|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Bruce O. Date: 25 Feb 98 - 04:33 PM Good start Bert, but as always there will be arguments. Lots of songs now sung by 'folksingers' seem to be dead, but ARCHIVED ones. Some collecting is still going on, so we can't really conclude anything is ever really dead. There have been some remarkables surprises turn up after no known mention of a song for 200 years or more, and a few remarkably good versions of some very old ballads have collected in the last 20-30 years. Collecting is still going on, but collectors don't have it easy. Fields are not as green as they used to be, and financial support for a folklorist to do field collecting is practically non-existant. Some like Peter Kennedy have managed to make a living from publication of books and issuance of recordings, but I don't think many collectors died rich men (or women). A recent Ph. D. graduate as a folklorist has a difficult time finding a job. My sister in Washington state became acquainted with a retired logger, fisherman and handyman from Alaska that knew lots of old and unfamiliar songs that he had learned in his younger days in Alaska. I inquired at the library of Congress Folklore Archive for name and address of a folklorist in Washington state, and got it. However, the state had fired him, not being sure that they needed a folklorist, and the position was in limbo for about two years, and the last word I ever received in reply was that the folklorist was reapplying for a job as state folklorist. By this time the old logger had died.
|
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Art Thieme Date: 25 Feb 98 - 06:49 PM EXTINCT---Formerly a skunk---now roadkill! TRADITIONAL----Songs we all know but we MUST sing them from the book (folk bible) RISE UP SINGING! FAMILY TRADITIONAL----Inbreeding within our family causing mutations like the two-faced double standards often exhibited on this (and other) music scenes! FOLK-----any carbon-based creature EXCEPT HORSES!! (Sorry Big Bill!) SPONSORED-----What one must have when attending Folksongs Anonymous meetings! ENDANGERED----The feeling that causes one to cross to the other side of the street because a banjo player is seen approaching on your side of the street! PSEUDO FOLK-----Sings old ballads but wears BLUE PSEUD SHOES! (rarely gets gigs) SINGER/SONGWRITER-----A stoolpigeon who now resides in SING/SING! FOLK D.J.-----Similar to a folk O.J.---They get away with murder! FOLK ALLIANCE-------Britain and Ireland (AND all the folks writing in these threads) AGREE TO MAKE PEACE!!!! Affectionately, Art Thieme
|
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Alice Date: 25 Feb 98 - 10:04 PM Hey, whatever HAPPENED to Elsie??
This thread reminds me so much of Herbert Hughes writings, that I had to go back to his introduction to Vol.4 to add this quote, |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Art Thieme Date: 25 Feb 98 - 10:56 PM Yep, If the shoe fits (and is comfortable) I'll wear it. No need for it to be in style. |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: chet w Date: 25 Feb 98 - 11:23 PM Again, if you want authenticity for a 400 year old song, how are you going to know when you find it. Except for those few traditional songs that got written down (which takes it out of the oral tradition, right?) we don't know what most of these tunes sounded like until Edison's talking machine was first used for traditional/country/folk songs in the 1920's. Assuming that the people playing on the records may have learned them from previous generations, we might set that beginning 40 or 50 years before that. But beyond that how can you really know? If anyone knows, I'd truly love to hear how it's done. Sincerely, Chet W. |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Alice Date: 25 Feb 98 - 11:45 PM I couldn't transcribe all of what Hughes had to say, but he goes on to relate an example of having a young man with a good tenor voice came and sang a few songs for him, including "Down By the Sally Gardens". The singer had learned it from listening to the radio, to an arrangement Hughes himself had done, but Hughes pretended not to know the song at all. The youth sang the song a little differently than the tune that had been recorded, but he remembered Yeats's words perfectly. The singer had created a new variant that matched the words and spirit of the song completely. I think his point is... to just keep singing. The songs will be molded this way and that way, and they will take on a life of their own with the spirit of the singers that sing them. |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Art Thieme Date: 26 Feb 98 - 12:43 AM Some have heard me tell this tale about my mythical uncle. He said he had the same gun he'd carried through the Civil War. I pointed out to him that the lock looked newly machined. He said "Yes, the old lock blew apart so I put a new one on. The termites got the stock so I replaced that. Then the barrel bent so I replaced that. Other than a new lock, stock and barrel this is the same old gun!" Other than having new words and a new tune these are the same old songs also! Art |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Bert Date: 26 Feb 98 - 08:56 AM Alice, that's the most important thing ... to just keep singing Art, BLUE PSEUD SHOES. I love it. |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Barry Finn Date: 26 Feb 98 - 12:38 PM Traditional or folk or contempory accoustic singer/songerwriter or whatever. Songs sung for generations in a family or community, wheither the song is traditional or not, traveled from afar or not, if it's been adapted to a family or local style and/or adopted and embraced by that community is it now a traditional song? A singer from this family or community, would they not be a traditional singer & if someone got a song or two from one of the singers of this group would they then be a trad singer or would it take 25 or 30 songs or maybe it would need to be their whole repertoire? Would the street singer of the broadside (singer/songwriter) tradition be considered a trad singer of trad songs 100 yrs ago, any more or less than they would be today, even though their intent was commerical, & if a trad singer got hold of their broasheet material & took it back to their own community & made it theirs', does it then have to be sung for many generations first before it's considered entered into the traditional oral tradition? If I have a number of these songs in my repertoire from a number of these sources would I/could I be then a Trad. singer or am I a folk singer of trad music or just a singer who thinks he sings traditional/folk music which may in fact turnout to only be contempory accoustic music that happened to sneak into the repertior of a trad singer & accidently got recorded by a collector of trad music? If a trad singer gets paid are they no longer or are they less of a trad singer, if so then I won't pay to hear the Copper Family anymore & hope they'll come back & sing for free because I'd hate to contribute to them losing their status & become a family of professional folk singers, just doing a hand me down song. I used to play at sessions & parties with a friend, whom many consider to be one of the foremost Irish fiddlers living today, if I play the tunes I that I may have got from him, would I then be a trad musician or just a bodhran player or if I played the fiddle, a trad fiddler at least or would this friend just be a nice guy to have put up with my playing on what may or may not be a trad instrument? I also write songs, does this mean I hate myself or do I just hate what I write or do I hate what others write if it's not trad or folk & they say it is. They're are a few great writers & many lousy ones around that claim to be singer/songwritters in the folk tradition (?) & turn out accoustic trash & get paid, will their stuff die if it it's not accepted as folk or will it be pushed to the commerical limits, within in the realm of folk & we as folkies are forced to swallow a bitter pill? A politcian I once knew who got thrown out of office, not because he liked trad. music, once said (I don't know if he quoted someone else & refused to give credit) "if it looks like a duck & it walks like a duck & it talks like a duck, then it's a duck, but I'm not sure everyone would agree on what a duck is & we might end up fowl over a geese or a swan or that occassional mallard getting thrown in to fil out the bill. I do have an opinion on what is or isn't trad or folk or singer/songerwritter or contempory or trask but those are my own opinions & I'll hang on to them & hope others tolerate them as much as I would hope to tolerate theirs. Barry, who may or may not sing what he thinks he sings anymore & realizes that he answered nothing here. |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Bill D Date: 26 Feb 98 - 01:02 PM hmmmmmm...I know the 'George Washington's axe' version...guy says he has an axe once owned by G.W., 'course, it's had 3 new heads and 6 new handles... seriously, though..that lets me get on MY soapbox...IF someone tried to sell you that axe, you'd look at him pretty funny!!It may be a FINE axe...but it isn't G.W.'s!! We all know that songs get changed-sometimes accidently, sometimes on purpose, and we all have our personal opinions about the virtues of the changes, both in general and in particular cases.
My point is, that IF we at least keep track of those changes and know ..'to the best of our ability'..how it WAS, we are then able to choose more easily and discuss more intelligently, and most important, SORT these songs, so that those who particularly WANT the old ones..(or the 'new' ones, for that matter), ot the ones of a certain style, can find them!
Let me try to say this as clearly as possible.... One problem here is Max's cleverness..(if doing amazing stuff can be called a 'problem')...NO place else seems to have anything like this forum...it is just TOO tempting for someone who 'just wants some lyrics' to something P,P &M did...or someone who 'just needs a tune' to his favorite Irish melody...or someone who 'really wants the chords' to his favorite singer-songwriter's hit...to pop in here and beg. I can't say I blame them...thet need someone to make a forum similar to this for THEM ,so we could refer them to a better venue...(and some of our more knowlegeable regulars are doing this) Perhaps you might argue that if I have such a narrow notion of what I want in a database/forum, why don't I start my own? Well, obviously, it ain't easy to do what Max has done...and suppose I had the skills? What would I call it?
Unless I made it something like "The Totally Traditional, Purist-Snob, No pop music allowed ,Reactionary, 'We don't have anything past 1923' Database", I would soon have the same situation. Those who outnumber me would come flocking in...lets face it..there are more Mary Chapin Carpenter fans than Jeanie Robertson fans! *stepping down from soapbox and fading into the crowd as others shout for THEIR turn* |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Alice Date: 26 Feb 98 - 01:11 PM Where is Elsie when we need her? I am sure she would love our rant. We have managed to keep it up quite awhile. |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Earl Date: 26 Feb 98 - 02:46 PM I think there are three seperate issues here. 1.What is a traditional song, 2. what should we expect to find in the Mudcat database, and 3. what should be talked about in the forum. 1. I'm perfectly happy to let people who know what they're talking about define traditional songs and I'm glad they come here and share it with the rest of us. 2. The Mudcat database is called a "folksong" database. I think we all agree that, for better or worse, folksong no longer equates to traditional song. This database encompases all the many and varied definitions of folk (to the horror of some and the joy of others.) If Bruce had a database it would be a wonderful, useful, important thing. No one in their right mind would go there looking for Peter, Paul and Mary songs. On the other hand, it's good that people can come here to find Peter Paul and Mary songs, as well as the "correct" versions of songs done by PP&M. 3. The forum should have no limitations. The discussions will tend to be about things that interest people who also have an interest in the database, but not even limited to music (e.g. "Urban Myths.") If no one is interested in a thread, they won't respond. If someone is really on the wrong track they can be gently directed elsewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Bill D Date: 26 Feb 98 - 04:20 PM Earl...as much as I hate to admit it, you are right about folksong no longer equating to 'traditional' song...I wish that 'folk' were not such a neat, easy label...but like 'gay' it is short and easy to spell and thus functions as a wagon which it is easy to jump on and ride until you get hold of the reins....much easier than building your own wagon and buying horses! And if PP&M were the outer limits, I would have no problem...I can at least see the relationship there. (as a matter of fact, Dick G. DOES exercise some restraint in what goes into the database...he puts in more than I would, but I can certainly live with it..) as to #3, though, I wonder if you mean 'NO' limits? I presume Max would 'edit' it if it got too far afield (like into bicycle repair), but even now a lot of threads drift pretty far from what I would expect on a page with 'folk music' on the door..(I guess 'urban myths' IS a kind of folklore..*shrug*) |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Tim Jaques tjaques@netcom.ca Date: 26 Feb 98 - 07:03 PM Bruce O., how does one get the words to the songs listed on your web page? I'd like to see the words to "When This Old Cap Was New", or Time's Alteration (think I remembered that second title correctly), which I suspect is the full version of the song I know as "When This Old Hat Was New." |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Earl Date: 27 Feb 98 - 10:48 AM It's not that everyone wants to include everything as folk music, but everyone has their own exceptions. One person might say "tradional music and anything by Eric Bogle or Stan Rodgers", another might say "traditional music and songs from the labor movement", or "traditional music and songs we sang in the sixties", or "traditional music and anything else sung in the basement of a Unitarian church." Put it all together and you have anything not sung by horses. |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Bruce O. Date: 27 Feb 98 - 11:04 AM Timothy, eacg copy of a ballad has a sourece code, just before then printer and separated from it with a : . St top of file is code for book or cvollection it's in, e.g., E = Euing, RB is Roxburghe Ballads, P = Pepys Ballads. I think I added "When this old hat was new" to a thread, about 9-10 month ago, but can't remember the name of the thread. I've since then heard LaMarca and her husband sing the traditional version. |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: SteveDN Date: 27 Feb 98 - 12:22 PM I really enjoy a discussion that, by virtue of its nature, can have no resolution. Each of us has his/her own definition of what we would call "folk" or "traditional." Whenever we attempt to apply hard and fast rules, we will undoubtably exclude a whole bank of tunes that someone else may consider to be their favorite "folk songs." For instance, can we really say that the folk revival of the sixties *killed* folk music? Does that mean that future generations have nothing to look forward to and sing about? I certainly hope not. I could go on (and on and on...), but I can't even see why we should exclude songs sung by horses. After all, I think Mr Ed once did a rendition of "Camptown Ladies." ;) Anyway, we probably agree on the meanings of the terms more than we disagree. The discussion does remind me of a line from Ken Kesey's "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" that I'd like to mis-quote here: "We can't define that term, because if we say that it is one thing, then it can't be something else." I guess the important thing is to keep a song in your heart, and teach it to a young'un somewhere along the line. |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: JASON SLACK@Barrie.Ontario.com Date: 27 Feb 98 - 02:12 PM Canada.Ontario.Barrie.Canada. We get the point, Jason. It's really cute. Now, chill out. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: Corinna Date: 27 Feb 98 - 05:00 PM I personally like diving through the bins/barrels for the long lost treasures (archived and archaic music). To limit the definition is to "box" the musical spirit of many performers and songwriters who are not easily catergorized. Just like mallards, the ugly, lame, and dead ducks are ducks too. Don't be surprised to find an occasional swan who crosses over categories either since neither ducks nor swans read labels like Folk Traditional, 60's kinda Folk, Folksy Sounding Wannabes, etc. Ducks and boxes aside, I agree with Earl for clarity of purpose and Steve (Electric Kool Aid Testing just might be the way to acid test -pls forgive the pun- if a song or singer is "worthy"). Just a reminder that being a folk snob is most likely to be seen as an oxymoron by others, including the long dead folks who created and sung the songs in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: toadfrog Date: 25 Mar 01 - 05:21 PM FOLK MUSIC, WHAT? My definition Try this one and see what you think. I'd be very interested to hear responses. The best approach I ever heard was by Earl Robinson, in or about 1956, who said something like this: (1) Folk music is music which has been smoothed over time by passing from one individual to another, each making a small contribution, until the music is perfected in ways no individual composer could achieve. (2) In order for the folk process to work, the people involved must understand the music they perform. They must either be raised in a musical tradition, or must pay careful attention to it and follow it. (3) Robinson, who composed the "Ballad for Americans," "Sandhog" and "Joe Hill," among other things (and was very proud of it) did not call himself a composer of folk music. He said he had heard changed versions of "Joe Hill," and thought it would evolve into a folk song. (4) Robinson thought that classical music was great only to the extent it derived from folk roots. He argued, this is why Bartok is a greater composer than Schoenberg. (I'm not sure whether I agree, but it is an interesting point.) (5) These were political points Robinson was making, as he considered folk music to be the property of the Left. In the same vein, I heard Bess Hawes say that she had taught a course in singing folk songs. One week, for an exercise, she had all her students choose a well-known singer and imitate him/her as closely as they could. When the class met, no one could tell who it was that anyone was trying to imitate. But ALL the students sang better than they ever had before. In other words, they improved because they had to think about what they were doing. That being said, I suggest the following, and ask for comment: (1) Folk songs are SIMPLE songs. Because folk songs do not have a lot of complicated instrumentation, chord progressions, etc. they derive their force from very small things, like small variations in rhythm and vocal inflection. The best folk recording I have ever heard is "Alabama Bound" with Leadbelly and the Golden Gate Quartet. All either a capella or with a single guitar line, but the rhythm and phrasing are perfect. (2) The best folk music is performed by people who are raised in a tradition and stick to it. Good folk music requires that the performer at least treat the tradition with respect. There are trained opera singers who patronizingly include a few simple folk songs in their repertoire. No matter how magnificent their voices are, they rarely sound good. (3) The best folk music is moving because of a nuanced combination of words, tune, rhythm, vocal inflection, and instrumentation (if any). A folk singer raised within a tradition may understand these things without needing to think about them. An outsider who wants to sing the songs should think about them very carefully. That is why Leadbelly is better than Odetta, and Odetta is superior to Judy Collins. That is also why Prof. Child was wrong when he said the words of a ballad are more important than the tune. He was wrong because it makes no sense AT ALL to think about the words in isolation from the tune, or even in isolation from the singer's accent and phrasing. (4) Songs composed by singer-songwriters may be good, but they are not folk music. And the more complex the composition gets, the farther it probably is from anything that could be called folk music. (4) The idea of creating "fusion" music, or bringing all the traditions together to create something to unite mankind, is wrongheaded. Homogenized music is like Kraft homogenized cheese. The idea of "liberating" music from rules is wrongheaded. Traditional music is good because it is traditional. Traditions are local and have rules. (5) Although folk songs are associated with the Left, Songs of Protest are not necessarily folk songs. And a bad song does not become a good one because the sentiment is good, or politically correct.JWM |
|
Subject: RE: Methodologies From: GUEST Date: 26 Mar 01 - 11:38 AM I Believe old American folk music represents Freedom. These days electric guitar, bass, and drums plus probable 2nd guitar, and optional keyboard are such a boring norm. Back then they were unencumbered by standardization- Blues musicians played Banjo and Fiddles. Washboards and jugs escaped their household duties to play on Beale street. Diffrent styles rose up regionally and in some instances strange odd wierd music unlike anything heard before or since crawled forth from some isolated hill country were the residents were not indoctrinated into the "norm". Stack o lee unfetered by copy right laws met various fates for his crimes, chain gang members sang sympathetically of him as a heroic figure, while others saw him hung for his deeds. Rocky Racoon has no such history he tries to shoot Dan and gets shot everytime and we are always left to believe he will be Ok ,"good" Rocky never passes away in his room for his possessive voilent stalker routine. Purists are wrong, Let freedom ring. Freedom is the tradition. Well, this thread is getting kind of long. Let's all go over to Methodologies II. Please don't post any more messages here. -Joe Offer- |
| Share Thread: |
