Relationship Between Recording and Folk

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: mattkeen
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 05:45 AM

Thanks Sedayne - that is a fascinating site, Mr Hunter has redeemed my prejudiced notion of traveling salesmen no end.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 05:21 AM

The recorded archives are truly treasure houses, no matter what philosophical misgivings might endure down the ages regarding the relationship between the archivist & his / her subject. We'd be the poorer without them. Bartok & Kodaly would also invite traditional musicians & singers into the studio - somewhere I've got a tidy pile of their recordings sent to me from Hungary back in the 1980s when I had a passion for such things; needs must I dig them out.

My favourite right now remains The Max Hunter Folk Song Collection "...an archive of almost 1600 Ozark Mountain folk songs, recorded between 1956 and 1976. A traveling salesman from Springfield, Missouri, Hunter took his reel-to-reel tape recorder into the hills and backwoods of the Ozarks, preserving the heritage of the region by recording the songs and stories of many generations of Ozark history..." . All 1,594 songs can be listened to on-line, fully transcribed & annotated...

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Brendy
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:43 PM

"Many early folklorists seemed to prefer notating songs as they heard them"

I still do that from time to time. If I hear a new tune in a session, I'm liable to take the notebook out, and notate the parts of it that may not stay in my memory till I get home.

Live gigs and studio recordings are snapshots, and when you take in all the potential mixes that a Producer can come up with, no one recording need ever sound the same twice.

B.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: mark gregory
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:15 PM

Many early folklorists seemed to prefer notating songs as they heard them and the importance of recording them had to argued for. Percy Grainger and Bela Bartok were among the first to travel with their "long horned Edison" wax cylinder machine to record the singers and musicians they hunted out. Grainger made a very good argument for recording explaining that it was impossible to write down all the variation inherent in folk music without listening carefully for a dozen times or so. A century later we can still listen as they did.

There is no argument that modern singers with modern studios can also do great justice to the old songs, just as there is no doubt they can be performed badly. But it's through the great collectors of the last century that we have such a wealth of material from so many cultures to work with.

I think most peoeple agree that learning from a recording is somehow closer to the original oral tradition we hear so much about, however failing a field recording there are also hundreds of songs that have been "revived" because someone at sometime treasured them enough to wrote them down!

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:05 PM

I work all the time with musicians I've never actually met face to face, including a number of projects with Daisuke Suzuki (Japan) & an album with Francesco Paladino (Italy) for Alio Dei / Hic Sunt Leones (MVSICA FIVTO) in which he sent his vocal contributions (improvised straight to camera!) on DVD, leaving it up to me to extricate, edit, arrange & contribute as I saw fit. Clive Powell (Edinburgh) & I work this way from time to time (as Shibboleth), lobbing various mp3s back & forth via YouSendIt & mutilating them accordingly. I've done a couple of things for The Nihil Project (again Italy - see 'Weaving Wheat' on their MySpace page : myspace/nihil project) although there I'm providing a fairly conventional backing track tailored for their particular approach!

The track I did with Clive Powell for John Barleycorn Reborn (Reed Sodger) was assembled in response to a live electronic backing track provided by Martin Archer (Sheffield). Having determined a suitable 'tonic', I then recorded Clive singing his vocal part (his setting of various sayings derived from Northumbrian folklore) against a drone. All that remained was to put these two elements together with a suitable 'interface' made up of what we call 'Spectral Leakage' - if anyone has seen Nigel Kneale's classic 1972 ghost story 'The Stone Tape', that should give you an idea of what the process involves.

As I write I watch a vintage episode of 'Juke Box Jury' on BBC4; the ghosts linger in the machine molle...

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:01 PM

There's been a lot of interesting opinions voiced on this thread - from Jerry, Anahata, Frank, Kat, Sedayne and others - thanks... Some of it may have even made me change my mind about a couple of things! I certainly think its interesting how some of the musicians that contribute essentially see a recording as a song source - a link in the chain, if you like: another place to learn a song and then take in out into a performance setting, and let it 'come back to life'.

I tend to agree with and like the approach proposed by Michael R who suggests a live performance is like a snapshot and a recording is like a painting. When I do get to listen to live music, which isn't anywhere near often enough to allow me to take it for granted or to replace my beloved CD collection, it can be really frustrating if the acoustics of the venue or the sound engineering is rubbish, or the performer is having an 'off' night or the audience is talking through the performance or I'm sat behind a pillar or a person in a very tall hat (all these have happened - just say NO to tall hats!). To take the snapshot analogy further, when you don't take many photos, its frustrating to have them turn out fuzzy or overexposed... I suppose on some levels, the element of chance in the live performance makes it more real than the recording, which by its nature is always the same, but still... Having said that, the other side of the coin is that very little can beat a blinder of a gig.

I think what's frustrating when you get home with the poorly produced, badly presented, shoddily put together album, is the missed opportunity: the artist had a chance to put out to the world one of the best performances of their career, but settled for just okay. Maybe some people don't thrive unless they have the feedback and rapport of the live audience to spur them on? Maybe for some performers the recording process is not really what they're about, a chore rather than a pleasure, something they're just not that interested in? Maybe it can be about not having an objective and critical ear around for a second opinion? I really don't know...

Like Big Mick said of his post above, this is a bit rambling, because some of the responses have given me pause for thought. On last thing to throw into the pot: what do people think of the situation where as a result of relatively cheap home recording technology and the internet, people on different continents, who may have never met, can bat recordings back and forth and essentially do on-line collaborations? Has anyone here tried this?

Cheers

Nigel

Matt Milton - as an aside, Nancy Elizabeth Cunliffe has taken to doing a few gigs locally with a full band - the live performance adapting to reflect the sound of the album. Saw her do this at the Unitarian Chapel in Manchester and it was excellent... a different experience to Nancy alone but well worth catching...

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:24 PM

Oh - And I claim page 2 :-)

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:24 PM

I have not problems with my Rs I'll have you know! Well, unless I have been drinking Camerons Strong Arm for about three days...

:D

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 04:24 PM

nah! that's Mawie Osmond, you're thinking of.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 04:21 PM

Didi they bleat like a sheep and have pwoblems with their "Rs"?

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 03:02 PM

I've heard the nasal tone came about for reasons of projection & volume in the days before PA, likewise operatic colatura albeit by very different means with very different results - see thread Forget the words, just play the tune.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 04:40 AM

Strange you should mention the nasal Americans Dave. Its an odd sort of phenomena isn't it? I wonder what the origin of it is. I wonder who was first thought, I'll start a tradition of being incredibly nasal.

The first time I heard it was a young American man and woman duo in the 1960's at a folk festival and I thought, at the time, bloody hell - that's a bit weird.

The thing is - you get to the point with these synthetically traditional accents (and we got to this point a long time ago in England also) - you get to thinking - this is what traditional song must sound like, and you wonder where is it all headed - because really it makes no sense.

I think there must be more Americans singing trad music in a normal sort of voice than there are over here. I'm thinking of occasional mudcatter Jed Marum, who I think, sings with great clarity and beauty without adornments. I don't really know anybody who doesn't experiment with weird voices now and then - I'm a particular offender - making all sorts of strange noises vocally.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Jan 08 - 05:04 AM

No connection with Carsluith, Dave - you'll be delighted to hear, although I did once go to a folk club in The Black Horse, but that was decades ago. By far the fondest remembrance of Folk on the Tyneside Coast was The Bay Hotel Folk Club, which met on Sundays in an upstairs room of the sadly erstwhile Bay Hotel overlooking Cullercoats Bay. They've demolished it now, and built a block of luxury flats named after an American artist who once lived in Room 17, but I think something of the flavour lingers in Davie's Blue Stone - certainly on a clement summer evening when we might leave the car at St. Mary's Island and walk up to the Delaval Arms along the clifftops; or else park at The Melton Constable and backtrack through Holywell Dene.

Now, back to the thread...

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 04:21 PM

Bloody 'ell Sedayne! Are you sure you are not me? Am I sure you are not me? The Steamer is one of my favourite pubs of all times - albeit I usualy only get there during the Fylde fest. I am off up to Scotland tomorrow. If you have some connection with Carsluith than I will think about getting my multiple personalitoes sorted...

:D

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 06:13 AM

different kettles of fish - una parva distinta de pescados

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 06:12 AM

Dave - 'Fat Bloke With Beard' was me writing from my father-in-law's PC en-route to The Steamer Folk Club in Fleetwood. Alas, we emigrated from the North East to the North West back in September, but prior to that we were regulars at The Durham City Folk Club which presently meets in the back snug of The Shakespeare on Thursdays - highly recommended. We do have a notion to synchronise family visits to the NE with Joe Crane's come-all-ye which meets on the first Saturday of the month at The Cumberland in Byker; could even be there tomorrow - weather permitting. If you're in Whitley, then there's Davie's Blue Stone club which meets at The Delaval Arms up in Old Hartley on a Sunday; always a little taste of heaven with fine singing & piping to boot. And if it's folk albums you're looking for in Newcastle, then it has to be Roots Music on Westgate Road...

Frank makes a number of excellent points there regarding the role of recording in the oral / aural tradition; most of the songs I sing today come from recordings of one sort or another - and I simply couldn't exist without my CD of Alan Lomax's recordings of Davie Stewart. On a similar level of God-like communion, I dream of Louis Armstrong in golden days of the Hot Fives & Sevens, bands that never played live, so this is a uniquely chambered / studio music, an intimate glimpse of small ensemble creative genius at it's most beguiling. For those who don't know this recording (which is 80 years old come July 28th!) have a look at:   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6COgkqy1UU8

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Lowden Jameswright
Date: 04 Jan 08 - 05:32 AM

I'm just grateful Robert Johnson managed to get himself into a studio 'cause I wasn't able to get to any of his live gigs...

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 06:31 PM

There is a relationship between the two when traditional performers derive their
songs from recordings (which does take place). Many of these performers will listen
to those recordings that reflect their style of music.

Oddly enough, Pete Seeger never did really well in the Studio as a solo artist. Most of his best recordings were "live". The notable exception for me was his 10" lp, "Darling Corey" for Folkways. (Well maybe the "Goofing Off Suite").

Stan Rogers was great in the Studio as well as in person. Josh White was another one who sounded great on recordings and live too. Burl Ives, also.

The recording is a different medium. There is little argument about some of the
best jazz recordings ever done which may have been not to be duplicated. Louis Armstrong's"West End Blues" for example. Could he have done that live? Not sure. The reason isthat sometimes a great recording is an artistic "accident" (unplannable and spontaneous).

I think that recording is just another way to learn songs.

The problem becomes when the recording is a tyranny of an idea a way a performance should be done. This is what gives rise to the insipid "cover tune" in popular music as if any one performer who copies another to the last fluff could possibly replace the original performer and yet some audiences seem to clamor for this rigidity. To expect an artist to perform a song exactly as he/she did it on their recording is to rob the audience of their artistic growth. I have often enjoyed performances of pre-recorded songs done a new way in a live concert.

People listen to recordings for different reasons, some to learn a song, some to appreciate the artist, some to get an idea of what other artists are doing or to pick out a piece of music to play on an instrument. I see the relationship as positive in that whatever way
folk music can be heard, reproduced or disseminated is good. When a recording becomes a tyrant, then it stops the growth of folkmusic or music in general.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 02:56 PM

Hey! Fat bloke with beard - where have you been for the last 9 months? I have been working in the 'castle and living in Whitley Bay since April 2007! And guess what? I am also a fat bloke with a beard! (Wouldn't dare call anyone same if I wasn't:-) ) What's on tonight btw? Used to go to Steve Dagetts open-mike in the Black Horse, Monkseaton before he jacked it in. Or was that on a Tuesday?

Anyroads, when I said original topic I was going to highlight RELATIONSHIP but thought better of it. Maybe I should have? The relationship I was trying to highlight was the one between peoples perception of folk and recorded folk. Hope my posting makes more sense now?

Cheers

Dave
(Fat, bearded, bald, real-ale drinker and known to squawk the occasional f**k song!)

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: GUEST,Fat Bloke With Beard
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 02:35 PM

Was that the original topic, Dave? What you seem to be talking about there are Folk Records - i.e. commercial consumer commodities which aren't the inevitable outcome of the recording process, which is something very different.

In the Virgin Megastore in Newcastle (home of the Folk Degree course & one of the most thriving folk scenes in the UK) the 'folk section' has been reduced to a yard of shelving featuring only the most popular selling items.

Meanwhile, this particular FBWB is listening to Future Days by Can before heading off to his local folk club.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 02:15 PM

Going back to the original topic - Relationship Between Recording and Folk...

Unfortunately those who do not know any better steer away from the 'folk' section of the Virgin Megastore (rather good btw if anyone would care to look!) because their image of folk is fat blokes with beards mumbling into their pints of real ale about the good old days sailing ships through cotton mills before sinking down the mines with a full cargo of buxom wenches.

Many of said fat blokes with beards will also steer away from same section because they view recorded folk as nasaly Americans stealing the good traditions, turning them in incomprehensible protest songs, playing those modern guitar thingies and making horendous noises with, heaven forbid, mouth organs!

I must hasten to add I subscribe to neither view! But do we really suffer from this syndrome? Have I imagined it? Did someone else say it was so and I believed them? What am I on about? Ooooh, god knows. Think I'll go to the folk club. Or should I put a record on...

:D

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 10:26 AM

What's so funny?

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Fidjit
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 10:07 AM

Nice one Sedayne.

I'm still laughing.

Chas

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 10:02 AM

Great subject, Nigel. I am glad you moved it here.

This one really provokes me on two levels, that of a performer, as well as that of a fan.

As a performer, I know that my live performances allow me to create an environment conducive to the song I am singing. I can then use the imagery to evoke the feelings I am looking to achieve. Jerry's songs, for me, lend themselves to this amazingly well. I know that when I take his "Handful of Songs" and set it up right, in the right environment, and then interpret it the way I can, it will evoke tears, good memories and feelings. I know if I set up George Papavgeris' "Empty Handed", and perform it using the feelings I dredge up from almost 30 years of helping working folks improve their lives, I can move an audience in the direction I would like them to go. In fact, these two songwriters are mighty inspirations for me as I craft my own songs right now. An essential element of all this is being able to influence the environment, and audience, with expression, moodset, etc. The songs must be strong to begin with, and certainly these and others crafted by these two superb writers, are but a small example of why they are universally respected, but I always feel my live performances of them will be superior to any recording I could make. I believe that production values, once one has selected excellent songs, instrumentation, and cohesiveness in concept, make for a great recording. And to a limited degree, one can set the mood of a recording, but not like live.

As a fan, I can say without equivocation that my favorite recordings are the live recordings. But that is not to say that I don't enjoy the studio recordings. In fact I use them for baselines to start my own creative process of interpretation. But the live stuff is wonderful. I think of the recordings of Woody Gutherie where he is being recorded live discussing the songs and then playing them. I think of Christy Moore, and his live albums. One can hear him playing off the audience. There are so many artists whom I would never get to hear or know without those recordings, live performance or studio. The studio recordings allow me to hear the artist's vision of the song. The live performances allow me to hear the audience's response, and maybe a different take by the artist.

Sorry for the rambling nature of this. The subject is so interesting it just allows me to do a bit of free thinking.

Great thread, Nigel.

Mick

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 09:37 AM

PS

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctc5u_AJ1Lg

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 09:30 AM

The 'democratisation' of the recording process has changed the field rather, although in the realms of free-improvisation and experimental musics that much was well in hand back in the seventies, long before the sublime 'Spiral Scratch' set a very essential ball rolling (ba-dum-ba-dum!). Such a shame the DIY ethos never really caught on in the folk world though, which is just the place where one might have expected it to, but the cultural conservatism of Folkies would appear to exist in inverse proportion to the radical politics to which they invariably subscribe - and that isn't necessarily a bad thing either.   

These days, of course, the picture is very different: take a look at Woven Wheat Whispers & John Barleycorn Reborn to see the amount of relatively new & otherwise obscure folk artists for whom the DIY ethos is the prevalent factor in their work. Here the line between 'recording' & 'performance' becomes so thin as to be almost meaningless, & innovation is a constant & startling factor of the music; here, more importantly, the ethos of Folk marries that of Musique Concrete, and not before bloody time either. Certainly most of the stuff I do couldn't be done without recording machines of one sort or another, be it handy hand-held field-recording devices such as the Zoom H4, or digital 8-track home studios, or my PC which runs such software as Soundforge, Cubase & Ableton Live from which one might conjure forth entire soundscapes in real-time without having to go to indignities of actually touching a conventional musical instrument - very handy, especially when the neighbours are in upstairs & the creative muse insists on consummation.

For the same price as a few days in a professional studio, one might kit out a perfectly functioning home studio which allows the freedom to explore & indulge to ones heart's content, giving one a greater understanding of the relationship between performance & recording than has hitherto been possible. One of the war cries of the 'new folk' is 'A lap-top is just as valid a traditional instrument as a concertina' - and as the lines blur between music and the possibilities of music (at least the possibilities that such readily available technology might allow in an otherwise purely traditional context) one senses a very definite spirit of renewal afoot derived entirely from a re-contextualising of the very nature of what might be considered as being 'folk' whilst re-invigorating everything about the music we might hold most dear - and then some!

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Grab
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 07:15 AM

Without exception, the bands (and individuals) I enjoy listening to are those who can/could perform *versions* live - and whose live performances are/were strong enough that you wouldn't notice the missing studio extras (strings, synth pads, backing singers, etc). Exact duplication on-stage is rarely possible anyway, and might not even be desirable.

But I'd have to agree with Matt about people who don't know when to stop. Tom Paxton is the classic example for me - he's amazing live, and his live recordings are amongst my favourite CDs, but his studio recordings are mostly over-produced blandness. There's great songs underneath it all, but you generally have to go excavating under strata of strings and other crap to find them.

By all means paint with a different palette for recordings - but too many recording artists and their producers, in all musical genres, need to work out when to put the brush down and step away from the canvas. :-/

Graham.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Willa
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 06:23 AM

An excellent thread; thanks for starting it Nigel - good to see that so far replies are amicable and thoughtful.

There's so much here that I agree with;
Matt's 'A live gig is just as much of a snapshot as a recording.'
Don's 'Were it not for song books and records, I would have darned little to sing! And I have passed a lot of the songs I sing along to other people.'

My Christmas gifts included CDs with new ( to me) versions of old favourites. I do get to quite a few festivals and gigs , but could never hope to hear all the music I can hear from recordings. I value any opportunity to read/hear traditional music in any setting.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 05:59 AM

I wonder if any of you pwople remember back to the 1970's when OPEC had England by one bollock and the militant trade unions had their teeth clenched round the other testicle.

Round about the time petrol doubled in price is when the decline of the folk clubs began in earnest. People really did start this debate - are we headed for a society where we just sit in there in our tank tops and flares in front of the telly and listen to our Ferguson music centres. Cos god knows, we reasoned, we can just about afford the petrol to get us to work in our Alegros and Morris Marinas. Driving to a folk club is something we just can't afford.

Some artists are far better recording artists than they are live. Nic Jones always struck me as such. Not that there was anything wrong with what he did at a gig, but in the studio the intimacy of his performance becomes more apparent. He was doing it for himself -the roomfull of people was an irrelevance.

Ry Cooder in an interview put forward the idea that Robert Johnson didn't turn his back to the engineer because he was shy, as the recording engineer thought - but rather he was trying to compress the sound by bouncing it off the wall.

If so. Mr Jones and Mr Johnson shared something in common. They found aspects of recording which suited and in a way completed their technique as musicians. I think its in the nature of artists to look for creative opportunity in the situation. And recording is one situation that modern artists find themselves.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: matt milton
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 05:31 AM

A live gig is just as much of a snapshot as a recording. (Unless you're attending every single gig someone plays...)

Someone mentioned the signature sounds of certain producers that render their albums immediately identifiable (Phil Spector, Brian Wilson et al). But even relatively unadorned, stripped-down albums often have a signature sound too.

I'm listening to some 60s Lightnin Hopkins recordings right now, and even though it's just the man and his guitar, there's a lovely reedy degree of distortion on his voice, with a tiny bit of boxy reverb on it too, and the guitar is panned to an extreme. I love the production on Shirley Collins' 60s recordings too – the shrill reverb on her voice, the way the unusual instrumentation is so carefully placed (think Death and the Maiden, for instance).

Studio recordings can be really characterful and interesting in very subtle ways – even when it's "just" a folk musician using the exact same set-up she always uses.

These days it's the opposite problem most of the time: studio recordings of folk musicians are far too overproduced and polite. Good recent case in point would be Nancy Elizabeth Cunliffe. See her live and it's just her, accompanying her singing with either a harp or a guitar. Beautiful stuff. But her album's just a completely different artist basically and I find it unlistenable: fussy instrumentation, double-tracked vocals, tokenistic arrangements and overdubs, overdubs, overdubs. Trying far too hard to be clever. I really don't understand why when so many musicians get in the studio they immediately proceed to ignore everything that got them there in the first place.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 04:44 AM

Meanwhile...   

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vm61Dz7Nr5g

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 10:43 PM

Not completely, M.Ted, imo. When I actually get to a concert, what I take home in the way of CDs will be what I heard live, much of what may be new to me until the concert. Sure, it's fun to hear new stuff, but I expect to hear my favourites from a performance, first and foremost. I wouldn't really care if there was more new material on the CD; in fact I can think of a few performers whose stuff I bought at concerts specifically because they had all the concert stuff on them.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 09:11 PM

Recording requires new material in a way that live performance does not--audiences like to hear what they know in concert, but albums or CDs are expected to feature new material. It creates an interesting set of problems for performers, particularly since there is a fairly limited amount of "traditional" music to draw from--

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:56 PM

I've comfortably approved of changes in the lyrics of two songs that I've written (although I thought that they both weakened the song. So be it. I've also had someone write another verse to one of my songs (thinking that it was a traditional song.) I told them that if they sang the song with their added verse, all I'd ask is to acknowledge that it wasn't part of the song as I wrote it.

That's not counting the people who've recorded songs of mine and changed the lyrics out of laziness.

Shakespeare I ain't.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:41 PM

Sounds good to me, Michael.

For more on how the ISB did that album mentioned above, please Click Here.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:20 PM

I used to play with a guy who said "Don't record anything you can't duplicate live". I never agreed with that, as it limits me as an artist.

I've said it here before: A live recording of a performance is like a snapshot, while a studio recording is more like a painting. I love creating sounds and arrangements in the studio. To my mind, this holds true whether we're talking about folk, rock'n'roll, or other types of music.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:08 PM

Poppagator said:          With the advent of field recordings, and the corollary development of traditionalist study of folk cultures, I believe that an inappropriate degree of reverence has led to a basic misunderstanding of many old songs. Any minor variation (or even mistake) that may have occurred while the tape recorder was running could be, and often was, regarded as canonical, part of the only "real" certified version of a given piece. Whereas, in reality, we should realize that there is no one single version that is "correct."

That's my main ax-to-grind in regard to "the relationship between recording and folk" ~ although I do realize that my angle is not exactly what others may have been driving at.End of Quote

we must realise that those minor variations,may not have been accidental but deliberate,the singer may have decided to improve the song himself.
However with modern folk songs,the singer may feel obliged[if the composer is still alive] to ask the songwriters permission,before he changes a word[it is not the singers property],whereas the traditional singer may well have regarded the traditional song as his own to change.,so the modern folksong can enterer a frozen period,where if the author doesnt like his words or melody changed,it cannot be folk processed particuarly if a singer intends to record.
some songs, in my opinion[Three score and Ten][ StephenFoster,s Gentle Annie],have improved from the original,But if they hadnt been recorded[in the sense that it was written as a broadsheet or in a song book]we wouldnt have been able to see the improvement the Folk have made to the originals,Whether accidental or deliberate.
Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 06:58 PM

I'm a bit mystified as to why people seem to be calling recordings into question as to value / validity / authenticity / whatever.

I don't remember exactly, but I think it was one of the Lomaxes who commented that a song written down in a book (or a recording, for that matter) is like a snapshot of a bird in flight. It catches an image of the bird at a particular instant in time. But it does not impede the bird or affect it in any way.

However—I have no doubt that were it not for people such as the early collectors of songs, and field recordings, much of this material would have been just plain lost. So in a sense, that snapshot of the bird in flight has insured the continued existence of the bird!

When I first became actively interested in folk music and started learning songs, a couple of the first song books I had were A Treasury of Folk Songs by John and Sylvia Kolb (35¢ paperback), Folk Song U. S. A. by John and Alan Lomax, and American Songbag by Carl Sandburg. Along with this, I had a few records by Burl Ives, Susan Reed, Richard Dyer-Bennet, and Pete Seeger. In 1952, that was about all my local record store had in the way of folk music. But the first songs I learned were learned from those books and records. On the occasion when I did learn a song from another individual, more often than not, they, in turn, had learned it from a song book or a record.

Were it not for song books and records, I would have darned little to sing! And I have passed a lot of the songs I sing along to other people.

I'm often surprised by the changes that have gradually occurred over the years in some of the songs I learned early on. Sometimes these changes are intentional (smoothing out an awkward line, for example), but more often than not, they are the result of alterations that I've made without being aware that I was doing it.

So the fact that there was a recording or a song book in the chain does not stop the "folk process" from occurring. And here's a thought:   if the bird lands and is suddenly attacked and eaten by cat, you can't reanimate the bird from the snapshot. But—you can reanimate a song that no one has sung for years if you find it in a song book or on an old record!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: treewind
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 06:20 PM

From Nigel's original post:
"nothing more than a document or a souvenir of a live event...
Is there not space for them to be valuable artifacts in their own right?"

Yes, recordings are different. They had better not replace live performances but have a parallel existence and take on a life of their own.

"the approach that some performers take, where the studio itself becomes another instrument ... Different arrangements, instruments, textures, vibes can be experimented with"

There's a whole spectrum of possibilities, from extravangant productions that couldn't practically be reproduced on stage, to simple enhancements with the addition of a few more instruments or voices. It is necessary for a recording to be different from a live performance: in the latter the audience has the excitement of physical presence, and the extra visual interest from being able to see the performer. Take that away, and a recording needs to compensate by adding at least some extra interest, and since it's possible in the studio in a way that may not be possible on stage, why not? I'm not particular in favour of doing much more than that in the studio - I'd rather make a recording whose impact I can more or less match on stage, maybe with an adapted arrangement. If the recording becomes too artificial it doesn't seem (to me anyway) to be folk music any more. In pop music, the recording often *is* the definitive version, but not in folk.

"performers in the world of folk might end up producing unneccessarily rudimentary albums that may be authentic, but can also sound a bit dull"

Yes, it's an unrealistic attitude. Whether you like it or not, sound recording is about illusion, and as with the visual arts, lots has to be implied or exaggerated to produce a satisfying recording or performance. "Authentic" field recordings are useful and valuable but they serve a different purpose.

I certainly don't subscribe to any purist notion that recording or any other technological support is inimical to folk music. Most songs we call traditional were printed and distributed on broadsides for quick profit. Most folk (for any meaning of the term) singers learn their songs from recordings or printed books, and in the past many more folk musicians and singers could read music than some people now would like to believe.

Recording and printing music isn't a barrier to evolutionary change either. Even in my own experience - however hard I try to learn a tune from the dots, by the time I've played it in a session my version is different, and within a few years I've seen songs changed almost beyond recognition by the "folk process". A CD preserves a version of a song without any changes, but people don't!

Anahata

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 06:03 PM

Good thread, Nigel. Glad I spotted it:-)

Couple of other things to throw in the melting pot.

I have spoken to at least 2 well known English 'Folk' performers who made their fortunes (literaly) with records. Thay shall remain un-named by me but think of the more comedic genre of 'folk'. Did their recordings do anything for the folk world or community or did they 'sell out' for commercialism? Both artists are fine musicians in their own fields and could easily, and often do, put on performances of traditional music that is second to very few. Should the 'folk police' (who the F^&* are they anyway?) begrudge them their good fortune because the general public would rather hear the songs that made them famous than the 'good' stuff we like?

Second thing is - anyone heard 'Nebulous Nearness' by the Incredible String Band? Released around 2004 or 2005, I think, with a new ISB line up. It is a 'live studio album'. Recorded, I think, at Peter Gabriels studios (or somewhere just a famous) in front of a live audience. How do we feel about this? I, for one, think it is brilliant (but then again ISB usualy are!) Is it something new? Seems to be an excelent compromise, countering both poor quality concert recordings and 'sterile' studio sounds. Maybe we need more?

Finaly, from the other thread, Sedayne commented And let recordings operate more on the level of document that product, though very often the one becomes the other in terms of cultural heritage. I find that particularly acceptable. Although I also agree that the recorded album can add an extra dimension to an artists repetoire.

In all, I think recordings are good. I can't really see how they could do any harm - apart from maybe to the 'image' of folk, and that is jaded enough anyway in most peoples eyes:-( What I would say though is that as soon as something is recorded it is no longer the 'oral tradition'. But how long is it since we have had that anyway?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: PoppaGator
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 04:56 PM

For the past century or so, and from now on forever after, most people have heard and will hear most music via recordings of one kind or another.

On the other hand, prior to the early twentieth century, all people heard all music "live." The live performance might have been read from a written score (in the case of orchestral/choral "classical" music), or it might have been based upon the the performer's memory of something he/she heard and thereby learned from some previous performer. The latter mode of transmission is typical of traditional or "folk" music.

In the pre-recording era, I believe that it must have been generally understood that a given performance or rendition of a traditional piece was always, by definition, relatively unique. No matter how earnestly the performer may have wished to imitate and perpetuate the musical piece he/she had learned from another, common sense dictated that there must have been some deviation, some newly-created bit, introduced into an old song by its newest interpreter.

With the advent of field recordings, and the corollary development of traditionalist study of folk cultures, I believe that an inappropriate degree of reverence has led to a basic misunderstanding of many old songs. Any minor variation (or even mistake) that may have occurred while the tape recorder was running could be, and often was, regarded as canonical, part of the only "real" certified version of a given piece. Whereas, in reality, we should realize that there is no one single version that is "correct."

That's my main ax-to-grind in regard to "the relationship between recording and folk" ~ although I do realize that my angle is not exactly what others may have been driving at.

In the larger context of "recording" ~ that is, besides my views on field recordings and their misinterpretation by "folk police" types ~ I would only observe that recording is an inescapable aspect of musicianship today and tomorrow, certainly for anyone who hopes to earn a living from music.

Only the purest amateur can make music only in the moment, only in live performance. Having a recording of some kind to present for approval is pretty much required even to get a chance to appear live for a performance anywhere outside your hometown area. Whether said recording is designed to sound like a true unadorned live show or not is entirely up to the artist.

The modern recording studio has become, in a sense, a musical instrument in its own right. Many familar pieces of music (especially popular songs from the last 30 years or so) are recognizable largely by their studio effects. Examples: anything by the Beatles recorded after they quit touring, anything produced by Phil Spector, any Beach Boys record, etc. etc.

It's possible to produce a recording wherein the studio effect is minimized and the result sounds like a "pure" unamplified solo performance ~ but this is a choice, and requires a relatively skilled audio engineer to create it.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 04:45 PM

The bottom line, for active performers in the folk area (whatever that is), is that CD sales account for roughly half the take at performances, and generally account for little or nothing when the performer isn't present. There are a few exceptions, but that's pretty much the way it is.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 04:37 PM

Interesting.
However if someone puts a track of themselves on youtube,as I have done with the song Barbara Allen,just myself and my concertina. It will be pretty much as I perform it in a folk club,of course I never perform it exactly the same,but it going to be close.
http://www.youtube.com/dickmilesmusic ... Barbara Allen. From: dickmilesmusic Views: 114 ... Dick Miles, Jez Lowe, Primrose Polka dickmilesmusic ...
www.youtube.com/user/dickmilesmusic - 67k - Cached - Similar pages

Barbara Allen

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: GUEST,qtwf
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 04:32 PM

Hiya,

Splitting into two seems to be happening, which is good! But just to chuck tuppence in, I know artists who have produced lots of albums, but none of them are worth listening to. And I know a couple - although fewer by far - who have made really great albums, but are frankly rubbish live.

As said, this isn't and shouldn't be about naming anyone, but I just wonder if anyone else has had the same experience.

Cheers,

Quentin Fletcher

PS, The Doctor - not really a pun, the original meaning IS a record of an event; of when the band got together and shouted into a horn!

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: GUEST,A regular
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 03:54 PM

I have never heard a song performed live twice the same way. You can do that with a recording--hear it twice the same way. Recordings are insurance policies that certain songs will be available for people to hear when those who did it have passed on. I don't know enough about the folk process to understand any 'purists' stance on the issue, but Jerry (as usual) put it well (IMO} as did those who echoed him.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Ernest
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 01:43 PM

"Hurtettes", Jerry?

Now that is a conception that really hurts...

Apart from that I can only agree with you.

Happy new year!
Ernest

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 01:38 PM

Hi, Jerry! Long time no see!

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 01:33 PM

Jerry mentions Mississippi John Hurt. It should be recognized that Hurt was "re-discovered" because of COMMERCIAL recordings that he made. Hurt wasn't singing on a backporch, he was singing in a studio and the idea was to sell records.

Jerry also mentioned Doc Watson. It should also be recognized that Doc's interest in music was rockabilly until someone told him about the folk revival that was taking place, and he re-examined his roots.

While both of these individuals are part of our "folk" heritage, their recordings were made to reach a larger audience.   The "vibe" and "intent" was not the same as someone recording into the microphone of a collector.

So who really determines what is "authentic"?   We all have opinions, and if you have to listen to an opinion - it might as well be your own.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 01:33 PM

"Without recordings, I wouldn't have heard 95% of the music that I love."
Well I was thinking that. Just didn't write it.

Subject: RE: Relationship Between Recording and Folk
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 01:24 PM

Hi, Kat..

Jerry