod. With my eyes vinyl is a problem! Sly and Robbie were doing some similar arrangements twenty odd years ago. Music is seamless.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 04:23 PM

Well, I guess I'm not only in the wrong pew, I'm in the wrong church. I found myself agreeing with what Crow Sister just wrote, then, unfamiliar with Mawkin Causley and Bellowhead (out here on the west coast of the U. S. and A.), I pulled them up on YouTube.

What I heard was with what came on like symphony orchestras with whatever solo singers I could pick out being backed by choirs of other singers.   The songs being sung (at least the ones I listened to) seemed to be what I would consider (in my narrow, twisted little mind) to be "folk" songs—or "traditional" songs (if there really is a difference, which I can't see myself), but the presentation reminded me of some of the major stage productions put on by Harry Belafonte back in the mid to late 1950s.

Whatever happened to the singer (just one) singing a traditional song (like a Child ballad, for example) to the accompaniment of a guitar—or a banjo—or a concertina (just one, not all of them together)? Or possibly even (shudder of horror!!) unaccompanied?

Oh, I see! Dull! Weird! Boring! Nobody wants to listen to that stuff anymore, I guess.

(But—fortunately, that doesn't reflect my experience out here in the wilderness).

'Scuse me for now. Lunch time here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 05:13 PM

Sounds like an Epiphany to me, Pip - significant cause for rejoicing!

Oh, it was that all right - life-changing experience. But I did then start thinking where have you been all my life?, and one of the answers I came up with was not at the Folk Club, that's for sure.