Money v Folk

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 May 08 - 02:18 PM

Tom,
"Fair enough within your terms ,"
Sorry, there is no such animal as 'my terms; we don't get to vote on our language, it's there for general communication, not personal convenience.
No more is there a 'common' meaning of the term, or if there is, nobody has articulated one so far, other than the Humpty Dumpty 'words mean what I wish them to mean'. Those inside the revival either accept the long-established one or, rather cynically to my mind, sail under a flag of convenience and take it to mean what suits their own particular tastes and interests - which is to the benefit of neither side of the argument as far as I can see, and is no way to treat a language.
One of the great failings of the revival is that those not involved don't give a toss one way or the other, or, if the need arises, will defer to the dictionary definition, as I would if I wished to interpret 'astrophysics'.
Let's leave it to the festival organisers to define our music – now, there's a thought!!!!
Years ago I attended a 'folk' festival in Bulgaria, where the stars of the event were a choir singing Bach and Handel – does that mean because that particular organiser of the event chose to call selections from The Messiah 'folk', it would automatically fall within your definition?
Down the years, what has taken place at The Cambridge Folk Festival has had more in common with what goes on at Slane Castle or Glastonbury than say at The N. F. F at Sutton Bonnington.
Here in Ireland Guinness and Carling would jump at the chance of organising a 'Guinness' or 'Carling' Folk Festival. As much as I realise these august bodies have the interests of the music at heart OVER MY DEAD BODY. This would once more leave us open to having our music being placed in the hands of the music industry and big business, as it was during the halcyon 'folk boom' days.
For me, the refreshing characteristic of folk music, and one of the great motivators of my involvement, is that I can regard it as 'ours' rather than 'yours' or 'mine'. You would take that from me and I would be left as remote from our music as I am from the compositions of Paul McCartney or Irving Berlin – in other words, you would remove the folk from 'folk' .
There is, and has been for half a century, a perfectly workable and concise definition of the term; as I see it you have several alternatives:

a. You accept it as it stands.
b. You iron out the flaws and adapt it.
c. You disprove it outright and replace it with another.

Ignoring it is not an option as far as I'm concerned, and a great deal of damage has been done to the survival of the music by those who have chosen to do so. If you wish your music to be considered 'folk', get the application form and tick as many boxes as you can - then let's have a discussion about it.
However, I might be prepared to reconsider my case if those singer-songwriters who refer to their compositions as 'folk' are prepared to allow them to be placed in the public domain, which is, by my understanding, the defining factor, – but I won't hold my breath.
On the question of copyright, I bow to your greater knowledge on how things stand within the letter of the law, but this does not explain why, for over half a century Peter Kennedy was able to persuade his singers to sign contracts assigning their songs to him, then follow this up by sending out claims to anybody who used say, a song recorded from Harry Cox or Charlie Wills (see relevant section in Musical Traditions). Or why the Dubliners attempted to copyright all their traditional material, and were only prevented from doing so by threats of legal action (see MacColl's biography, Class Act). Or why there was an extremely undignified scramble to copyright Turkey In The Straw following its appearance on a best-selling album. Then, of course, we have Rod Stewart's claim on Wild Mountain Thyme, or any one of the many, many attempts at ownership of traditional material.
While it may be true that none of these actions have any basis in law, those of us not versed in legal matters are not necessarily aware of this and are quite likely to be ripped off by the piranhas who have found their way into folk waters.
Over the last few years the Irish Musical Rights Organisation has been demanding money with menaces from publicans who allow traditional music to be played on their premises. I head recently that one excuse given was that copyrighted material 'might' be played during the course of the evening. To their eternal shame, Comhaltas Ceoltoiri Eireann first (and rightly) vehemently opposed such moves – until they were offered a cut of the cake, and then did an abrupt about turn (I see there is an interesting piece which touches on this, by Harry Bradley on the Comhaltas Interruptus/Clontarf thread .
I still find it depressing to recall some of the attitudes expressed in an earlier thread on copyright and ownership, and I see that there are another two on the boil at present.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 May 08 - 01:49 AM

Still no word from Sminky then?

:-(

Dave.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Howard Jones
Date: 17 May 08 - 05:22 AM

It is well-known that traditional (as distinct from folk revival) musicians in the 20th century were paid for playing for dances. English examples include Scan Tester, Billy Bennington, and the Bulwers, all of whom were in frequent demand and were paid in both cash and kind, just like modern musicians.

There is no reason to suppose that this practice suddenly emerged post-1850. The contents of the surviving manuscript books of 18th and 19th century country musicians suggest they were also playing for dances, and it seems unlikely that they did it without payment.

The idea that folk music once existed in some kind of pure state outside the real world where people are paid for their skills and services is romantic nonsense.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 May 08 - 06:14 AM

Howard Jones

It is well-known that traditional (as distinct from folk revival) musicians in the 20th century were paid for playing for dances. English examples include Scan Tester, Billy Bennington, and the Bulwers, all of whom were in frequent demand and were paid in both cash and kind, just like modern musicians.

Which further undermines the idea that professionals are, somehow, a separate group (the horse) from the amateurs (the cart).

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 08 - 10:43 AM

"The idea that folk music once existed in some kind of pure state outside the real world where people are paid for their skills and services is romantic nonsense."
May have missed it, but I can't see that anybody has suggested this.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Georgina Boyes
Date: 17 May 08 - 11:39 AM

"And oft for pence and spicy ale
Wi winter nosgays pind before
The wassail singer tells her tale
And drawls her christmass carrols oer"
John Clare, Christmass (1827)
--------------
Good dame, here at your door
    Our wassel we begin,
We are all maidens poor,
    We pray now let us in,
       With our wassel....

Some bounty from your hands,
    Our wassel to maintain:
We'l buy no house nor lands
    With that which we do gain
       With our wassel.

Wassail song from "New Christmas Carols: Being fit also to be sung at Easter, Whitsontide, and other Festival Days of the year....in the curious study of that ever-to-be-respected antiquary Mr. Anthony á Wood [1632-1695],

There are lots more of these.....

Georgina

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 May 08 - 01:00 PM

The implication is certainly there, Jim. A lot of the argument hinges around this mysterious time when folk music survived without any money being involved. I know it is difficult to read through the whole thread but an assertion was made that between 650BC and 1850AD folk music was, somehow, peripheral to the community and did not attract paid performers. I am quite happy to accept that this was not the intended implication but, as yet, the originator has not refuted it.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 08 - 02:26 PM

Dave an Georgina (hi Georgina),
I'm not suggesting that there weren't occasions when money was involved with singing or music, quite often, as with Georgina's examples, linked to customs such as The Wran, wassails, etc.
You can also include the competitions entered into by singers like Joseph Taylor, Sam Larner, Tom Lenihan and others, where either a cash or a (usually small) prize was given.
Travellers in Ireland sang in the streets and sold ballad sheets right up to the mid-fifties here in Clare, (the last ballad sheet here was 'Bar With No Stout' - a parody on The Pub with No Beer).
My point is that in general, singing was not a paid occupation, as it was with itinerant musicians like Carolan, and like (some of) the Travellers - though it needs to be said that singing and ballads selling was regarded by many Travellers as 'a low' occupation, little better than begging.
Interestingly (to me anyway) we recorded a long interview with Kerry Traveller Mikeen McCarthy, who went to great lengths to describe the differences in style between street singing, singing to sell ballad sheets and what he called 'fireside singing'.
Around here, not only was money not an issue, but when the annual Traditional music school started to pay singers to appear at the concerts and recitals; a number of them commented on the strangeness of being paid for doing something they'd done all their lives for nothing.
Singing and playing on 'The Wran' (St Stephen's Day), was a collecting custom, but the money was put aside specifically for drink and food for 'the Wran ball' shortly after. One sad exception to this took place in the 'hungry times' when a group of men set out one Boxing Day, found the takings so thin that they pushed on all day and into the next few days until they reached Galway where they used the collection to buy an assisted passage to America and never returned home.
A number of older musicians we have spoken to have made the comment that not only was music unpaid, but that the introduction of cash was its 'ruination'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 08 - 02:29 PM

PS What I intended to say was that I believe that there was never a time when money was a contributory factor to the survival of traditional music and singing; even the local dancing masters around here made little more than their beer money.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 May 08 - 02:45 PM

well as someone who quite happily performs for money.,and also quite happily plays/ sings at home for his own enjoyment.
I would like to say this:I care not a fig,whether some older musician said that the introduction of cash was the musics ruination.
my respect for older musicians is for there music,not for some statement they uttered as if it was sacrosanct.
I remember being in the presence of Bob Roberts,and in all seriousness he said,that the fact people couldnt waltz anymore was a sign of the decliner of civilisation,what a lot of Squit.
that doesnt alter my opinion of Bob as a performer,it just means that while I like his music,I dont agree with all his political/social utterances.
Jim Carroll, however seems to regard older musicians utterances as if they were unquestioned gospel. Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 May 08 - 06:07 PM

I have no argument with what you are saying, Jim. It is this catergoric assertion that between 650BC and 1850AD there was no money in folk music that I cannot agree with. The provider of this theory asked for proof that people were paid for folk music. Firstly I asked them to define what they meant by folk music. They refused. I then provided plenty of examples of paid music within that period. At which point they said that is not what they meant. I asked what they did mean and we have not heard back since.

I think you may have come in half-way through and without going back to the begining and following the whole thing through you may be talking about something different to me.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Georgina Boyes
Date: 17 May 08 - 06:32 PM

Suggesting that this is a 'yes' or 'no' issue, does no justice to traditions of singing and reduces complex circumstances to a degree that is meaningless -

People sang (and still sing) for their own and other people's amusement, to pass the time when they're working at something and to express their creativity - and for all sorts of other reasons. Sometimes singers are paid and sometimes they're not.

Shantymen were paid to sing, it was the whole reason for their being aboard ship - but I don't think anyone would suggest that shanties aren't traditional.

When a wet nurse or nursery maid sang lullabies to the babies she had in her care, wasn't this part of her paid work? And did the same traditional lullaby and nurse become something different when she sang it to her own children to rock them to sleep and wasn't paid?

When Jos Mather, the Sheffield ballad-maker and singer wrote and performed his songs in the late 18th/early 19th century, he was paid. Other people sang his songs because they liked them (they were still singing them in Sheffield in the late 1960's) - I don't see that what Jos Mather and later singers did was different because some were and some weren't paid, I was just delighted to hear his songs still sung after almost 200 years.

At celebratory feasts in medieval monasteries, visitors to the feast joined in the refrains with the paid singer - and weren't paid for it. If you're just going to have two states - paid and unpaid - what happens when they occur simultaneously. Is one 'valid' and one 'unacceptable'?

And as for the idea that traditional song existed separately from the rest of culture for centuries,.....

Georgina

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 08 - 04:53 AM

'Jim Carroll, however seems to regard older musicians utterances as if they were unquestioned gospel. Dick Miles.'
Cap'n,
Please don't make this another slanging match.
We have gone to singers and musicians for information; whatever we have been given we have put against what we already know or think we know. I am passing on what we have been told by singers and musicians and what we believe to be true.
I would be more than happy to add anything you might have to contribute to the subject.
We have had numerous examples of your opinion on traditional singers in the past, all of which we have viewed, considered and placed in the appropriate receptacle.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:22 AM

Hi Georgina

I like this: "And as for the idea that traditional song existed separately from the rest of culture for centuries,....."

I think those of us who argue for 'trade' being a constituent - (NOT a major force but a significant influence*) in the development of traditional music (as in 'folk repertoire,' NOT 'folk activity' remember) would agree that this is the nub. Paid musicians also made/make music just for fun.. Amateur musicians sometimes gained/gain some reward.. Professionals also engage/d in voluntary activities.. Volunteers usually have other means of support without which they couldn't afford to volunteer.. Etc etc.

Boy do I wish I'd used a car as my analogy - wheels and engine instead of horse and wheels (and steering and bakes and everything else). My whole point was to suggest a metaphor that demonstrated the INTERACTION of two, and (as I stressed in my caveat) many more elements working TOGETHER to deliver forward motion, (not to illustrate two separable components)! I thought I'd made that clear, but obviously not.

Tom

*As I've also said many times, that influence (again I'm talking about repertoire, not activity here) become much greater with the advent of recording technology, but there is plenty of proof in this thread of influence long before that. I'm no historian, but I was discussing this with my sister at the weekend. She has a doctorate in medieval history, and plays early music with a bunch of Oxford dons. When I said I'd been advised that trade had no place in the development of traditional music she nearly died laughing!

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:45 AM

Dave/Georgina;
I don't think we are a million miles apart, rather it seems to be a question of emphasis.
I am not saying that money NEVER entered the equation, rather that it played no major part in the creation and circulation of what we refer to as 'folk-song' (aye, there's the rub!)
Georgina:
According to Hugill, there is no evidence of payment for shanty-singing, and there was not even, certainly in latter days of sail, a recognised post of 'shantyman'. Rather, he mentions privileges, not cash, for singing as part of his general duties. He is somewhat vague on what happened in earlier times, but it seems to me there is no evidence one way or the other.
For every wet-nurse or nursery maid who, as part of their general duties, sang the squire's or vicar's child to sleep, there were countless mothers who sang their children to sleep without payment.
For me, the idea of a 'ballad maker' running off a 'folk-song' to make a few bob isn't the way it worked. The determining factor was not his writing the song, payment or not, but whether or not it was taken up and put through the 'folk mincer'. The same applies to the songs sung at medieval monasteries.
It seems to me that, apart from exceptions mentioned earlier, cash has only become a major factor in more recent days and 'valid' and 'unacceptable' really doesn't enter into the equation, not as a point of principle anyway. It really depends on how the question is handled.
Here in Ireland we are enjoying a traditional music 'boom' (in the best sense). The response of the local arts bodies has not been to build on that success, but rather, to encourage local youngsters to find out how to make a living from it.... hmmmm. I'm certainly not opposed to people making money from their music, but I would suggest that the emphasis should be rather towards bringing in those who are happy to make it a pastime. Those who have the inclination to be professional will, hopefully, find their own way.
There is also pressure to make music a part of the 'cultural tourism' industry' (god save us all from the Bunratty Castle medieval banquets). Once again, to his eternal shame, this featured prominently in the director of Comhaltas's report to the senate a few years ago.
Pub sessions here are being effected greatly by commercial pressures. When we first came over here, these were maid up exclusively of unpaid musicians gathering spontaneously to play together. Nowadays the publicans are tending to book traditional 'stars' who will arrive on time, play for the time they are paid for and then go home. They haven't introduced clocking on and off yet, but it's a matter of time if things continue in this direction.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:17 AM

GUEST,Tom Bliss

Amateur musicians sometimes gained/gain some reward.. Professionals also engage/d in voluntary activities..

I'm still curious as to where the dividing line comes between those two.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:19 AM

'Jim Carroll, however seems to regard older musicians utterances as if they were unquestioned gospel. Dick Miles.'
Cap'n,
Please don't make this another slanging match.
We have gone to singers and musicians for information; whatever we have been given we have put against what we already know or think we know. I am passing on what we have been told by singers and musicians and what we believe to be true.
I would be more than happy to add anything you might have to contribute to the subject.
We have had numerous examples of your opinion on traditional singers in the past, all of which we have viewed, considered and placed in the appropriate receptacle.
Jim Carroll, we, here refers to the royal we,Jim, meaning you.
well I am   sorry I disagree with you,just because some musician has said in the past that cash is the ruination of the music,Iam not prepared to accept that as gospel,
O Carolan is the first example that springs to my mind,how did patronage ruin his music,on the contrary,without patronage,we would not have his beautiful compositions.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:39 AM

Sorry Jim, I was in such haste to set the record straight that I didn't respond to your points to me.

Language:

It's not a matter of disproving a theory, as in science. It's about being understood in the wider world.

I have great sympathy with those who want to maintain the 54 definition as primary in discussions like this. Life would be much easier if there was a consensus now as there was then. But I'd suggest that while the intent of the definition is still completely valid, it has been undermined by a general shift in the meaning of one key word; 'folk.'

This in unfortunate, but it happens all the time. Whenever we want to understand an old defintion or law, we have to go back to the accepted meanings of the words, by the majority, at the time they were written.

For example, when the word 'gay' began to mean 'homosexual' rather than 'light-hearted' no doubt there were those who resisted it, but the natural force of change was too strong, and eventually the lexicographers just added a second definition. Today many people will say 'light-hearted' rather than 'gay' to avoid being misunderstood. Perhaps in time the old meaning will die out entirely - then we'll have to look in an old dictionary, from the time our source work was written, to understand a title like, for example, The Gay Gordons correctly.

It's a shame for the Old 54, but it happened. The definition is still good, but it needs either a sub-clause, or a new unambiguous word (well, unambiguous for the time being anyway)!

Copyright:

I understand that some bad things happened around the copyright of traditional material in the early days of the revival, particularly in Ireland - but i don't know enough to comment. I can only pass on the situation in the UK today as I understand it.

I do agree with you about the issue of collection on out-of-copyright material (though not on copyright arrangements, which I support as benign), and am actively and tenaciously seeking change with PRS on this.

In general:

I think I understand entirely where you are coming from, and have no quibble with anything you say concerning the areas you define, within your own definition. However, much of what people have been saying in this thread refers to issues that are not within that definition - and the problem has been caused by two conflicting uses of the same one word.

Let me make a stab at another analogy. I'm sorry if this also falls over, but it's just the way my mind works, ok? (no analogy ever stands up to close scrutiny anyway, they're just a device to try to help shed a new light on an old subject).

Lets take the word 'football,' about 20 years after William Web Ellis did his famous run.

I only use 'football' to describe the game that we now call soccer. Then someone at a party tells me he thinks that the art of defence has declined in English football. I tell him he's talking rubbish, because the English soccer team are the best defenders in the world. Only trouble is, he's talking about Rugby.

See what I mean?

Tom

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:41 AM

"I'm still curious as to where the dividing line comes between those two."

I have been saying till I'm blue in the face that there IS no dividing line

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:03 PM

I am not saying that money NEVER entered the equation, rather that it played no major part in the creation and circulation of what we refer to as 'folk-song'

I'm more than happy with that, Jim. It's the absolute I had difficulties with. Now, here's a funny thing though, I have also have the same 'rub' as you mention - What is folk? I for one don't want to go through that whole lot again and as I admitted earlier, my definition may be far wider than some.

Here is a thought to bear in mind though. How do we know that money played no major part in what we now refer to as folk song? When a tune is termed 'traditional' I think it means we do not know the origin. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. If we don't know the origin however how do we know it was not written by a professional? If so then it is a combination of the 'folk process' and professionalism that combined to create that song. We certainly cannot say that money played no major part simply because we do not know if it or didn't! We will never be able to prove it one way or another I guess - Which is why I occasionaly feel the need to dispute the 'facts' quoted:-)

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:11 PM

If so then it is a combination of the 'folk process' and professionalism that combined to create that song.

Sorry that should really read "If so then it is a combination of the 'folk process' and professionalism that combined to create that song as we know it today."

Also, I am more than happy to be educated if any of my points are invalid.

Cheers.

D,

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 08 - 01:36 PM

". . . I'm using the modern 'common' meaning of the term, rather than the 54 definition. . . ."

Tom, can you (or someone) direct me to the thread, or some other source, where the 1954 definition was stated? I can remember reading it, but I can't remember offhand who framed it or what it exactly says. I'd like to give it a good look.

Thanks!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 18 May 08 - 02:44 PM

I can't find the mudcat thread but this is from another site:

"The "official" definition of folk music [was] laid out in 1954 by the International Folk Music Council. snip

"Folk music is the product of a musical tradition that has been evolved through the process of oral transmission. The factors that shape the tradition are: (i) continuity which links the present with the past; (ii) variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or the group; and (iii) selection by the community, which determines the form or forms in which the music survives … The term can be applied to music that has been evolved from rudimentary beginnings by a community uninfluenced by popular and art music and it can likewise be applied to music which has originated with an individual composer and has subsequently been absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community … The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready-made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk character."

It is the last sentence that's relevant to this discussion. If you accept that the word 'folk' still means this definition and only this definition, then under the terms of the last sentence you do indeed specifically exclude any influence by the original lost writer or known writers in more recent times - and by association any influence by performer, arranger, collector or other tradesperson.

So those who cleave to this definition are completely correct in what they say.

But if you believe that the word 'folk' no longer implies only this definition, and now encompasses a much wider selection of music (both interms of activity and repertoire), then the last part may still, or may no longer be, relevant - in which case the influence of the writer and/or collector, publisher, producer etc can indeed be germane.

I'm in the latter camp, purely because I need to talk far more often to people who have never heard of the 54, and probably wouldn't take it very seriously even it if they did, than to those who hold it to be of unchanged relevance.

Here is another more recent definition, which I myself prefer - even though it's only by Mr Wicked P. Dear:

"Folk music can have a number of different meanings, including:

"Traditional music: The original meaning of the term "folk music" was synonymous with the term "Traditional music", also often including World Music and Roots music; the term
"Traditional music" was given its more specific meaning to distinguish it from the other definitions that "Folk music" is now considered to encompass.

"Folk music can also describe a particular kind of popular music which is based on traditional music. In contemporary times, this kind of folk music is often performed by professional musicians. Related genres include Folk rock and Progressive folk music.

"In American culture, folk music refers to the American folk music revival, music exemplified by such musicians as Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Bob Dylan and Joan Baez, who popularized and encouraged the lyrical style in the 1950s and 1960s."

Tom

PS sorry if someone else has posted in the interim - I was interrupted by a Rosbif (another example of contentious language evolution)

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 08 - 03:42 PM

Thanks, Tom! I will give it some thorough study.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 08 - 04:06 PM

Tom
Thanks for that; thought we'd fallen out.
If we had a bundle of definitions to argue the toss over, perhaps we might get somewhere; as it stands we have on the one hand an established definition, on the other a school of thought which has no definition and appear incapable of constructing one. Simple solution; disprove the old one and replace it – surely.
Have just seen your posting and comments on the '54 definition. Surely if you are an official in a responsible position on the issue of copyright it is your duty to tell it as it is, not how you/they would prefer it to be. It appears to me somewhat patronising to assume that because people don't necessarily understand the situation now, that this will always be the case.
A strong argument for defining your terms clearly is the fact that you have two distinct bodies of material; one in the public domain, the other, somebody's property. I couldn't help but notice that you chose to ignore my invitation to relinquish your claim on your own compositions and allow them to fall into public domain.
You seem to be under the impression that all copyright abuses were a thing of the distant past – and in Ireland. Peter Kennedy (very English) was working for the British Broadcasting Corporation (even more English). He died a year or so ago and was making claims on traditional material right to the end. We are still living with the mess he created.
I seem to remember that the PRS claim for payment on the grounds that 'copyrighted music 'might' be played during the course of the evening' arose from an incident in the UK – may be wrong.
Dave,
Don't even go there. If you think folk definition is contentious, try dipping your toe into 'who wrote the folk songs' and watch your feet disappear.
On of the defining factors of folk songs (with exceptions, I hasten to add) is their anonymity. Surely, if there is payment in the offing a composer is hardly likely to conceal his/her identity
During the course of our collecting we have encountered a somewhat strange phenomenon. On several occasions we have recorded songs, here in Clare and also from Travellers, which must have been composed during the lifetimes of the singers. On two of these (both composed communally), the singers were present when the songs were made. Yet each time we have drawn a blank on finding the composers. It just didn't seem important enough to be remembered.
Cap'n,
Folk scholarship is bedevilled by the fact that by and large we have no information on our singing traditions from the real experts – the traditional singers. It is a sad and extremely puzzling fact that nobody has bothered to ask their view on their art. This, to me, shows a great contempt and disregard for the people who gave us our songs and music, a contempt displayed pretty typically by your comments.
As far as I'm concerned, they were there when the house and crossroads dances were destroyed by the 1935 Dance Halls Act which levied a monetary charge on all such activities in order to drive people into the newly constructed ballrooms.
They were there when the influx of commercial records from the U.S. all but destroyed regional musical styles. They witnessed these events; we didn't, and it seems like basic good manners to listen to what they have to say on the subject, and not dismiss them out of hand, as you have done in the past and are doing once again.
I have given you an account of what is happening here in the sessions - please tell me I am imaging it all!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 May 08 - 04:44 PM

Jim I live In Ireland.
every friday there is a session in Ballydehob,no one gets paid ,the session was started by my partner Cathy Cook,in 1987.
there is also a session in Skibbereen on a Tuesday,which is an unpaid session.
many pubs are closing in ireland,most of those that can afford to pay musicians, are those that make their money through selling food.
the reasons that pubs[in rural areas are closing are many,but drink driving laws,and lack of available public transport /taxis is an important one][money does play a part here] taxis drivers do not want to pick up a fare and go out into the country when they can stay in a town, picking up fares from a nightclub].
JIM I dont dismiss comments out of hand,I listen and if singers/musicians say something that makes sense,I consider it ,if they say something like money has been the ruination of music without backing it up,as you have done, I dismiss it.
one of the reasons,I have been involved in the Ballydehob Jazz festival,is to bring people to Ballydehob .
I suggest,that if you are concerned about rural Ireland ,you get involved in organising something that brings people to your area,.voting NO re the Lisbon Treaty,and protecting rural agricultural incomes,might be astart.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 May 08 - 04:46 PM

Comhaltas of course help, by bringing lots of peopleWHO SPEND MONEY to difFerent areas through the COUNTY /REGIONAL and NATIONAL fleadhs.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 May 08 - 05:56 PM

Exactly what I am saying, Jim. I think we may just be interpreting it in different ways! You say "Dave, Don't even go there. If you think folk definition is contentious, try dipping your toe into 'who wrote the folk songs' and watch your feet disappear."

That is just what I am saying - With folk songs, particulary old folk songs, Ie - Not like the ones you mention where the composer is still alive. We just do not know who wrote it. If we do not know who wrote it, how can we say with any degree of credibility that they did not make money out of it?

Simple question surely?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 18 May 08 - 06:11 PM

I think Jim that we have a different idea of what a definition is for.

Certainly if you are, for example, an academic or a legislator looking for specific, verifiable definitions, then something like the 54 is necessary. I'm not sure what the PRS line on this is, but it's certainly true that their definition of 'traditional' has nothing to do with the 54. They tell me the word is synonymous with 'anon' and 'in public ownership' - which just means the writer has been dead for more than 70 years, or can be assumed so. And no more - certainly nothing about "variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or the group" for example.

I guess I'm assuming that the 54 was an academic exercise, designed to help those who wanted to study the music to isolate one specific genre - and as such I'm sure it did the job admirably.

But I'm not an academic. I'm a businessmen, and I'm interested in exciting people in, in descending order; a) 'real' live music, b) music with both story and history c) music that connects with their local culture. This is mainly for personal reasons, but I row the bigger boat whenever can too.

Like anyone involved in marketing I have to start with what my listener knows. If the very first thing I do is lecture them on the precise derivation of the music I'm presenting, and how it connects or doesn't with another genre, I'm going to loose them before I've started.

So I use with the second definition - as do the vast majority of people involved in things called, by them, 'folk.'

The issue here is what the people who used the word when writing on this thread meant by it.

It's clear to me that a good few of the 'no-money' camp were meaning the 54, and that most of us 'don't be so silly' camp were meaning the Wikepedia - and that should have been obvious from what we said. The influence of people like Carolan goes without saying within the Wiki definition.

Hmmm - I don't think I'm being patronising in suggesting that we're unlikely to persuade 90% of the population of the English speaking world to change their understanding of the meaning of word 'folk' now. Or to find a new one for that thing. Just realistic. The genie's been out of the bottle for 40 years, Jim! Far better to go with the flow and find a new word to describe the 54 definition - and 'Traditional' seems to be doing quite a resoanable job - for now, so why not just use that?

Because it's not a matter of 'disprov[ing] the old definition' - just resolving two conflicting uses of the same word.

The 54 still defines something very important - which has not changed. It's only the WORD used at the FRONT of the equasion that's changed. Not the definition itself.

Another example:

To a TV engineer 'red' is one very specific hue. To everyone else it includes cerise, and scarlet and crimson, and pillar box, and cherry and lots of other shades. But the TV engineer knows that if he sets the cameras to record crimson, the pictures will be unusable, so he retains the correct kelvin temperature as his definition for 'true' primary red (at work anyway). But he also understands that when his wife says she's wearing red lipstick it's very unlikely to be the primary colour.

Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure what this sentence means:

"Surely if you are an official in a responsible position on the issue of copyright it is your duty to tell it as it is, not how you/they would prefer it to be."

I'm not an official - is that what you thought? But absolutely they should tell it like it is! I'm only telling it as I understand it to be - as no more than a writer-member of PRS with an active interest in improving various aspects of their operations around foolk (new word to avoid argument - the bigger term)!

As for copyright, there are effectively three states. 1) Copyright, 2) out-of copyright and 3) shared copyright, where protection only relates to individual use.

I missed your challenge I'm afraid in my rush to correct to another post. I use the word 'folk' to descibe what I do ONLY because the vast majority of other people do so. I would never call my stuff traditional, and as I'm sure people who've been to my gigs will verify I do try to at least give the gist of the argument and explain the difference between what I do and the 'real thing.'

'Folk' is the easy option, yes - but I do sing real folk songs, and I participate in real folk gatherings too, so it's not cut and dried, and in the absence of another word I have little option.

It wasn't me that decided the word had changed it's meaning. Bigger boys did it, and then told me it was ok to use a bad word.

I'm not sure how having me relinquish my rights would prove anything. Perhaps when I'm not quite so desperate to pay the bills I might (though not till after Dickie Attenborough has categorically turned down my offer to use Spirit of Ecstasy in his new film)!

But the point is, Jim we are innocently making cerise and pink and crimson here. We're not doing anything bad. We're not spoiling the primary red, or passing our stuff off as the primary colour. We'd just using the WORD red - and ONLY because it's common practice - the normal correct use of language - to do so.

I'll make no comment about Kennedy, though I've read much about him here.

The PRS collection and reporting system is not perfect, but it's a reasonable first stab at a workable solution in a very very complex situation. That said, you can drive coach and horses though some areas (including the "copyrighted music 'might' be played during the course of the evening" issue) which is why I'm still agitating for change - but that's a thread all on its own.

Tom

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 08 - 02:34 AM

Tom,
90% of the English-speaking world don't have a definition for folk music - we never managed to involve them - more later - too bloody early.
Cap'n
I think I just heard the first cuckoo
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 08 - 03:26 AM

Dave,
Didn't say the composers were still alive - don't know of any composers of folk songs still alive.
I said that they are known.
Still too early.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 19 May 08 - 04:09 AM

Jim, yes 90% don't have a Definition (note my capital) but they do have a definition (note the absence) - in that they'll use the term, and will know what they mean by it. That meaning will vary hugely, and though it may include the 54 (though most would probably only have a vague idea about oral transmission), it will also include all manner of other types of music and activity and style.

Wiki makes a good stab at it, I think - though my personal view is that the word is now so vague as to have little real value other than to point people in a general acoustic/historical direction. I liken it to the word 'art.' It's art if the maker calls it so - the consumer then only has to decide how much they like it. Thus also with 'folk.'

I noticed you mentioned to Dave, as you've often said before, that the singers you collected placed little value on the composition of music.

This is a very interesting point to me. I'm not in the least surprised by it, because people will always tend to take things for granted unless the value is pointed out to them, and one side effect of oral transmission is that there was no-one around to do this.

Just because people (including even the authors themselves, perhaps) were happy not to place much value on the creation of new works doesn't mean that the creation has no intrinsic worth. (And we have no evidence that it was always thus anyway). We, with perhaps a wider perspective on the history of indigenous music, are not forced to inherit the value system of the early 20th century along with a much older repertoire.

If I was sitting on the International Folk Music Council in 1954, I'd have wanted to add a clause which recognised the role of the people who created music (and maybe suggested that better-written material might be least adapted), and also the role of the 'ambassadors' (travelling musicians as well as migrants, as well as collectors/printers) who distributed and cross-referenced material between of local areas and regions - because it's now clear that this happened a lot, and no study of local music will be worth much if this is not taken into account.

The IFMC seem to have missed this point - and in so doing may have left a loophole through which Guthrie, Dylan and Simon were able to drive their horses - starting the devaluation and confusion we see today.

Tom

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 08 - 05:19 AM

Tom,
I said, or tried to say that they attached no importance to the authorship of their songs; the songs were very much a part of their lives - that's why many of them lasted for centuries. They certainly did not hang a price tag on them - as appears to be happening here.
In the early part of the 20th century Sharp et al identified and collected a body of songs which he referred folk. He had a stab at analysing the characteristics of the material - flawed, but certainly adequate, and it was from the early work that the 1954 definition was arrived at. The term was applied an identifiable body of song and referred to it's origins ('folk' has a separate dictionary reference apart from it's musical and lore one). To say that the IFMC payed no attention to the people who made and circulated the songs is utter nonsense - that's exactly what they did and that is the strength of the definition when used correctly.
Some time after the start of the revival, a section of the singers involved, who may well have started out on a folk basis, Dylan for instance, moved away and began to use the term as a cultural dustbin in which to discard anything that they had no immediate identification for. This eventually led to the mass exodus (myself included) from the clubs and the confusion that exists at present.
Academically nothing changed; the term continued to be in use, the collections and the research still appeared under the heading 'folk' - hence the doublespeak.
Because Wikepedia got it wrong and is out of step with the established definitions is no reason to continue down that particular road.
If you wish to apply the term to your music - please explain the connection between it and that which has been in use for at least a century, and is still in full use in research (please don't mention the talking horse!)
From all points of view it is would be far better to recognise that we are dealing with totally different genres of music and identify them as such - we were here first - get your own name!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 19 May 08 - 05:39 AM

"Within the broader music industry, and beyond, what some get for their hour's work compared with others is ridiculous and inhumane; hence, many relatively competent musicians within the folk-scene are really struggling to make ends meet; so, if we like fair competition, we don't like capitalism. A better way, as I've suggested in verse, is to accept that humans are competitive, and have strong regulations (partly via nationalisation) to make that competition as fair as possible – whilst also providing "safety-net" support." (From davidfranks.741.com).

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 19 May 08 - 06:00 AM

Well Jim we've reached the point we got to last time, with no progress again!

I guess I need to clarify that for me (I can't speak for others in this thread) that recognising the importance of authorship and 'non-54-folk' transmission, is not only about price tag. In modern terms a price tag may indeed be morally appropriate, and it's a shame that in the detachment of value from authorship this baby has somehow been thrown out with the bath water - but there is an academic imperative too. The study of '54-folk' song must inevitably work back and back towards the author - that's the logical route, and then one can come back up another strand, and so start to suggest some really useful conclusions. But because this information was not considered very important we've lost more of it than we might, and the task is more difficult than it could have been. So it's not only about money - but study too.

I'm sure the IFMC did pay attention to makers and 'short-circuiters' - but the wording of the 54 deliberately seeks to play down that attention. It focuses, for good reason, on the 'folk process' because that's what interested those people at that time. But there is another story too, running parallel and woven through that one - or perhaps just another way of looking at things - and now there is a strong movement to recognise the influence of writers and writers-down and other 'trade' elements - which the 54 definition does not assist.

Leaving the word 'folk' out of it for a moment - by definition these people are sidelined in the 54, only because the 54 was shining a light on just one aspect of musical history.

But there are other aspects too which are equally worthy of study and debate. I'm interested in the history of music, period, not only of the oral/rural/local process - so I want to know who wrote the songs, to what extent court payers fed into the oral system, how much influence travelling players had - etc, and the 54 is not particularly helpful in this regard because the whole point of it is to focus on the oral tradition only. There was a strong non-oral element, and a strong trade element to the development of the music I personally enjoy today.

You and I do agree entirely about the unhelpfulness of the confusion and double-speak. The academic use of the word is, as you say, still current and valid between those 'in the know', but folk music academics are only a tiny handful compared with the numbers who enjoy that they choose to call folk.

You may well be right about Dylan et al - and maybe history will judge them harshly, but we artists and promoters have to work with common rather than 'correct' language. As I've said, 'folk' is not the only word that's lost its 'true' meaning. It happens to words all the time ('wicked' is another good example). You can either go with the flow, and make progress, or sit in a bunker and snipe at the passing throng.

I'd find my own name for my music - in fact I avoid the f word as much as I can for this very reason, but it's used in the wider sense by nearly everyone I know, so when I'm labelled by others as a 'folk musician' I'll accept it because those who are comfotable with that tag are a massive majority. That's how language works, I'm afraid.

Wikipedia is not 'wrong' or 'out of step.' It's an accurate explanation of what happened - and it certainly covers my music - self-penned and trad, as well as the activities I take part in.

It's a shame, and yes we now have a muddle - but genie/bottle stuffing is not likely to the answer.

Tom

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 19 May 08 - 06:06 AM

It beggars belief that singers or musicians were n e v e r remunerated, even if that was grandpa getting free beer at the local to do his turn. Technology changed communication as it's still doing today - is the internet art of the problem, propogating quasi-industrial musical hegemony through paypal transfers or allowing kindred spirits to keep tradition alive?
1954 definitions are fine but folk must then be seen in the same light as historical re-enactment, the sealed knot and so on; hermetically sealed discourses divorced from the people with whom they originated and mediated by third parties, collectors, intellectuals, i.e. orthogonal to the seamless, atemporal oral record that's assumed by the term 'folk'.

If I have a gripe it's with those who want to keep debate in the nursery, clutching at 'simple truths' where there are none, 'certainties' where there is contradiction and nuance. If people don't like the long words they can of course, always kiss my @rse.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 19 May 08 - 06:20 AM

BTW, if anyone's interested Vladimir Propp
did some excellent work on the structure of the Russian folk tale, many aspects of which are shared by English tales and songs, a language which shares a similar grammatic structure.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 19 May 08 - 06:25 AM

According to Isaac Walton in "The Complete Angler" (1652), folks definitely did sing for a fish or two/their supper.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 May 08 - 06:32 AM

Re definitions: I think there is a difference between what (these days) I would consider to be a folk song and what material I might consider appropriate in a general folk club... Some of it (notably what I might describe as coming from "The Bob Dylan school of contemporary [American I suppose] singer-songwriting) I might even dislike and wish it never had found a place in the broader usages of "folk" but I tend to agree we are there and can't turn time back.

---
divorced from the people
I love that one. "Traditional folk" wasn't. Little in the way of "contemporary folk" (including stuff I enjoy) really reaches many. Mostly, it's the pop songs that do that.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 May 08 - 07:13 AM

Sorry, Jim, I misinterpreted you then - The passage I had in mind was -

During the course of our collecting we have encountered a somewhat strange phenomenon. On several occasions we have recorded songs, here in Clare and also from Travellers, which must have been composed during the lifetimes of the singers. On two of these (both composed communally), the singers were present when the songs were made. Yet each time we have drawn a blank on finding the composers. It just didn't seem important enough to be remembered.

I took it to mean that the as the songs were composed during the life of the singer, the composer could, theoreticaly, still be alive.

Anyway - not to worry. I am not going to get hung up on that point because what I was saying, was that when the composer is not known, we cannot say if they made any money out of the song or not. Can we?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 08 - 08:51 AM

Jon,
I realise that I am generalising, but one of the main differences between the two types of song for me is that while the traditional ones have been composed in a universal manner, thus enabling them to be taken up, adapted and used to represent different people and communities, the singer/songwriter type are, more often than not, introspective and private.
Some of the songwriters of the early revival (MacColl, Tawney, Rosselson, Guthrie etc, and even Dylan for a short time) set out to create universal songs, and they will, I believe, be with us for a long time to come. Quite honestly, I find the subject matter and form of most of the modern ones indistinguishable from that of the pop repertoire. I really can't see them being taken up and adapted, nor can I see them surviving the life or interest of the composers. Apart from anything else, the custom of copyrighting them will go a long way towards making sure of that anyway.
Can I make it clear that I am NOT making a value judgment on all this. Some of our most beautiful and important song and poetic literature is introspective. The traditional compositions reflected aspects of the communities, or trades, or ways of life - thence lies their importance and their difference.
Dave;
"when the composer is not known, we cannot say if they made any money out of the song or not. Can we?"
I would have thought that if the songs were being sold, the composers name would have survived, as did those of Waugh, Bamford, Hogg, and the host of local minor songwriters and kail yaird poets. Even the compositions that made it to the broadside presses seldom came with an named author.
The fact of the existence of a huge body of anonymous material dating back centuries and surviving (in some cases) into the mid 20th c. surely reinforces this.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 May 08 - 09:29 AM

I'm not convinced, Jim. Yes, the loads of anonymous material could indicate that the songs were not sold. It could also indicate that the businessmen or gentry who bought them were far wiser than the poor uneducated songwriters. There is ample evidence of songwriters being ripped off to this day and maybe, just maybe, some of the songs we love were purchased for enough to make the composer happy at the time but with no thought of perpeptuation of their name. As you say, even some broadsides are anonymous. We do not know who the author was. I think the only safe conclusion we can draw is that we will never know who, if anyone, benefitted and how!

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 19 May 08 - 09:50 AM

Well on a purely personal note I'd be far less likely to allow modern songs of an introspective and private nature as 'folk' (I personally would never say 'folk song' unless I was referring to Trad - but that's just me). I'd probably say 'folky.'

But there is a MASSIVE canon of work between the trad repertoire and the ARSS stuff you'rev referring to. Where do - to take just today's writers - Graham Miles, John Connelly, Jez Lowe, George Papavgeris, Matt Armour, Paul Metzes, Vin Garbutt, Ralph McTell, Allan Taylor, Bonnie Shaljean - golly scores of them - fit into that? There are plenty of modern writers who compose universal songs, trade songs and story songs - which you can't possibly dismiss as introspective and therefore short-lived for that reason. And they are indeed being taken up - in spades!

And there have always been writers who wrote sometimes about their feelings, sometimes about their communities, and sometimes about events. I'm afraid I'm not at all with you on that one, Jim.

I'm also not sure we can surmise that just because a makers name wasn't included on printed sheets that the writer never received any payment. You have said yourself that the culture was not to think about passing on the authorship of songs along with the words and/or tune. But that doesn't prove that publishers didn't 'employ' writers to provide material for them to sell. I'm not saying they did, just that we can't presume they didn't from your point above - specially as we know very well that lots of writers were typically were paid at various periods in history. They may not have fallen into the 54 definition, but their work soon did (e.g. Carolan) - and that's what this thread is all about.

We should bear in mind that until royalties became feasible with 20th century technology, the only realistic method of payment would have been outright sale, with ownership passing on at that point, and thus no need for record-keeping of any kind. It's hardly surprising that composers names are so rarely known.

Tom

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 19 May 08 - 09:51 AM

If you take the idea of a 'meme', a unit of cultural information that spreads through practice, habit, song, dance, etc., as the 'virus' by which folk is spread, you are forced to confront the idea that this unit will also mutate and transform, the better to carry information appropriate for the time.
The idea of folk is quite flexible IMO, while still being irreducibly folkish, though individuals find some forms more resonant than others. I can find significance that's personally moving in say, sea shanties, blues and old timey, much less in bluegrass, modern idioms like Dylanesque and highly mannered English interpretations of folk (contemporary sensibilities either have the knack of emoting historical issues successfully or they don't and no amount of foldirolling can transport the listener).

Money may be the root of all evil but if folk is a rarified commodity, which purists seem to suggest it is, it becomes a valuable one. Quality isn't suggested by craftsmanship and virtuosity alone - the most obvious of popular temptations - but by verissimilitude and cultishness. I'm prepared to believe folk music lost something when it took the dollar/pound but there's no way of getting back to Eden, wish as we might. The greenback virus is part of the dna of music now, original sin if you will but whether harking back to a pre-avoirdupois state can tell us anything about music or ourselves is open to question.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 08 - 12:17 PM

Can we knock something on the head before we start slinging slogans about.
If I go into a shop and ask for mushroom soup, I'm being specific, not purist
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 May 08 - 12:26 PM

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 19 May 08 - 02:34 AM

Tom,
90% of the English-speaking world don't have a definition for folk music - we never managed to involve them - more later - too bloody early.
Cap'n
I think I just heard the first cuckoo
Jim Carroll.very good Jim,Ihope he was calling in a major third.
but you havent still backed up your statement, money is the ruination of the music.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: glueman
Date: 19 May 08 - 01:05 PM

The fault line is the us/them thing. Is folk the music of the masses or not? If it isn't, who's music is it? Is Cajun or Zydeco a Frankenstein of some devalued primal form, or grown up music sold on the market place?
To be taken seriously, serious folk has to decide if the meat is in the tradition, the sound, the label or the chap doing the playing? To paraphrase art, is everything a folk musician does folk? Is mushroom soup any less authentic if it's sold as consomme champignon in a fancy restaurant, or to be posh, is the form inscribed in the delivery.
Nobody seems to have the answer including the man at 1954.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 08 - 03:36 PM

"Is mushroom soup any less authentic if it's sold as consomme champignon"
No, but if I order mushroom soup and I am brought a plate of baked beans something has gone severely wrong with our communication system.
Nobody has yet told me what the erzatz product and the real thing have in common enough for them to fall under the same classification - please tell why they are both 'folk'.
As many times as people use the term Geaneology it will remain an 'alogy' until somebody makes a cease for it being otherwise.
As many times as somebody may repeat that the 1954 definition is irrelevant, I have yet to hear one challenge to it.
Cap'n
One more time,
The older music saw the kitchen and crossroads dances virtually decimated by a charge being levied (one shilling per head I think) on everybody attending. This was backed up by the priests who claimed they didn't approve of young people meeting at such events unsupervised, but who really wanted to drive the people into church-run dance-halls (1935). The music barely survived this particular period.
Commercial records by Coleman et al established a manner of playing which virtually destroyed regional styles.
In latter days, when people started to be paid fees for playing at local bars, in many cases the sessions disappeared, to be replaced by recitals by professional musicians. It happened here in two pubs that have hosted sessions throughout most of the 20th century. It is the practice of some of these musicians to treat their 'booking' as a job of work, to get there at the allotted time, play up to the time they are paid for, and go home.
The complaint of the older people is that the 'craic' has gone from the music. In the old days the session was where you could go to play, stop and chat if you felt like it. In many cases it has become formal.
I won't start to talk about wrangles over playing (and in some cases recording) 'other people's tunes' that have caused dissention, and in some cases caused rancour in the communities, and and occasionally within families.
The last time we were in Connemara we were asked to pay €5.00 per head to go into a pub to listen to sean nós singing. Five years earlier we were in the same pub and when we asked about local singers, the feller we spoke to sang us half a dozen songs.
Our local traditional music centre is running seminars on how to make money out of singing.
All this may make you very happy - it pisses me off.
As I said, the older singers and musicians were there - we were not. Listen to them and you might - just - learn something.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 19 May 08 - 04:39 PM

Jim, there may be nothing to connect the ersatz with the real, or there may be much. It's a matter of personal taste and opinion - but they are NOT falling under the same classification. They are NOT both the same thing - any more than than primary red and generic red are the same. They are different things with the same name. One contains the other, that is all.

There are two different classifications here, an outer one and and an inner one, which happen (wrongly, stupidly, confusingly) to use the same word.

I've come up with a number of metaphors and careful explanations, yet you still seem to feel that we're trying to shoe-horn the wider description into the narrow, just because the label happens to be the same. We are not.

I'll have one final go, then I'll have to bow out.

'Grill' describes a type of restaurant, but also a kind of cooker. They have ovens and hobs and microwaves in the kitchen too. The chef knows only one machine makes toasted cheese, but he's happy for the whole business to be called a grill.

Or, to pick up on your metaphor, we have a tin of soup labelled 'folk.'

We have a larder labelled 'folk' - which contains the tin labelled 'folk.'

We are not cramming the contents of the larder into the tin.

We've just got a stupid muddle over names. And of those who recognise the problem and want to avoid future confusion, some want to re-label the tin, and some the larder.

As a majority believe that 'folk' means larder, and call the soup 'trad,' that's what's happened and is still happening. I don't know how or why it happened - I wasn't there. I only know it did - and the Wiki definition explains that pretty well too.

I'm sorry the old ways are gone. But that's not only happened in music. It's called society. And for everything we loose we gain something - some of which is actually better than what we had before. Like the minimum wage and health care.

Tom

PS Actually, though I haven't challenged the 54, I have, I hope, mounted a careful case for it for be viewed in context with the broader history of indigenous music - one that includes trade writers, writers-down and musicians.

Subject: RE: Money v Folk
From: Betsy
Date: 19 May 08 - 04:50 PM

Try doing it for a living .......there are much easier ways to pay the bills.