the folk revival

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 05:06 AM

Jim, I take it you are disturbed at what is happening in the folk revival now,because you think it makes the folk revival irrelevant to traditional music.
one aspect that pleases me about the folk revival now,is the opportunity through Maritime festivals to make people [who would never dream of going to a folk club or festival]aware of one form of traditional music.
its healthy to see young people involved in the revival,however it would be great if some of them visited the National Sound Archive,and listened to Source Musicians /Singers,and absorbed their styles.The main problem then might be would the commercial mentors of people like Kate Rusby,persuade them to drop this absorption,and go back to a more accessible middle of the road-non interpretive-pop style delivery.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 05:16 AM

Giant apologies to Liverpool.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 06:00 AM

There is every chance that Kate Rusby listened to source singers. I checked this last week.

She will do whatever she wants and certainly in terms of monetary reward, headlining festivals, record sales etc she has been very successful. Looks to me that her commercial mentors (which is mainly her family) have done well by her in commercial terms.

Otherwise she will do what she wants and good luck to her.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: SimonS
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 06:21 AM

Forgive me my ignorance, but could someone explain why the cut-off point for "authentic" traditional singers is pre-revival. What did these singers have that later singers, singing entirely for their own pleasure and with songs learnt orally, do not?

I don't understand.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 06:35 AM

SimonS: a complex question, with no simple or single answer(and I'm not sure you are actually looking for an answer). But I think the most simplistic answer is: context. The "authentic traditonal" singer, and the "revival" singer, are singing, generally, in different places and for different reasons. So the same song can be two wildly different things.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: GUEST,IS
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 06:50 AM

Quoting Greg Stephens: 'The "authentic traditonal" singer, and the "revival" singer, are singing, generally, in different places and for different reasons. So the same song can be two wildly different things.'

But ALL singers, even two different so-called "authentic traditional" singers, sing in different contexts and for different reasons. For example, there's a vast difference between somebody like Elizabeth Cronin, essentially a "home" singer, and somebody like Paddy Tunney, well-accustomed to public singing (but then, someone'll come along in a minute to say that Paddy Tunney isn't an "authentic" singer).

Moreover, who's to truly determine any singer's "reason" or "reasons" for singing? These are likely to be myriad and complex to the point of being entirely fruitless to attempt to analyse.

And what about a singer such as, say, Duncan Williamson, brought up within a family/community tradition of singing and storytelling, who remains open to learning new songs from a variety of sources (including, it seems, the tune of his 'Lady and the Blacksmith' from the infamously inauthentic Martin Carthy)?

What is "authentic" about all singers (which, for me, makes the adjective redundant) is the fact that they SING. All singers sing. Some singers have a gift of engaging with songs, making songs ring true, making them their own. Some you like, some you don't.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 08:26 AM

guest IS. well said
The authentic traditional singer and the revival singer,are singing in the same place for the same reason,[folk clubs folk festivals],they each enjoy performing and they are each pleased to get money for it,,they also both often sing at home for their own enjoyment.
examples of the former are Hary Cox,WalterPardon, FredJordan,the latter include myself Dick Miles[I often sing at home purely for pleasure],and Iwould imagine Brian Peters,and most other revival singers sing for their own enjoyment.
Folkie dave,you missed my point ,Im talking about commercial influences negating style .,[sing in a certain way to maximise sales rather than bother about artistic interpretation,eg Reuben Ranzo[ashanty],create a sound like middle of the road bland pop with a folk veneer],give me A.L.LLOYD any time ,He sounded like he had listened to shanty singers at work.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 08:54 AM

Dick I understand your point very well.

But how a singer sings and how much they give into "commercial" influences is their choice. You and I can comment upon it as is our right and they are likely to take no notice - as is their right. That is their "style".

Sure, if you want to become a "traditional style" singer then it is useful to listen to the "Voices of the People" set of Topic records if you think that would be useful. Myself I would recommend Phil Tanner. But it ain't compulsory.

Personally I can't stand people who sing with a mid-atlantic twang - but it is still their choice.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: SimonS
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 09:07 AM

Greg,
No, I'm not just trying to troll. I genuinely don't understand, and never have.

It strikes me that "traditional singers" as a concept are regarded as different from "revival singers" because most of the people on this thread are direct products of the revival. I was born in the early 80s, and I can see evidence of both unbroken traditions that are not part of a revival (The Sheffield Carols, say...) and traditions that have equally complex motives as any revivalist singing long before the 60s.

Tell me if I'm wrong, and why. I genuinely want to learn.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 09:35 AM

Loves dem solo sea chanties and chain gang songs.... Will you guys shut up! I'm singing a solo here!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jerry

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: stallion
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 10:04 AM

Oh Simon S I am confused too, I sing, I sing songs I like, I join in with songs I like, I have sung at funerals, I've sung at weddings, I have sung in folk clubs and sometimes I get paid and sometimes I don't, I sing whilst doing the day job, I sing at home, but I never really consider whether what I sing is revival or traditional and so I have never realised that there was too much difference.   Well, I live and learn

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Sugwash
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 10:38 AM

I'm would imagine that Kate Rusby also sings at home for her own enjoyment. If we, as singers, don't attempt to interpret songs they would, in my opinion, quickly become stale. By all means listen to recordings of 'source' singers, try to get a sense of what the songs meant to them, admire their technique (or lack of it), but try to interpret it your own way. Of course not everyone will agree with your interpretation of, for example, that old African song Ruben Ranzo (I think it's spelt Ashanti), but hopefully it'll be fresh.

I agree with the captain that it is good that people from without the folk community get exposed to music they might not oterwise have heard whilst visiting to many Maritime Festivals. From what I've heard of shanty crews I doubt that much of what they hear will be genuinely traditional or authentic.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 11:57 AM

the Shanty Crew,Make aconcerted effort to be authentic.most other Shanty singers make a fairly good attempt,to make them sound like worksongs. Kate Rusby does not.
neither do I like her interpretation of I courted a sailor,however her diction is good, her arrangements interesting,her breath control good and she has a good voice.
but if commercial pressure forces a singer to sing in a way,that is stylistically irrelevant from the tradition,and not artistically pleasing [Shane Mcgowan springs to mind]and if the majority of u.k./irish revival singers sing in a mid atlantic accent,[and pay no attention to their roots]then it could be argued that the folk revival style is becoming irrelevant to the tradition,in my opinion that is not the case at the moment.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: concertina ceol
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 12:19 PM

Rusby sings in a Barnsley accent, in a style that she is comfortable with, so you could argue that she is "authentic" to her own style.

I would class myself as a child of the folk revival. I think it is a generational thing in some ways. Whilst I wholeheartedly respect Sam Larner, Bob Cooper etc. etc. it is hard to get my wife (who only has a passing interest in folk music) and the majority of he population interested in anything that isn't accompanied by a guitar.

I love unaccompanied singing but my wife can't really see the "entertainment" in it.

I suppose if you don't feel that you are part of the folk movement (for want of a better term) then the music can seem quirky and strange. I have long debates with my wife that she has been conditioned by decades of lisening to american and american inspired rock and aor. She and a great many people just are not used to unaccompanied singing and so it sounds slightly odd to them.

Where does this leave the folk revival? Well without it, a massive body of song, music and dance would not have been recorded, noted and/or distributed. If you like, the revival spun the plate and kept the whole thing going.

But as Carthy said on a Late Junction around 2003/2004, if you start to put traditional music and song in a box and say "it should always sound like x or y" then it will quickly die and become irrelevant. I feel it has to be rediscovered and reinterpreted every 20 years or so to continue.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 12:49 PM

I did not say Kate Rusby sang in any other accent other than her own.
your lastpoint is a good one,but for the folk revival not to be irrelevant to the tradition it still has to have a recognisable connection to its roots.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 01:08 PM

Anyone got a useful, working definition of what is a "traditional" song?

OK, since Anahata didn't like the last one (which was a definition of 'traditional', not just song) here's another.

It's local music from out there, rooted in a tradition. It is music with a sense of roots, place and community. And it is very much easier to define what it is not. Just climb to the top of a Clapham omnibus and rule out the answers you get from Joe Public to the question 'what is f*lk?'

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 01:25 PM

"It's local music from out there, rooted in a tradition. It is music with a sense of roots, place and community. And it is very much easier to define what it is not."

..well that seems well in accord with why some of us
who were young adults back in the late 70's

seriously considered our enthusiastic expression
of cheap electric guitars home-grown provincial 'punkrock'

to be our evolving topical community 'folk' music..!!!???

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: SimonS
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 01:29 PM

I'd be interested to hear a source singer singing Kate Rusbys "I courted a sailor" better Captain B. Since she wrote it, I think she's probably entitled to sing it any way she wants!!

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 01:34 PM

It is very strange that a lot of people on this forum argue with great anger that certain contemporary songs are "folk" but some aren't. It seems to me purely class snobbery that punk is not classified as folk, but The Streets of London and Seth Lakeman's latest are within the hallowed fence.Surely, if contemporary song can be folk, than why can't punk?
   Myself, I call neither folk. But I am intrigued by the snobbery which makes some modern stuff folk, but not others.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 01:38 PM

Did Capt B mention I Courted A Sailor? It's a pretty little inconsequential fakesong, but I don't think he did. He did mention Ranzo which the kRusby slowed down as Wild Goose and possibly improved (though not much). It's all OK, in fact quite nice. But not a lot to do with what we're supposed to be talking about.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 01:41 PM

Oh, and YES Greg.
Nobody but nobody will ever convince me that Joe Strummer wasn't possibly the greatest f*lk singer there ever was.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 01:53 PM

Few threads I've seen have made the old 1960's line, "Different strokes for different folks" more apropos.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 02:12 PM

The Strokes.
Excellent post-punk band,

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 02:20 PM

Definitions are more important for what they exclude than include, Greg. :-)

Jerry

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: GUEST,countrylife
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 03:04 PM

"What draws me to folk music, or popular music as I prefer it to be called, is that it is often the truest representation of a piece of time - what was happening on the other side of the plate glass at a given time in history. It is often a more accurate view than that which historians who have a particular axe to grind, would have us believe. When I came to look at some of the songs of the day, I noted that they were at odds with the secondary modern education history that I'd been brought up on. Only in odd lines - there's a spirit that rings more truthfully than some of the historians would have us believe."

- John Tams

nice term that, popular music.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 03:11 PM

Simon S your entitled to your opinion,but just because someone wrote a song it does not mean that they are the best singer of it,here is an example, Paul Metsers Farewell to theGold ,the best version of this has got to be Nic Jones interpretation.
I was AWARE Kate Rusby wrote this song,it is a reasonable effort, enhanced by clever arranging,that could have been sung a lot better,personally I doubt if many source singers would have wasted their time on it.Icertainly wont waste any more time on it,can we get back to the thread please.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 03:27 PM

'Jim, I take it you are disturbed at what is happening in the folk revival now,because you think it makes the folk revival irrelevant to traditional music'.
Cap'n,
Why should you think that I think that.... if you know what I mean.
Please don't answer questions on my behalf.
I believe that - as I have said many times before, the revival owes its existence to the tradition and we would not be here talking to each other without it.
On the other hand, there has, as far as I can see, a significant shift away from the tradition, in singing style, in repertoire, and more importantly, in function. Without all of these, the folk song revival will no longer be a folk song revival, but something else, not better, not worse, and certainly not irrelevant to those participating - just something else.
I have been following the thread on criticism with some interest, and here, along with other threads, I have gathered the impression that one of the problems is a total lack of critical analysis in many of the clubs, which has, in my opinion, led to a plummeting in singing standards. In fact it has been argued that standards and good singing are counter-productive as they frighten off the mediocre. If mediocrity is an aim, the revival will crash - and will deserve to have crashed.
The tradition - as was - will still be there, on tapes. on records, in books - and in peoples affections and memories, but nobody in their right mind wants to spend a lifetime listening to bad, or even indifferent singing, and it certainly does no favours to the tradition.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 04:49 PM

Jim,many traditional singers are excellent, some mediocre,and a few bad[unable to sing or play remotely in tune]Harkie Nesling, alien storey],so whats the difference between the revival and the tradtion then.
mediocrity is not the aim, the aim is for people to enjoy themselves and give pleasure to others.,as most people that attend folk festivals and clubs are not musical masochists,something must be right about the folk revival.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: SimonS
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 05:05 PM

Captain, I didn't say Kate was the best singer of the song, I said she had a right to sing it however she wants. You (or I) don't have to like it, but its kind of beyond critisism of being "wrong".

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: treewind
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 05:08 PM

Well, that suggest one distinguishing difference between traditional and revival singers.

Traditional singers are allowed to sing badly, revivalists aren't :-)

Seriously the image of folk music has been at times badly damaged by bad singing or fiddle playing in imitation of the worst characteristics of some recorded sources. One refreshing thing about the current young generation of performers is that they have no hangups about being able to play their instruments well!

Anahata

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 05:58 PM

Anahata,
I agree wholeheartedly - as far as instruments are concerned.
Unfortunately this hasn't filtered down to the singers.
Irish music is enjoying a tremendous popularity at present generated by the skill of the performers - surely there is a lesson to be learned there
Cap'n
You've gone done it - you've lost me again.
Who mentioned the ability or otherwise of traditional singers - not me.
I have argued in the past - and will continue to do so that their function, with very few exceptions, was not as performers, but as song carriers who, in many cases, could bring a unique experience to the songs without necessarily possessing the skills that they may once have had;(please read back correspondence - I have no intention of reviving the argument here).
This has nothing whatever to do with the poor standards which are accepted, and in some case welcomed and encouraged by some PERFORMERS in the REVIVAL (read the back correspondence again). We can all have off nights, but when off nights become the object of the exercise.....
I can enjoy myself throwing darts at a dartboard, but the height of my enjoyment comes when I hit the bull.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 06:33 PM

Irish music has enjoyed a high standard,and has many skilful performers thanks to many teachers and also to comhaltas.
No Jim ,TheTraditional singers function was not that, but as singers and entertainers in their local environment,the singers at the Blaxhall ship did not regard themselves as song carriers,they went down to their pub to have a sing and socialise.
Walter Pardon may have regarded himself as a song carrier,but I think he was THE exception,Walter was preseving the songs consciously BECAUSE he had nowhere to sing them until the folk revival came along,and gave him a platform,
not so The Blaxhall ship singers[BobHart Cyril Poacher etc]or Bob/ RonCopper and their parents[of course Bob later documented his songs],But their songs were their entertainment ,part of their social life.
Before the FIRST WORLD WAR,which decimated english male society,the Village pub had an important function,many singers sang in these pubs,they sang Traditional songs,and music hall songs they did it for enjoyment.Its only people like yourself that have hare brained ideas about song carriers,the singers were too busy enjoying themselves getting inebriated,getting laid and enjoying life,just like[ I hope] young people in the folk revival are doing right now.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 11:23 PM

Good thoughts here from some of my favorite people. I'm with Mr. Bob Coltman just about all the way. Jerry knows I'll pick the hobo/cowboy/railroader singer who puts the SONG FIRST right at the top of the list of what I enjoy listening to most. (Harry Haywire Mac McClintock personifies this singer all by himself.) And if you look at what I personally put out on recordings over the years, it's all just ol' Art and his banjo or guitar on every single track but one; that one was where Cindy Mangsen sang harmony on the chorus of an Illinois version of "Down By The Brazos" --- the Texas song about that state's rivers. Soooo, the Illinois Humanities Council just put one of my songs on their new CDs of Illinois Folk Songs. What did they pick? Of course, the song with Cindy!

I pretty much fully understand their choice...

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 02:58 AM

'THE exception,Walter was preseving the songs consciously BECAUSE he had nowhere to sing them until the folk revival came along,and gave him a platform'
How about his singing them within his tradition, before the revival was a twinkle in MacColl's, Lomax's, Lloyd's eye?
The song tradition was a fact of life for many communities for centuries before either Sharp's or the present revival came along.
Your statement appears to make the tradition irrelevant, and once again you appear to be setting up a pissing competition between the tradition and the revival - I wonder why - a nasty dose of Comhaltas Competitionitis no doubt!
'The Village pub had an important function,many singers sang in these pubs'.
Do you know this; where is your evidence? Walter or his family never sang in pubs; Sam Larner said his singing was done at sea or at home; Irish singing was entirely a home-based activity up to fairly late in its development, as I believe it was in England.
By confining folk song to entertainment you are ignoring other aspects of its function. It certainly was/is entertaining, but it is/was much, much more than that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 05:43 AM

So, what has the Folk revival evre done for us?

I guess that is another thread?

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 06:05 AM

yes Jim,The Blaxhall Ship, a village pub.In some east anglian pubs there would be an accordion behind the bar[if it wasnt there for use, why was it there]
Walter Pardon had to spend a whole winter,getting his songs up to recording standard.[in otherwords he was not practiced]
Sam Larner sang in a pub,so did the Coppers.
Bob Copper says he recalls the music that used to accompany toiling in the fields,shearing the sheep,or resting in the local Tap rooms[PUBS].He remembers the occassions on which they were sung TaTer,Beer night,hollering pot and Black ram,large and small festivals.
Please tell me what the Bothys were, if they were not places where Scottish farm workers slept, lived, told stories made their own entertainment and sang their traditional songs[They did it because that was how they made their entertainment]
Willie Scott sang at hunt functions[a social gathering],at many hunt functions,traditional songs were sung,they were sung for entertainment.
   
my point is that these singers/musicians sang/played for the enjoyment of it,not because they thought they had to to keep the songs alive,apart from Walter Pardon they did not see themselves as song carriers,they sang the songs because they enjoyed doing so. they sang during work and afterwork, they sang to relieve the drudgery of work.,and they sang to entertain each other,not because they thought they had to to keep them alive,once people[Walter Pardon] start doing that it shows the tradition is very weak.They sang for enjoyment after work and during work
now lets get back to the topic,I would also appreciate it if you refrained from personal attacks[a nasty dose of comhaltas competionitis].

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 06:12 AM

Lots of fervent - if thankfully not violent - agreement there.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: KeithofChester
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 06:24 AM

Talking of folk revivals, on Jonathan Ross last night Pete Docherty said that Bert Jansch is playing on the new Babyshambles album.

I also saw a huge list of Autumn Davey Graham dates all over the country on either Tickemaster or Ticketline the other day

What goes around comes around indeed.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 06:31 AM

Jim Carroll is doubting the significance of pubs as the places to sing, traditionally. Well, he is vastly experienced in these matters, but maybe in different places from those4 I know. I can confirm that in the far northwest of England(north Lancs/Cumbria I suppose), pubs were places where traditional(non-revival) singing flourished. Maybe not the only places, maybe not the main places, but certainly important places. And, apropos of other discussions here: it was pretty obvious in most cases who were trad and who were revival at the time I am talking about(60/70's)

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 07:17 AM

Singing was taking place in the 1950s,at the Blaxhall ship,there was singing at the EELS FOOT near LEISTON late fifties early sixties.,One of the singers was EdgarButton a traditional singer,
StephenBaldwin TRADITONAL FIDDLER RECORDED IN 1954 most of his playing had been done in local pubs[herefordshire area],according to RussellWortley,Reghall,RolloWoods and DavidBland.
then we have all the irish immigrants playing in london,in pubs in the 1950s,all of them traditional players.
here in Ballydehob,Irish traditional music was being played in the pubs[1960s] and at threshings [1950]s by my friend Jamesie Kingston[traditional fiddler].,he also played at scrioiacht,gatherings in private houses.all these musician, singers, I have mentioned were not from the Folk REVIVAL.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 08:06 AM

I trust that's not shouting I can here?

Some of us clearly enjoy an argument for it's own sake. But isn't simply polarizing positions on many features of human experience inappropriate?

People sang at home, people sang in pubs - more here, less there?

The tradition fuelled (?) the revival, the revival fuelled the tradition probably not much? Evidence of the latter please.

Cheers

Les (singing in the house not in the pub today)

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 08:14 AM

There is some contrary evidence too......

"Please tell me what the Bothys were, if they were not places where Scottish farm workers slept, lived, told stories made their own entertainment and sang their traditional songs[They did it because that was how they made their entertainment]
Willie Scott sang at hunt functions[a social gathering],at many hunt functions,traditional songs were sung,they were sung for entertainment."

Absolutely correct Dick but let's remember these were private functions and hunt suppers whilst held in pubs would be in a separate room.

These were inclusive social gatherings - not everyone was invited.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 08:19 AM

ok les I agree.I was asked to provide evidence,.The revival did fuel the tradition by providing WalterPardon and many other traditional singers musicians with a platform to perform,Julia /JOHNcLIFFORD,Fred Jordan,WillieScott,OscarWoods,BillyBennington,HarryCox,JimmyMCbeath,
BobRoberts,GordonHall,PackieByrne,BobCann,JeannieRobertson,and many more.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 08:38 AM

The folk revival kept the sound -- the instrumentation and acoustic sensibility -- alive for a generation of creative people who had a better idea of what to do with those tools to create art with them (rather than simply keeping alive a tradition).

So, even though the music of the folk revival was very un-creative (by definition), it kept a certain sound alive for people like Stephen Stills, James Taylor, Jim Croce, Gordon Lightfoot, Don McLean, and others to use to express their creative genius.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 08:42 AM

The Folk revival enabled traditional musicians to meet other traditional musicians /singers,from different parts of the country,at Folk Festivals to swop tunes, learn songs even[ possibly] learn new techniques,dare I say even improve their playing,another example of the revival fueling and strengthening the tradition.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 08:51 AM

tradional musicians, do not have to move around,to be influenced by the outside world,Jamesie Kingston Traditional Fiddler, lived five miles from me,and only had a wireless,but would learn tunes [jimmy shand]etc from the wireless,he would also learn tunes from a revival musician,like myself.
HE had in his repertoire Dashing along with the smoothing iron,he had learnt this from an english revivalist 20 years earlier,who had been on holiday in the area.
no traditional musician /singer is an island unto himself.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 10:02 AM

This thread is showing the divide of light years between the North American concept of what the revival is, and what it meant in England. It's not just the Atlantic Ocean (and different languages) that keep us apart (indeed John Hardly seems to think that all revivalists are marooned on an island somewhere midway), but a fundamental difference of perception of what roots music is.

Mr Hardly lists a few rock stars and claims these have kept 'the sound' alive. Now, I like the music of Stephen Stills (and Neil Young for that matter) but to say this is to try and include Graham Nash within the ranks of the English revivalists. And he's not. He's a Hollie, for chrissake.

I'll doubtless get battered for telling Murkans what their roots music actually IS. but to me it's local or regional musics: blues, cajun, conjunto, Appalachian, musics of immigrant communities and musics made by current writers if they are rooted in those traditions or address the problem. Not popular songs emanating from Nashville or Austin. Not yet, anyway.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 10:42 AM

I genuinely prefer the sound and emotiveness of US and Eastern European roots 'folk musics'
to trad UK 'morris' & 'celtic'& 'boring worthy archive accademic'..

there i said it..

But 1970's UK electric folk rock is the backbone of my CD collection.


..then, i'm from a generation that grew up in provincial towns
listening to and being influenced by early 1970's
folk rock on Radio 1 and Top of the Pops.

If folk clubs ever did exist in my hometown,
it would have been an unknown and alien culture to families from my west country council estate.

Wasn't until i left home in my late teens,
i went to a few folk clubs up North;
can't remember much about the experience..
guess that shows how much of a positive impression that left on me for the rest of my life..!!??


Everything I ever learnt about 'folk' has been off popular media channels,
inate curiosity and facilities for self learning in public library LP collections
[Topic Lable LPs were readily available in the nearest big library]..

and now here at mudcat !

If people with a similar background and music education to mine
ever try to become 'folk music' practicioners in the public realm..

then first and formost it is about enjoying the opportunity
to express ourselves creatively via a genre of music we love to listen to ourselves,
and entertaining an audience in a fun atmosphere of mutual/reciprocal shared community partying,

and if we muck about with electric guitars drum kits and synthesisers in the process..

muddying the barriers and definitions between trad song styles and geographical origins..

well.. thats the way we get pleasure from our music now..

thats it i s'pose.. off to the gym for a couple of hours hard work out..
get back home with a fierce thirst for cider..
plug a guitar in for a bit of an energetic warm up strum
to get in the mood for another saturday night
of pointless revelry..

[will try not to post any drunk shite here tonight..promise..]

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 10:50 AM

Easby, you're reading exactly the opposite of my point into my post.

I'm saying that those "rockers" are NOT part of the revival. But I am saying that those "rockers" stand on the shoulders of the revival -- that what those "rockers" owe the revival is that the revival, though having little spark of genius of it own, at least kept those instruments, that acoustic sound, alive long enough for real artists to come along and use it to make better music.

Those rockers were synthesizers (as are most good artists) and one of the elements they borrowed was a sound, a feel, from the folk revival. They also borrowed freely from jazz and from race recording and from whatever else was around -- but the sensibility -- the SOUND of their music comes greatly from the folk revival.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 11:15 AM

And having taken that 100,

"that what those "rockers" owe the revival is that the revival, though having little spark of genius of it own, at least kept those instruments, that acoustic sound, alive long enough for real artists to come along and use it to make better music."

As we say in soggy Sheffield - what a load of cobblers.