Is the 1954 definition, open to improvement?

Subject: RE: Is the 1954 definition, open to improvement?
From: johncharles
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 09:50 AM

For those of an oral persuasion here is John Egenes explain his thesis.

folkprocess
john

Subject: RE: Is the 1954 definition, open to improvement?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 10:34 AM

"The authors of this article have elected, in the interests of open dissemination of scholarly work, to provide this article to you in open access format. This means that, in accordance with the principles of
the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.soros.org/openaccess/), you may freely copy and redistribute this article provided you correctly acknowledge its authors and source, and do not alter its contents."
Thanks John - I'll read it through when I have enough time to give it the attention it appears to deserve.
A quick observation without pre-judging what John Engenes has to say.
I would be interested to hear your views on whether the internet has the same effect on say folk-song as print did when literacy became not just available but generally accepted; that of fixing the text so it remained unaltered. This was pretty much what we found in Ireland, especially during the time we spent with Mikeen McCarthy, the Kerry ballad seller (who was himself semi literate).
I was taken with the 'copyright' warning at the bottom of your link; applied to songs it would scupper any chance of them entering into any oral tradition - just a thought!
Best,
Jim Carroll

"The authors of this article have elected, in the interests of open dissemination of scholarly work, to provide this article to you in open
access format. This means that, in accordance with the principles of
the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.soros.org/openaccess/), you may freely copy and redistribute this article provided you correctly acknowledge its authors and source, and do not alter its contents."

Subject: RE: Is the 1954 definition, open to improvement?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 10:37 AM

Blunder:
"If authentic means sounding like A L Lloyd or McColl cupping your finger in your ear"
It doen't.
"I can assume it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck"
Then it's probably a duck - doesn't make it a folk song though.
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: Is the 1954 definition, open to improvement?
From: GUEST,Musket getting bored now
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 02:57 PM

If I sing it in a folk club and call it a folk song it does. The quacking is possibly heckling.

To date, over 30 of my songs, sung by a variety of artistes for which I am grateful can be downloaded from iTunes and Amazon MP3.

Go on, I bet you can't guess the genre they are under?

Ok. One or two under rock, one inexplicitly under country (!)

I intend to write a song about a duck between now and the next local run out, middle of next week. I'll let you know when it officially becomes a folk song.





Oh! When you feel down in the mouth
You've been rug munching a duck
Never my dear, go down south
Bill owners don't need a friend.

The bugger writes itself....

Subject: RE: Is the 1954 definition, open to improvement?
From: GUEST,big al whittle
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 03:25 PM

'It would also appear to exclude the performance-oriented arrangements of people like Carthy and Seeger. '

In that case, it really is nonsense. I can't see why something copywrighted and published can;t be a folksong. It just means the creator has a slim chance of getting paid for his work.

What folk do with the song when they have taken possession of it - that's what makes it folk music - in my view.

What are the advantages in excluding people and saying - your music is not folk music?