the folk revival

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: The Borchester Echo
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 05:16 AM

Giant apologies to Liverpool.

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: GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 03:41 AM

Diane
No I'm certainly not! I am not dismissive of everything that's HAPPENED in the revival; I am more than a little disturbed at what's HAPPENING in the revival NOW, which is very different.
I came to the music through the revival; I really don't know anybody researching the music who didn't, and I suspect that those who didn't would make very dull scholars.
I still have hopes that, among other things, given the right circumstances, the revival can continue to give a great deal of pleasure and to help create new songs.

One of the objects of my collecting was to make available the songs we found to a wider audience - that's why anybody interested can walk into The National Sound Archive or the Irish Traditional Music Archive and listen to our recordings.
It's the reason we are in the process of setting up a local archive here in Clare - in order to get the songs sung again.
Jim Carroll
PS Don't forget - even Scousers have feelings!

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 09:19 PM

Yeah, Greg: Bob definitely knows his stuff. And he is one of my very favorite songwriters. It's a matter of perspective. Some folks picture folk music as a lonesome hobo shuffling down a dirt road with his guitar slung over his back. And that's an important part of folk music. But not all of it, by any means. I suppose it also depends on whether you put the song above everything else. If you do, then you're probably going to lead toward the lonesome hobo image.

Push comes to shove, just about nothing tops Train 45 by Grayson & Whitter, for me. I could sit and plunk away at it on the front porch all day, but I couldn't touch them boys. :-)

Jerry

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: greg stephens
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 07:05 PM

Dig in there, Jerry! But like I said earlier, I think Bob Coltman's contibution was masterly. But a litle bit flawed(well, a lot flawed) when he said folk music had to be deliverable by one person. I'm with you, Jerry, on that count he is talking out of his slightly inaccurate area. But in general, fine. It's not got much to do with folk music if you've played Cambridge or Celtic Connections. What couints is, how many weddings and funerals?

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 06:51 PM

Rats! You mean Grayson & Whitter, and Darby & Tarlton, Brownie & Sonny, the stuff that Doc Watson, Clarence Ashley and Fred Price did together, all the old string band stuff, the Carter Family and the Blue Sky Boys... all that stuff really isn't what's important in folk music? True, the song can be performed solo, but what about the creativity (and tradition) of harmonies. One man harmonies stink.

Love ya Bob, but excuuuuuuuuse me!

Jerry

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 06:03 PM

Heraclites - the Heraclitean imagery of a life as a river.

I agree with that bloke from San Diego - somewhere up the thread. he seems to have been involved the same folk revival I have been.

This is an odd experience, as nobody usually agrees with me on this subject.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 03:14 PM

There's crap in the music of every era and every genre. Just because a song is interesting and important from a social study or academic viewpoint it doesn't make it de facto a great song, it needs more than that. And many great songs of the past may be unpalatable to contemporary music tastes or their subject or language may be offensive to today's mores - this doesn't make them bad songs, simply out of time.

I see the 50's/60s revival partly as an accelerator to the normal folk process, which went on before then and still goes on.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 02:41 PM

Oh, just that you're so dismissive of absolutely EVERYTHING that's happened in the revival.
And although there's plenty of diversionary crap, it's not all bad.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 02:27 PM

"But, what, no Jim Carroll."
Sorry Cap'n; I like to think about what I write before I write.
"I'll not say this very often but this is one discussion that's better off without input from Mr Carroll!"
I wonder why Diane?
I'll be back,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 02:17 PM

Eeeh!! and I thought the change were constant.

Wasn't it Hegel who suggested not only can you not throw yourself into the same river twice - you can't even throw the same you into the same river?

Or have I got my philosophers mixed up?

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 02:13 PM

That they already have.
Contrary to popular belief.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 02:10 PM

That is why the times are altered irrevocally.

You mean the times they are a-changing?

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 02:05 PM

What I'm saying is that the process is a lot faster and that you can't undo the digital revolution. There can no longer be any doubt or uncertaintly over attribution (which is good from the royalties point of view). And it's not just physical mobility of population but the lightning-speed ease in which tunes can be disseminated electronically.

That is why the times are altered irrevocally.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Banjiman
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 02:00 PM

"then we have all the songs sung at football matches.,even if the songs are not very good,some of them are still traditional songs,made up on the spur of the moment ,and no one claiming authorship"

WE R IMPS, WE R IMPS, WE R IMPS........Ill try this new traditional song next time I'm at a folk club :) (Yes not only do I play the banjo but I was also born in Lincoln...the crosses I have to bear!)

Seriously, is it not just the case that means of passing on the tradition changes (digital archiving) and that the "folk process" is speeded up (population mobility).

Captain....Another question re songs like Fiddlers green(Smile in Your Sleep By Jim Mclean is another one), if someone assumes a song is traditional, does that mean it is?

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: treewind
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 01:56 PM

That wasn't what I understood by the words: "'The tradition' will remain that static body of information that has been quite literally passed down before the irrevocably altered times put an end to the centuries-old process"

"static body" implies it won't change or be added to.

Personally I don't think the process is all that different. Things happen a bit faster, and use different technology, that's all.

Anahata

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 01:44 PM

I still don't agree with the implication that there will be no new traditional music in the future

It doesn't (I didn't) say that. I said that the process was irrevocably different.

And it's not a dig at Mr Lakeperson but at the idiocy of Smoothops trying to defend the indefensible over the 'Best Traditional Track' at the Folk Awards.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: treewind
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 01:32 PM

Yes, I've seen that definition before and I still don't agree with the implication that there will be no new traditional music in the future.

(a) digital archiving
You may as well say traditional passing on of songs by word of mouth died when the first broadside was printed. And though I can access 1000000 tunes on the net, I still get the motivation to learn one because I've heard someone play it - then I might use John Chambers' tunefinder to get hold of a copy, which speeds the process up a bit, but I didn't know I could do that I would have written it down instead.

(b) Writing 'in the tradition' and resistering with MCPS/PRS
Doesn't stop anyone else performing them, and doesn't stop a song from evolving and changing. Which part of the process of "tradition" is affected by PRS registration? And eventually the copyright expires...

(c) population mobility, cross cultural influence and collaboration...
That has always happened in all the arts. It can happen faster now, but not all that much faster because it takes a while for people's tastes to change and be re-educated. And people still don't move all that much!

Anahata

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 01:31 PM

not at all,fiddlers green instantly springs to my mind,I have heard this song sung in Ireland,at G.A.A. Scors,at pubs, etc everyone assuming it was irish and traditional,in fact I think JohnConnolly[the songs composer]was even told that he never wrote it,by one expert.
then we have all the songs sung at football matches.,even if the songs are not very good,some of them are still traditional songs,made up on the spur of the moment ,and no one claiming authorship.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Banjiman
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 01:11 PM

Thanks Diane, an interesting and useful definition, not sure about the dig at Seth though..

If this definition is correct then (returning to the question that started the thread maybe?) the folk revival is an irrelevancy to traditional music as:

"'The tradition' will remain that static body of information that has been quite literally passed down before the irrevocably altered times put an end to the centuries-old process"

I assume this means that no song can ever again pass into the tradition?

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 12:50 PM

Since you ask. I suppose I could wheel it out again:

'The tradition' comprises art forms of a distinctive national, ethnic or social group rooted in that community's lore and customs and passed on orally, aurally or by demonstration rather than by written/recorded or formal didactic means. It has thus belonged collectively to that community, rather than to individuals or the state, and tells the history of the people from their common experience.

In the case of music, its platform has been predominantly the informal social gathering, the workplace or the home rather than the theatrical stage or concert hall, and pieces tended to be known by what or who they were about rather than by composer. This is not, of course, to say that trad musicians have not borrowed and adapted from formal composers or from other cultures. Obviously they have, and do, which is why the tradition continues to evolve.

However, three factors in the current revival are forcing ever more rapid and inexorable changes:

(a) digital archiving
(b) writing, consciously, 'in the tradition' and registering the result with MCPS/ PRS
(c) population mobility resulting in monumental cross cultural influence and collaboration.

It will, thus, never be the same again. 'The tradition' will remain that static body of information that has been quite literally passed down before the irrevocably altered times put an end to the centuries-old process (cue Richard Thompson . . . ). What is NOT traditional, by definition, is a recently composition of known origin. Even if you call it The White Hare.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 12:48 PM

[instead it created a parrallel body etc not related to the tradition]Bob coltmans words.
Davy Graham brought to england,and the English folk revival,open tunings that were being used by morrocan traditional musicians,these were later used by Martin Carthy,NicJones Chris Foster etc,in theEnglish folk revival.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Banjiman
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 12:41 PM

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

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 12:19 PM

Oi, stop provoking the poor bloke.
I'll not say this very often but this is one discussion that's better off without input from Mr Carroll!

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 12:16 PM

No - but Dave Eyre has joined in with points already mentioned albeit at length.

Sorry that was the length of time it took to get my ideas down and in some semblance of order.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 12:14 PM

yes DIANE,That was the one I meant.treewind I agree.
But, what, no Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: Folkiedave
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 12:13 PM

I think Bob makes some excellent and very valid points but I would like to offer a different perspective.

There are some problems here - not least of which is the term "revival". I do not want to get in to a discussion about that as a term but I just want to question its widespread acceptance in hopefully a non-confrontational way. (Second time I have asked for non-confrontational-ness on Mudcat this week - I must be getting soft!)

Another problem is - when did this revival start? There is a huge gap for example between the first folk clubs and what people call the revival starting in the mid-sixties. And I have never had any problem discovering traditional music in Ireland or Scotland.

Now here you might say it was a gradual process - in which case was the dying out a gradual process and if it was the tradition going on at the same time? Semantically difficult then to describe as a revival I would say.

The traditional "events" of the folk world - let's just take the Haxey Hood game, never died out and have passed through generations with no influence from the so-called "revival" except in the numbers attending.

From the perspective of my own city - for our American friends one of the UK's largest formerly industrial cities - then we have traditional singers and we have traditional dancers and we have traditional events (which involve singing) and all of these have passed down through generations and continue to be so. In no way could these be described as revivals. And I have watched two of these change with little influence from the "folk world".

As far as the interest in "folk things" in Sheffield (given a wide-ish definiton) then it is easy to make a case that it never went away - and certainly it hasn't. Not much of a revival there then - even though there was a lot of folk clubs in the sixties - none of whom discovered the local singing traditions for ages. And often still ignore it.

If I point to a different area - then the interest in bothy songs has existed and never went away - and again - I would argue may have received a bit of an upsurge of interest but really that is all. Again if it never went away not really a revival IMHO. A number of bothy ballad contests (some including free whisky from the sponsors!) are held and new songs are written in the traditional style (just as they always were). And before someone says it for me - yes I know the social and cultural and economic circumstances of farming in N.E. Scotland have changed - but that is also reflected in the modern versions of the bothy songs entered into the contests.

You may want to argue that these are anachronisms, but as far as the area I know best is concerned not at all - just part of my life.

Anyway for those really interested in folk revivals there is a conference here which naturally enough is being held in Sheffield!

Anyone seriously interested in attending might let me know. I shall be there but travelling each day.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 11:52 AM

Yes, I know. Anahata. We posted simultaneously.

And your points about making use of any source while avoiding slavish copying of a style, as well as mixing and matching texts and tunes are absolutely right, as you prove so effectively in your own work.

Subject: RE: the folk revival
From: treewind
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 11:51 AM

Point about this solo and unaccompanied thing: a folk song doesn't HAVE to be sung unaccompanied, but if it CAN'T be sung unaccompanied (like a lot of pop tracks can't really) it's never going to be a folk song. Really, to be folk it's got to be possible to pass it on by word of mouth or by playing the tune on an instrument, or it's a different kind of music.

Anahata