Why should we sing folk music at all?

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Banjiman
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 06:22 AM

Well said Nigel....why these false divisions?.....A good song is a good song!

In the real world (the one I experience every week) traditional and contemporary folk music feed off rather than damage each other.

.....get a grip!

Paul

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: GUEST,Nigel Spencer (cookieless)
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 06:11 AM

QUOTE 'The main thing it has to express for most of its followers is - hey I'm not a working class oik. Therefore I sing in a funny way.'

Now, call me old fashioned, but (speaking here as someone who loves traditional folk but also has lots of what you could call contemporary folk in his collection) I think that's a bit unfair. I don't understand how the singing style of present day singers of traditional songs can be construed as somehow 'anti-working class'... especially considering those styles are in part influenced by the singing styles of source singers and by the singing style of people like Ewan McColl who as far as I know wasn't exactly a Daily Mail reading suburban middle class Tory! And if some of the singers are from middle class backgrounds, should this somehow mean they should be excluded from singing?

And if we cherish our traditional music, should we not support its study at our universities, its funding by our arts bodies and its elevation to the status of national treasure? They don't struggle with this in other countries, I believe. I don't see how supporting our traditional music can or should have an iota of negative or problematic impact on anyone who wants to write or play contemporary folk at their local folk club or anywhere else. It's not as if anything is being taken away from anyone, is it?

Cheers

Nigel

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 04:49 AM

""That's the root of the misunderstanding. Horse definitioners (etc)are always assuming that users of the classic definitions are disapproving of music that is not, by those definitions, folk music. IMHO that is absolutely not the case."

'Nail and head' time Mr Bridge! That's absolutely correct! It's got nothing at all to do with preferences or musical quality."

No not really. I don't suspect Captain Birdseye or Jim Carrol of having bad intentions towards me. That's not the point at all.

The point is that this style of music which is such a minority thing has a prestige out of all proportion.

As such it is used to represent our nation in international forums. It receives financial incentives. It pretty much dominates the 'folk' aitwaves and now there are university courses in the stuff.

The main thing it has to express for most of its followers is - hey I'm not a working class oik. Therefore I sing in a funny way.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 04:47 AM

Unnamed Guest,
"The 1954 definition eh?"
Yes, things have changed since 1954, one of the greatest changes being that in the intervening period we have lost virtually all the singers on which the definition was based, and they have not been replaced by new ones.
Folk song was based - as WLD nicely puts it - on the:
"relationship of the broad mass of people, and the artist who is one of them, expressing something of their society."
The song tradition, as an expression and representation of community and society, has ceased to exist and the members of those communities have become recipients of rather than participants in their culture.
Even back then, with a few exceptions, the singers on whom the definition was based were remembering the songs rather than singing them. In the post-war period, Harry Cox sang only for collectors and visiting folkies; this was the case with Phil Tanner also, (and for the fellow residents of the old people's home in Penmaen); Cecilia Costello, at home – maybe (no information).
Walter Pardon described how the tradition he remembered, died out before he joined the army in the early 1940s (that we have his magnificent family repertoire is due entirely to the fact that he started writing it down in 1948).
In Ireland, where the singing tradition lasted somewhat longer, the old singers were recalling songs they had not sung for decades (I am talking about the English language tradition; the Gaeilge one is somewhat different)). Collector Tom Munnelly (with 22000 songs to his credit), as early as 1975, described his work as being a "race with the undertaker", and by the end of the eighties the race was over and his field work was more-or-less confined to recording revival-driven events like singing week-ends and festivals.
There were some pockets of resistance; the Travellers clung on to their songs longer, mainly due to social conditions, but Pat and I all but witnessed the demise of the Irish Travellers' singing tradition (sometime between the summer of 1973 and Easter 1975) when they all got portable televisions in their vans and stopped singing around the open fire.
The folk clubs, rather than being part of the singing tradition, were life-support systems where the older songs (and very occasionally, the odd source singer) could still be heard. But even this was more-or-less swamped by the influx of singer/songwriters, whose songs were coming into existence still-born, thanks to their introspective, private nature (and to the reliance on copyright laws – don't believe me – look in on 'PRS / Gestapo' thread and see them counting the beans).
It was the dream of MacColl, and others who were creating new songs using the old forms, that this could one day re-establish a tradition of song-making as an expression of 'ordinary' people's lives and aspirations, but it didn't happen. WLDs "relationship of the broad mass of people, and the artist" never re-emerged, not with the singers of traditional songs, nor with the singer songwriters. Nowadays the singing only takes place in freemason-like folkie gatherings.
The 1954 definition may need fine-tuning, but a total re-definition, I believe, would be a revisionist exercise in the re-writing of history.
To those who have suggested that the definition was an invention of dry academics – it wasn't.
It was the thoughtful end-result of the work of people who were not afraid of getting the dirt of fieldwork under their fingernails; Sharp who asthmatically wheezed his way around Southern England an up the Appalachians along with trusty assistant Maud Karpeles, (a collector in her own right in Newfoundland); to Kidson; Broadwood, Gilchrist, Greig, Moeran, Butterworth, Delargey, Ó'Súilleabháin, Vaughan-Williams Grainger........... and all the others who didn't confine their activities to sitting in folk-clubs and were prepared to 'rove out' a little further than the bar to refill their pints, (and were not afraid to open - or even write the occasional book).
Here's to 'em all, I say
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Waddon Pete
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 04:38 AM

Defining Folk......CD Baby lists at least 40 different styles of folk!

Here's a thought....why don't we call in either "Traditional Folk" or "Modern Folk". Both equally valid with an enormous contribution to make.

(.....now...where's that popcorn?)

Best wishes,

Peter

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 03:24 AM

Why? For pleasure, pure and simple.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 02:52 AM

I do theoretically agree with you, Richard. And for that 'classic' definition I'd now substitute the word 'traditional' for the word 'folk'. Look around you. There's plenty of music that's labelled folk that nowhere near meets that 1954 definition. There has been for forty-odd years. The world has changed... and Canute demonstrated many years ago that trying to stop the tide is a fruitless excercise.

What exists really exists. I doubt it can be defined out of existence, even if it was desirable to do so.

Cheers

Nigel

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 08:22 PM

Er - Nigel - time to go and read that definition again.... (sighs)

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Brendy
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 04:44 PM

I think the preservation of it is.

That enables future generations to also take joy in it :-)

B.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: GUEST,robinia
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 04:36 PM

What's this "should" business anyway?   Is singing some sort of ethical duty? I always thought it was a joy.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 03:56 PM

There's plenty of (shall we say) 'largely-acoustic-composed-music-of-the-era-since-the-end-of-World-War-Two' that gets called folk either by the media, or its fans or detractors (for some people f**k will always be a four letter word), or even sometimes its authors. Some of it I don't particularly think of as folk music. That's not to say it isn't, however, just that I personally struggle to connect with it as such.

I'd be loathe, in the 21st century, to be bound by a definition of folk music that is a) absolutely synonymous with the definition of traditional music and b) assumes that people and their music and people's understanding and perception of their music is fixed and unchanging. So... I'd favour having a fairly focused definition of traditional music, but just going with the flow as far as folk music is concerned and accepting that it no longer has that same meaning it might once have had - however much some of us might want to turn back the clock. I also think that whilst the definition of traditional music remains fairly fixed, the definition of folk might vary from country to country and generation to generation.

Also, if comparatively recently composed songs like 'England in Ribbons', 'Fire and Wine', 'The Father's Song', 'The World Turned Upside Down' and 'Traitor's Love' (to name a few favourites) aren't folk songs, I'm buggered if I know what they are. The people who wrote them appear to be folk singers, too. to add to the confusion...

Finally, I reserve the right to contradict myself completely in a single thread, as I have in this one. Shows I'm taking stuff in...

Cheers

Nigel

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 03:41 PM

"That's the root of the misunderstanding. Horse definitioners (etc)are always assuming that users of the classic definitions are disapproving of music that is not, by those definitions, folk music. IMHO that is absolutely not the case."

'Nail and head' time Mr Bridge! That's absolutely correct! It's got nothing at all to do with preferences or musical quality.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Brendy
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 03:08 PM

;-)

B.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Banjiman
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 03:06 PM

all good clean, harmless fun!

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Brendy
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 03:01 PM

... popcorn in hand again.... ;-)

B.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 02:46 PM

"In a recent thread there was a debate about which was Ewan MacColl's 'Dirty Old Town'. I was surprised at the number of people who didn't know that it's Salford. Who will know in 200 years?"
If it ever becomes a folk song (which is extremely unlikely) it won't matter, it will be about wherever it lands.
More later - Taggart starts in a minute
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Banjiman
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 02:37 PM

OK, seriously tell me how the songs and performances on these links are not folk (ignore the banjo player though!)

Brother Crow

Richard Grainger

Wendy Arrowsmith

Roger Davies

Paul

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Brendy
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 02:04 PM

In 200 years time, it may be. It will mean: a darned good Folk Club...

B.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 01:47 PM

KFFSCCM(TWANSW)C

Is this a Gaelic word?

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Banjiman
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 01:29 PM

Richard,

In my case I put on both contemporary & trad singers and players on at our FOLK club. The strapline    KFFC....it's finger pickin' good!!! wouldn't work if I had to change it to:

Kirkby Fleetham Folk and Some Contemporary Singer-Songwriter Music (that we are not sure what category it fits into) Club

KFFSCCM(TWANSW)C....it's finger pickin' good!!! just wouldn't work.

I take the debate on what is Folk music this seriously.

Paul

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 01:28 PM

I do NOT know. I am a contemporary song writer and I don't call my stuff folk. It ain't. It's songs I wrote.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 01:21 PM

But this is one of the ironies of this debate.   I am not yet aware of any upholder of the 1954 definition who uses it to denigrate contemporary song or to say it should not be cherished. Yet always it is the contemporary songwriter who, it is alleged, suffers if his output is not called "folk".    Why?

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 12:42 PM

Sminky, you have written something I have wanted to say but could not find the words for. Thank you.

What is good to see is the recognition from so many people that they have been influenced to one degree or other by songs from the past/present. Whether we continue to go back and forth on the 'true' meaning of folk, it's comforting to know that people from all traditions--new or old--cherish the music they play/preserve. It ain't my place to thank y'all, but I do.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 11:51 AM

"As long as the music is kept, I don't really care which box it's put in."

That brings me nicely to a point which is almost always overlooked. British folk songs and ballads were 'rescued' from extinction, at the eleventh hour, by a small band of enthusiasts who thought they were worth preserving.

The songs were created by real people. No-one now knows who they were, why they wrote the songs, what their inspiration was, who or what influenced them. The secret died with them.

And the problem with disregarding 'contemporary' folksongs is that they are liable to go the same way.

In a recent thread there was a debate about which was Ewan MacColl's 'Dirty Old Town'. I was surprised at the number of people who didn't know that it's Salford. Who will know in 200 years?

But many of the modern creators are still amongst us - and some of their works will undoubtedly be regarded as folk songs by future generations (their songs may even go through 'the process'). The time to ask them about their songs is NOW.

We owe it to those who come after. Today is tomorrow's history. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past.

PS will the 1954 definition still be around in 2208? Yeah right!

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Brendy
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:40 AM

Most; I say most of what I play and sing pre-dates 1900, but my versions of them come from every influence I ever grew up with.

However by making the distinction between Vaughn Williams and the material he arranged (arranged, here, being the operative word), one subconsciously..., at the very least..., makes that separation between Classical and Folk, or as I outlined, between Folk and Rock.

4/4 time is 4/4 time.
It's where you go after that, will I suppose eventually define you, as opposed to the other way around.

B.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:34 AM

But maybe it won't continue to if it is too narrowly defined.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:22 AM

Why is a variation "correct" or "incorrect"? Nothing about that in the 1954 definition, or your Funk and Wagnalls!

That's the root of the misunderstanding. Horse definitioners (etc)are always assuming that users of the classic definitions are disapproving of music that is not, by those definitions, folk music. IMHO that is absolutely not the case.

Wheter it is "folk" or not is nothing to do with whether it is good or not. There is some good in most styles and a lot of dreck in all of them too - but at least folk music (stricto sensu) has demonstrated that it can survive.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:09 AM

As long as the music is kept, I don't really care which box it's put in.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:04 AM

'If that then falls within the parameters of the 'accepted' definition of the form - a variation of that form is, by definition, incorrect and frequently, in my experience, is disregarded by the folk intelligentsia.'

Well yes, but surely the more ingenuous the reinvention - the further we are getting away from what is a fundamental of folk music. Namely that relationship of the broad mass of people, and the artist who is one of them, expressing something of their society.

And the ingenuity of the present revival far out-sophisticates Vaughan Williams (Mantovani style orchestral arrangement), Britten. (plum inserted in the cakehole variations) et al.

For example the rhythmic complexity of of the famous Carthy/Swarbrick Byker Hill always reminds me of something from Bartok. Its a very clever piece of music, but its one hell of a long way from the folksong as I first heard it. And when you start applying those rules of folksong - to songs people aren't familiar with, in the first place. Who apart from the slavish follower is following?

I know you lot always think I'm grinding an axe - its not that - its the distance between ordinary people and folk music which genuinely troubles my thoughts.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:01 AM

The 2008 definition

A folk song is:

"any song which is regarded as a folk song in 200 years' time"

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 09:09 AM

I absolutely agree with your last; look at what Vaughan Williams did with his interpretations of English folk tunes. I would contend, however, that categorization leads to an expectation of a stereotypical musical form-sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy if you like. If that then falls within the parameters of the 'accepted' definition of the form a variation of that form is, by definition, incorrect and frequently, in my experience, is disregarded by the folk intelligentsia.

I have a feeling I may be talking myself into a corner here; let me just say that, to me, it's the song/tune and not the vehicle of delivery which matters, whether it be a solo voice in a folk club or a chamber ensemble at the Royal Festival Hall.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Brendy
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 08:54 AM

... that was meant to be an exclamation mark.... :-)

B.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Brendy
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 08:53 AM

Yes, but versions of songs aren't really the issue, neither. Was Lizzy's 'Whiskey in the Jar' a Folk Song, or a Rock Song, for instance?

Categorisation does not lead to a narrow-minded view of music, in my opinion, if that is what one does with the music one hears; it does not mean that you should be confined, as a musician or fan to operating within that box.

Nor should it?

B.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 08:38 AM

The 1954 definition eh? Well, it may have escaped a few people's notice but in the intervening half-century or so musical styles, definitions have moved on and evolved a bit.
Folk music evolves, story's change, like Chinese whispers, in the telling. When did the definitive version of any song you care to mention get written or first sung? Is the version collected in 1954 the definitive? I doubt it as it probably evolved over many years prior; how many versions of Arthur McBride have you heard and which one is definitive? The answer is none of them; they are all variations on a theme.
I really dislike narrow, exclusive definitions written by some dusty academic type and I absolutely disagree that, somehow, they are essential to understanding what defines the genre. Folk music is not about intellectual discourse but about performance. Categorization invites a narrow-minded attitude to music, encourages divisiveness and musical elitism.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 04:08 AM

okay, but remember to use a conditioner first.....

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 02:58 AM

No WLD
I said I'm not prepared to drive across the county to to buy a pig-in-a-poke - a decision I took 20 years ago when I stopped going to clubs. Whether I know what folk is or not doesn't come into my decision, but if I think I don't know, I know a man who does and am prepared to ask him.
I like it therefore it must be folk - now where did I put Carmen?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 02:10 AM

So what you're saying is Jim, you're at home watching Taggart (insisting you know what folk music, but the rest of are deluded) and what the public have decided is folk music goes ahead without you.


As tony hancock said (in 12 angry men); if that was an election mate, you'd have lost your deposit...

Does Magna Carta mean nothing....? Did she die in vain? Brave Polish girl who made King John sign the paper and close all the boozers at ten o'clock...

There has indeed been a moider......

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 01:33 AM

Comes with youth.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 10:34 PM

(chuckle) Oh, to be in "the know". What a glorious feeling it must be to have such total certainty.

I'm gonna go play some folk music. Cheerio, chaps!

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Gene Burton
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 06:44 PM

I've said all I want to on this thread, so I'll leave all you experts to fight it out. Goodnight gentlemen.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 06:25 PM

"A folk song, to me, is a song with a strong (ie. readily hum-able) melody and intelligent lyrics, sang either with optional acoustic backing or unaccompanied. This may be a Traditional song (by which I mean an old song still widely sung and composed by somebody whose name is lost to posterity and thus credited to Trad); or it may be a song written by someone whose name is known and may be either dead or alive, however recent or otherwise. But the two most important identifying features of a folk song are a strong melody and intelligent lyrics."

Sorry, Gene, but no it isn't! Your 'definition' is what you would like folk song to be - not what it is.

For more information on what folk song is, please read Jim Carroll's post above.

The 1954 definition (quoted in Bert Lloyd's book and in a number of previous threads)with its three elements of continuity, variation and selection is, in my opinion, elegant and illuminating but doesn't include all of the types of music arbitrarily lumped into your definition.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 05:53 PM

I reckon the 'intelligent lyrics' bit is optional too, judging from a few efforts I've heard recently and judging from a few of my favourite traditional songs... but, taking account of Little Hawk's post as well, where would that leave us?

Brendy, probably nothing at all 'new' about your FP definition, so read that as 'new to me'... I enjoyed it, is all.

Cheers

Nigel

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 04:56 PM

Sounds quite reasonable to me, Gene...although I think that the strong melody part, though unquestionably desirable, is not absolutely obligatory in all cases.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Gene Burton
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 04:51 PM

Seriously, having given the matter a fair amount of thought in the last 24 hours, I think I am ready to offer my (admittedly highly personal and subjective) definition of folk song; since others have set the ball rolling and also to defend myself against the charges of dishonesty and cowardice implied by one or two recent posters. Before I proceed, let me reiterate...this is my personal and subjective view, not one I'm trying to impose on anybody else.

***

A folk song, to me, is a song with a strong (ie. readily hum-able) melody and intelligent lyrics, sang either with optional acoustic backing or unaccompanied. This may be a Traditional song (by which I mean an old song still widely sung and composed by somebody whose name is lost to posterity and thus credited to Trad); or it may be a song written by someone whose name is known and may be either dead or alive, however recent or otherwise. But the two most important identifying features of a folk song are a strong melody and intelligent lyrics.

***

For what it's worth, I think the above definition can reasonably be applied to MOST Traditional songs, SOME of the revival-era protest songs, and SOME post-Dylan confessional-songwriter-type songs. And arguably some from other genres too. Perhaps it is more helpful, then, to view "folk" more as an indicator of quality than as a genre classification.

(posted in a sincere effort to explain what I think folk music is, as requested by at least a couple of posters...NOT in an attempt to start World War Three!)

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 04:40 PM

Indubitably, Richard. ;-) Thou makest a great deal of sense, verily and forsooth! How could I disagree with any of that?

Are we actually arguing about anything here or are we not? I confess that I'm beginning to be quite unsure as to whether we really differ about any of the vital points...or we just think we do.

I explained to you already in a very lengthy post what "folk music" means to me, and how I find it different in certain respects from most other generalized categories of popular music.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 04:29 PM

For goodness sake, whether something is "folk" or not is nothing to do with whether you like it or not, or whether it has merit or not.

If I "should" sing folk (to come back on topic), how do I know what it is I "should" sing if the word "folk" has no meaning?

I bet you, LH, I could find you a folk song you hated, and also a snigger snogwriter song you hated, and a Dylanist (not necessary Dylan) song you hated etc etc.

In some cases it isn't the song, but the delivery. To me, Young Tradition's performance of "Henry the Poacher" is wonderful and vibrant, but Ewan MacColl's leaden and plodding.

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Gene Burton
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 04:26 PM

Brendy: I don't see that expressing a personal dislike of one particular song, in itself, puts me in the F*** Police; nonetheless I am touched and honoured by the invite (snigger)... although actually, by a curious quirk of fate (well, OK, I won their inaugural songwriting competition last year-sorry) I AM a life member of the EFDSS...does this qualify me??

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 03:32 PM

I know what I like when I hear it. Most of what I hear at local "folk" music gatherings, I like....although it's a pretty eclectic mix, that's for sure. Most of it you will never hear on your radio or TV. Not a chance. Whether that means that any of it's really "folk" music or whether it fits the Funk and Wagnall's official definition of what "folk" music is, I don't frankly give a toss...

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 03:05 PM

Once again the 'what is folksong' argument raises its lovely head, which is only right and proper when discussing the subject of - well, folksong.
As usual, much of the argument is based on two false premises:
(a) that there is no existing definition of the term, and,
(b) that any perception of what that definition is revolves around personal likes and dislikes.
As Richard Bridge has lucidly pointed out, a perfectly workable, clearly worded, widely accepted definition has existed for over half a century and any discussion on the subject has to start with that – either by accepting it or dismantling it with argument. That what you are singing falls under the description of folksongs depends on whether you can put a tick in enough of the relevant boxes; if you can, it is, if you can't, it isn't – simple as that.
The accepted definition is to be found in various publications; in its concise form in A L Lloyd's 'Folk Song In England' and in an extremely detailed 16 page, double-column one in Funk and Wagnall's 'Standard Dictionary of Folklore. This is adequately backed up by hundreds of published song collections, and countless reference and research works, many bearing the term 'folk song' on the spine. Those who have any problems with part or all of the existing definition are perfectly welcome to question any or all of it, and even replace it with their own suggestions. I do not believe anybody is entitled to reject or ignore it out-of-hand.
The old usual – "I'm not great with definitions" is illogical, dishonest and not a little cowardly. We put labels on things so we know what tins to open, otherwise we hand the choice of what we eat, drink, read, wear, listen to, think – to others, many of whom have a vested interest in persuading us that what they are selling is exactly what we are looking for.
So far, nobody has put forward the asinine (no pun intended) 'talking horse' statement mentioned by Richard Bridge, but I'm sure it's lurking out there somewhere, as is the equally facile Humpty Dumptyish, "words mean what I want them to mean" argument.
Why is a definition important?
i. Many of us find arguments such as this one enjoyable, stimulating and educational, but in order to get the most out of them it is necessary to define our terms so we know we are speaking the same language. Throw away the definitions and you throw away communication, therefore forums such as Mudcat become meaningless and unworkable.   
ii. Everybody needs to know that what they are subscribing to conforms, more or less to what it says on the tin.
Our local newspaper recently carried an advert for a folk song club over the other side of the county. The fact that there are so few such events around here tempts me to jump in the car and drive the twenty-odd miles in the (at present) pissing rain and howling gales to attend. On the other hand, the chance that when I get there I will, more likely than not, find something which bears no relation whatever to what I understand as folksong, makes me more inclined to stay at home and watch Taggart.
Throughout the eighties and nineties we watched the gradual haemorrhaging of folk club audiences, when me and thousands like me voted with our feet and walked away from the folk scene exactly for this reason. We really were not prepared to sit through yet another evening at a folk club and not hear a folk song.
iii. More immediately; the thread on 'the PRS Gestapo' has brought into sharp focus the current activities of this august body, who are apparently claiming payment from folk clubs "on the off-chance that copyrighted songs 'might' be sung during the course of the evening". Folksongs proper are in the public domain, singer/songwriter compositions are not; therefore, those of who prefer what we listen to; to be the real thing will run the risk of losing our venues in the interests of those who are, quite reasonably, trying to earn a few sheckles out of their compositions.
These are only a few of the problems thrown up by the present situation; there are plenty more, proving, to my mind at least, that a great deal of damage has already been done to our appreciation and understanding enjoyment and passing on of folk music in the name of "let's not bother our tiny heads with understanding this music.
If anybody has an alternative working definition of what they mean by folksong for us to consider, I would be pleased to hear it. On the other hand, if it's just a case of using the term as a cultural comfort blanket, as has been suggested, perhaps it's time that those concerned face up to the fact that what they are doing is not, never has been and never will be folksong.
If they wish to keep the term in their CV as a job description, perhaps they might add "wannabe" in front of it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Why should we sing folk music at all?
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 02:33 PM

Why do I sing folk songs?

Can't remember words for s**t, but if the verses consist of one line followed by five lines of "Re-fol-re-fol, fol-de-diddle-digh-do," I can usually manage that. . . .      ;-)

Don Firth