John Lennon - Folk Singer

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Gene Burton
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:22 PM

Well, I'd quibble with your inclusion of rap, because rap by it's nature is spoken, not sung, thus has no vocal melody and isn't, in the strictest sense, singing, let alone folk singing. But Jazz, blues, choral etc...all indigenous folk/roots forms to the respective people groups with which they originated. But this raises the question of whether the originators of, say, English traditional folk songs would themselves have conceptualised their creations as "folk"...more likely they saw themselves as popular songwriters and it is in more modern times we've attached the term "folk" to their songs, in recognition of their quality and staying power.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:18 PM

Could I just add (in reference to what Gene said, in passing, about 15 posts back) that it's an out of print, commercially unavailable lp.

Nigel

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: GUEST,Ruth - arrrgh!
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:08 PM

Gene, I just think your terms are bit too broad.

"a timeless, poignant and eminently hummable melody nonetheless (as good a criteria for "f*** music" as any, IMHO). "

" strong melody, good lyrics, has carried for more than 2 generations...still ticks all the boxes for a folk song as far as I'm concerned!"

there are loads of jazz, modern blues, pop, classical choral and probbably even rap songs that fit this description. I don't see the value in clumping it all together in an "If I like it, it must be folk" attitude. The whole concept of folk music becomes meaningless, which is what we've seen happening in recent years.

I have nothing against singer/songwriters and I listen to a wide range of music that many people would consider folk - from the Demon Barbers to Chris Wood to the Voice of the People to Peter Bellamy. But for me, folk music at the very least uses the tradition as a jumping off point - look at the Imagined Village and what they've done with traditional music. Brilliant. But if the tradition is not there, at the very least giving some sort of context, then it ain't folk, IMHO.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Gene Burton
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:31 AM

Traditional songs were written by songwriters...do you think they appeared as if by magic in a puff of smoke at the beginning of time? Your distinction between the two is specious...and also rather insulting to those responsible for the creation of those songs, whose names, alas, are lost to posterity.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: GUEST,ruth - arrrgh!
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:28 AM

sorry - one day I will remember to fill in my name every time...

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:50 AM

Well you would, Gene. I have problems with the 1954 definition as well, but equally, your definition basically describes singer/songwriter music and doesn't really say anything meaningful about the tradition. My own definintion would be completely different to both.

This is what I mean. Folk means too many things to too many different people. As a term of definition, it has pretty much lost its meaning.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Gene Burton
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:24 AM

By the way, are there any fans of Poular music out there??
Should of course read POPULAR music.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Gene Burton
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:20 AM

"Folk music is the product of a musical tradition that has evolved through the process of oral transmission"..."...music that has been evolved...by a community uninfluenced by poular and arts music".

This being the case, it would follow that new folk songs can only be created in cultures where music playing/recording technology is wholly absent; and furthermore untouched by mass popular culture.

Um, I think that only leaves the interior of Papua New Guinea and maybe the remoter parts of the Amazon rainforest...not a very positive prognosis for the continued existence of a living folk tradition in the Western world!

I still prefer my definition...

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:05 AM

Subject: Isthe1954defining,improvable
From: Captain Birdseye - PM
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 03:51 AM

Definition of Folk Music ,decided by the International Folk Music Council in 1954.
Folk music is the product of a musical tradition that has been evolved through the process of oral transmission. The factors that shape the tradition are: (i) continuity which links the present with the past; (ii) variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or the group; and (iii) selection by the community, which determines the form or forms in which the music survives.
The term can be applied to music that has been evolved from rudimentary beginnings by a community uninfluenced by popular and art music and it can likewise be applied to music which has originated with an individual composer and has subsequently been absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community.
The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready-made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk character."

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:55 AM

Subject: RE: Dick Miles jazz singer
From: Captain Birdseye - PM
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:16 AM

what I am prepared to discuss,if you provide the 1954 definition is how it can be applied to modern songs such as John Lennons,with the proviso that the 1954 definition[has flaws and is not perfect]but is the best definition that is not subjective.
This is Different from, What I expect to see,when I go to a Folkclub as a paying visitor[because thats my subjective feeling],which does not have to be logical but can be emotional.
An example of illogicality, but emotional gut feeling,is the use of Traditional music for toothpaste adverts.It could be argued that getting traditional music to people who have never heard it before must be agood thing,.
but in my opinion using it as an advert for toothpaste demeans it.
logically this argument can be defeated,but it still doesnt alter how I feel[subjective emotional],in the same way turning up to pay to see someone at a folk club is subjective[emotional],not necessarily logical.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Cuddles
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:23 AM

This is a stupendous version of his song Keith. Thanks for posting it. Marianne sings it with incredible feeling!

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: KeithofChester
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 08:19 AM

The Lennon version of his own song is good, but perhaps the finest variant is the version that was "collected" and then re-interpreted by Marianne Faithfull, as here.

Working Class Hero

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: KeithofChester
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:46 AM

As John Lennon said. There is a line about peasants later in the song too.

As soon as your born they make you feel small,
By giving you no time instead of it all,
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
They hurt you at home and they hit you at school,
They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool,
Till you're so f'ing crazy you can't follow their rules,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:42 AM

Does anybody ever get to the end of Lizzie's maundering diatribes?

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: GUEST,Ruth at work
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 06:08 AM

guest above is me.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 06:07 AM

Lisa, you haven't a bleedin' clue what Sharp did because all you know is what you've read in a couple of paragraphs on some dodgy website. But heck - don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. The truth "as you see it" is based on no in-depth knowledge or - god forbid - research, it is simply your bonkers ideas pulled out of the air. As conjecture, it is worthless.

But I love how you're on first-name terms with Cecil Sharp, regardless of the paucity of your knowledge.

My opinions on the uselessnes of the word "folk" are ones I've shared before and am happy to do again. EFDSS' name has strong historical roots. Again, you know nothing about EFDSS and have no experience of its work - name-checking people and organisations doesn't make you big, or clever. In fact, usually it just gives you the opportunity to wave your underlying ignorance like a flag.

There isn't really a good word, IMHO, to replace folk, but I think that these days it causes more problems than it solves.



Gene: I was basing my comments about your singer-songwriter background quite simply on the definition you gave for folk music. It is, as Nerd said, a definition that would be accepted by many revivalists or singer-songwriters, but not by many whose main frame of reference is the body of traditional music. That's all. It was not meant to undermine your music or your credentials.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Gene Burton
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 05:02 AM

"a singer-songwriter with little experience of the tradition"

Ruth, you really shouldn't be making sweeping, condemnatory statements about people you don't know. FYI I'm both a songwriter and an interpreter of (mainly traditional) folk songs. The melodies (and sometimes the lyrics) I write myself are very often heavily influenced/drawn on by traditional melodies; and in my singing of traditional songs I draw from what I've heard in folk clubs over the last few years (OK, I've largely moved on from the folk "scene" now but it's left a lasting impression), as well as from the singing of my Dad who's grounded in the tradition. I do think opinions have more credibility when expressed on their own merits, rather than on personal attacks on those who think to the contrary.

P.S. I'm DEFINITELY far, far too young to be a "revivalist"!!!

Nerd, thanks very much for the link, most welcome. I believe Nigel's been kind enough to burn off a Bellamy CD for me, which is eagerly anticipated...BTW, I rather like the words to "Groundhog"...there seems to be a smutty undercurrent there which is maybe only apparent after a few listens, which for me implies a degree of sophistication in the writing...or maybe that's just my filthy mind...:)

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 03:47 AM

All of that crap stems from a fundamental lack of understanding about what it was that the collectors actually did. The idea that they'd be studying rap, or John Bloody Lennon, is absurd precisely because nothing that is so prevalent within popular culture NEEDS collecting!

It's not like Sharp was interested in preserving, say, music hall songs, which were ten a penny. He actively sought out stuff that had a certain obscurity, even in his day. Otherwise he wouldn't have had to trundle around the flippin' countryside on a bike looking for it.

"But don't expound on what they'd be doing today without a little thought!"

Indeed.

"My point is simply that such songs do survive in tradition, without "intelligent" lyrics. I think it may be the case that in folk REVIVALS, "intelligence" of lyrics is a quality that helps songs survive, but not so much in oral tradition."

Indeed again. i think Gene is coming to this discussion from an almost purely revivalist, singer-songwriter's perspective, as is evident from his definitions of folk. Which have very little to do with traditional music. This is why I think "folk" is almost a useless term now - it means too many things to too many people. It's difficult for a singer-songwriter with little experience of the tradition to have a meaningful discussion about folk song with a traditionalist. Essentially they're discussing two completely different things.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 01:47 AM

Gene,

If you're looking, it's not difficult to find Peter's music. You can hear samples of it here

Enjoy!

To clarify my point, Walter Pardon was a traditional singer from Norfolk who died in 1996. He was probably the best-known and best-documented traditional English singer of all time. AND he was a great influence on most revivalists, including the aforementioned Mr. Bellamy, who championed Walter back in the day. So no, I didn't just make it up.

"Chimney Pot" survived in tradition at least until 1996. I can't be sure if it's still sung today. My point is simply that such songs do survive in tradition, without "intelligent" lyrics. I think it may be the case that in folk REVIVALS, "intelligence" of lyrics is a quality that helps songs survive, but not so much in oral tradition.

If this one doesn't convince you, you can take any number of folksongs. How about "groundhog"?

Yonder comes Sal with a snicker and a grin, groundhog.
Yonder comes Sal with a snicker and a grin, groundhog.
Yonder comes Sal with a snicker and a grin,
Groundhog grease around her chin, groundhog.

Groundhog grease running down her chin, groundhog.
Groundhog grease running down her chin, groundhog.
Groundhog grease running down her chin,
She licked it off and swallowed it again, groundhog.

This is a perennial favorite in the American mountain south, in the Appalachian and Ozark regions. Everyone knows it, and that's been the case for over a hundred years. It was the first song Frank Proffitt senior heard his father Wiley play on the banjo. (Wiley was born in 1874.) Frank's son, Frank Jr., learned it from his dad. Frank Junior died in 2005. It's not got overly intelligent lyrics, nor a hummable melody, but it has other qualities that help it survive. People enjoy eating groundhogs, and they also identify with the critters (like Cajuns with crawfish), so they sing silly old songs about them.

Ruth, thanks for backing me up on Cecil Sharp. Like Child, Sharp is re-made by many folkies in their own image; "if he were around today, Child would be studying rap" and the like. We can only assume the folkies don't actually read what these scholars have written. Which, actually, is fair enough...it takes a certain kind of specialization to even care what they thought. But don't expound on what they'd be doing today without a little thought!

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: PoppaGator
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 01:54 PM

Is a busker/streetsinger a folk musician?

I think so. You may differ.

When deciding upon a repertoire, a person trying to make some money singing and self-accompanying on the public street will want to include selections that are:

Recognizable to the public;
Enjoyable to sing and to hear;
Meaningful to oneself, to make a long day and/or night as endurable as possible;
Able to be recognizably performed using the portable (and usually acoustic) instrument of one's choice.

Many songs that may not fit the strictest definition of "traditional/folk" make excellent selections for street performers. Many Beatles songs, obviously enough, would qualify. Quite a few other Beatles songs would be very likely NOT make the cut, notably those late-career compositions whose very identity is tied up with electronic studio-produced sounds (e..g., "I Am the Walrus," etc.)

I assert, quite firmly, that "buskable" songs are, ipso facto, folk songs for today, the embodiment of a living tradition.

Of course, there are many who believe that only those songs that represent a long-gone historical tradition are "true" folk songs. Everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion. Whether a repertoire composed exclusively of such songs will actually appeal to living listeners is an interesting question.

The skill and talent of the performer, in the end, will usually determine the music's success. If a singer truly and passionately believe that the material he/she chooses to present (old or new or both) is uniqely worthwhile, the performance will be valid and appealing and certainly should find its own audience.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Cuddles
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:09 AM

Puff! Puff!

Here I am...back again...all the way from Youtube...

I've NO IDEA who those lads were in my earlier video, pretending to be Lulu! ;-) OK...I'm spluttering here....spluttering... :-)

Naughty lads they are! I think they're possibly the main members of the Lulu Appreciation Society at their Annual Convention.

Anyway, I've shut them away for a minute (although they're darn brilliant aren't they, I think they could go far you know, given some encouragement!)

And now...ladies and gentlemen we're proud to present that well-known Folk Lassie from way up North...

Miss Marie McDonald McLaughlin Lawrie with a traditional Scots R&B folk song..

Let's try that again - LULU AT CROPREDY 2007


Hey, Lulu's 59 you know! Sock it to 'em Lu...

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: GUEST,Ruth at work
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:01 AM

That guest was me, BTW.

No, I won't, Lizzie - because it's true.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Cuddles
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:00 AM

Heehee! I've linked the wrong video...Oh b*********! Heehee!

Hang on...normal service will be resumed in a tick...

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Cuddles
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:56 AM

Ooh...you'll be on the scaffold for saying that 'guest'...they'll be after you as sure as eggs is eggs! ;-)

HEY! LOOK!

LULU IS A FOLK SINGER!

LULU AT CROPREDY 2007


Heavens to Betsy but that woman is gorgeous isn't she! (I'll say that for the lads as they're not 'allowed' to say that anymore)

I know she openly admits to having 'everything possible' done, but I must find out what she's had and who did it..because I SO need something, tuck, nip, nip, tuck..grins wildly (it's the only way to keep those wrinkles at bay)

Maybe it's her folk lifestyle that's helped keep her so gorgeous, boogeying on down at Cropredy and such. Isn't that a great song by the way, hope you're all joining in on the chorus as you boogey on down.

I think I'll have to go there this year, I could come back looking like Lulu!

Cuddles :-)

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:45 AM

"Cecil Sharp himself would've collected some of Lennons stuff, I expect."

You expect wrong, methinks. I love all these Mudcat people who re-invent Cecil Sharp in their own image. They think of him as some sort of big cuddly folk uncle.

Sharp was didactic, and prescriptive, and bowdlerised songs whose lyrics he felt "inappropriate", and was horrible to poor Mary Neal. He was the original Chief of the Folk Police.

That's not to say his role wasn't an invaluable one.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Cuddles
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:37 AM

"An interesting debate, nonetheless"


Ooh...so I *could* escape being hanged, drawn and quartered after all then?

Chuckle ;-)

You'll all be thrilled to know that I don't think Paul McCartney's a folk singer. Met him, been there, done that and wasn't impressed. Sorry Paul.

Now George....ah...George.......Does anyone........

(Dives under bombproof table double quick, whilst taking out tin hat at speed)

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: GUEST,Ruth at work
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:33 AM

Gene, you're not too young to have heard Peter Bellamy. I picked up a double CD called Fair Annie at Towersey two years ago, which means it's probably available via Rocking Chair/Mrs Casey. It's got loads of his best songs on it. Be warned: he takes some getting used to, but he's completely addictive.

To be honest, someone somewhere is probably singing Chimney Pot. God knows there's a terrible lot of crap that gets trawled out at singarounds.


I love the tune of Blood Red Roses, BTW, esp as sung by the Watersons.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Gene Burton
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:14 AM

Hmmm, not sure how I could reasonably be expected to have heard Peter Bellamy if I'm too young to have seen him live and his recorded work (as Nigel tells me) is notoriously hard to find and mostly on vinyl...but I'm happy to let the matter rest.

I admit I've never heard "Chimney Pot"...did you just make that up?? Is anybody actually singing the song NOW, though...I would guess not, which raises the question as to whether it has "survived" in a true, living sense (as opposed to just on one or two "source" recordings).

An interesting debate, nonetheless...when you're bored and unemployed!

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: AllanW
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 02:29 AM

"But if someone got a folk club gig and spent the whole time covering Beatles songs.."

I personally frown on anyone who gets up in a folk club and sings more than one song from any one particular artist of any description. It somehow all of a sudden becomes 'tribute night', unless of course, they are all self-penned!

I wonder if this thread would have gone on ad nausium if Cuddles had titled it 'John Lennon's Folk Songs', instead of declaring him a 'Folk Singer'?

And for those who brought Dylan into the discussion, we already know he's not a folk singer, he's a 'song and dance man'! :)

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Nerd
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:00 AM

Gene, sorry if I jumped to conclusions. It seemed to me someone living in England who's never heard Peter Bellamy probably hasn't been seriously into traditional music for all that long. It's all relative though, of course...most of the folks on here are (ahem!) a few years older than you.

In any case, the idea that only songs of great quality (strong melody, intelligent lyrics, or what-have you) survived in the tradition is a romantic notion at best. If you look through the big printed collections, the ones by people printing everything they found, not the best of what they found, you find tons and tons of dross among the great songs. If you've ever recorded the repertoires of traditional singers, you've probably found some not-so-admirable items, even from some of the best singers. Like Walter Pardon's "Chimney Pot":

On the chimney pot, you old bitch
Fol-the-rol, fol-the-rol
Chimney pot, you old bitch
Fol-the-rol, fol-the-rol
You're the sweetest old man alive, live, live
You're the sweetest old man alive.

Chamber lie, you old bitch
Fol-the-rol, fol-the-rol
Chamber lie, you old bitch
Fol-the-rol, fol-the-rol
You're the sweetest old man alive, live, live
You're the sweetest old man alive.

lyrically intelligent? If you say so.

Forsh, only someone with no familiarity at all with the attitudes of Cecil Sharp would suggest he would collect John Lennon songs if he were around today. His idea of folksong is less inclusive by far than mine! He'd have no interest in anything Lennon had written.

With respect, "Folk Music is what Folk want to Sing, Folk Want to hear, & Folk enjoy" is silly; everyone enjoys something different, and everyone is "folk." So you're just replacing the category of "music" with "folk music." Fine, but we already have the category "music," so your definition is redundant.

Listen, I'd be perfectly happy if someone sang a Beatles song at a folk club, because I like a lot of Beatles songs, and variety is the spice of life. But if someone got a folk club gig and spent the whole time covering Beatles songs, I might wonder why they decided to make that their set, and I expect the folk club wouldn't have them back.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Forsh
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 08:14 PM

Yep.. this is a fun thread. Working class hero already cited, ... Folk Music ..
"Cuddles, I admire your bravery.
I once sang a Lennon song in a folk club and was jeered by a 'folk singer' who complained that it wasn't 'folk'
He went on to sing 'It's a Hard Life Wherever You Go' by Nanci Griffith, which apparently is!?! "
Well,I was in a late late session with a bunch of folks & folkies, some from a near-by caravan site, and, all enjoyed the 'Folk' songs. Then a fair young lass, asked if she could sing a song; and she sang 'Crazy' .. pitch perfect in perfect time, Patsi K couldn't have touched her that night.
I have said it before: " Folk Music is what Folk want to Sing, Folk Want to hear, & Folk enjoy; Just becausem you say it aint folk, don't make it so, Shimrod et al, Heck, Cecil Sharp himself would've collected some of Lennons stuff, I expect.
I could be more contentious here, and say that some of the lyrics of 'Madness' are quite folk-orientated (Our House, for instance), but that's another argument! :)
Dave (Forsh)
Give Peace a Chance!

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: The Mole Catcher's Apprentice (inactive)
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:55 PM

It works as a piano stool and a computer stool, saves money as well*LOL*

Charlotte (thrifty but not cheap)

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Ernest
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:25 PM

Gene, I still disagree...

Charlotte: glad to see you are a member! The first one that is using a piano stool with a computer keyboard....

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: The Mole Catcher's Apprentice (inactive)
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:11 PM

"why don`t you join up"

I'm already a member, most of the time it's quicker to post without signing in..

Charlotte (the view's the same from Ma and Pa's piano stool)

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Gene Burton
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 02:01 PM

"An Evening of Bad Music"

Believe me, that'd be an improvement on some of the publicity I've had recently! I actually think that'd attract more punters than it'd turn off, purely out of reverse psychology.

Back to the topic, though (sigh)... the point I've been trying to make is that folk cannot be defined by the same kind of strict parameters as other forms of music, because (alone among all forms of music) folk songs are dependent on the passage of time to prove their long-term fitness to remain as part of the canon. Thus folk songs cannot be folk songs unless they have proved of sufficient QUALITY to remain in the canon; and thus defining folk IS a qualitative judgment.

I HOPE this is sufficiently clear...

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Ernest
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:56 PM

You need a seat belt Charlotte....

why don`t you join up, you seem to enjoy it here?

Best
Ernest

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:52 PM

"he was an English rock musician according to the Encyclopaedia,Not a Folksinger."
Oh, Oh...weve been rumbled by The Captain...*serious folkie alert**LOL*

Charlotte (falling off the piano stool laughing)

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Ernest
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 01:41 PM

Gene,

Nerd mentioned "Blood red Roses" etc. as an example for silly lyrics, also not as an example for a weak melody, but for a memorable rythm (which he considered more important for a worksong).

Apart from that I still think you are are confusing quality and style.
"Good" and "bad" are criteria for quality (and more subjective) while "Folk", "Folkrock", "Jazz" etc. are describing styles and thus are less subjective (you can prove that a musician is using elements of a form of music, but simply "good" od "bad" is purely subjective).

Following your logic you wouldn`t be a folk musician if I didn`t like your music. If I was to organize a gig for you I would consequently have to announce it as "An evening of bad music". This would be insulting to you and also a bad business move - thats why there are genres.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM

John Ono Lennon, (Formerly MBE, returned the award in 1969) (born John Winston Lennon; October 9, 1940 – December 8, 1980) was an English rock musician who gained worldwide fame as one of the founders of The Beatles.
he was an English rock musician according to the Encyclopaedia,Not a Folksinger.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Gene Burton
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:47 PM

"Gene, I don't think from your last comments that you've looked deeply into the tradition."

Well, Nerd, you must have managed to get to know me better than I know myself, and all from the other side of a computer screen. How comforting it must be to be omniscient.

For your part, maybe you know the tradition inside out, maybe not- I don't know you from Adam and I wouldn't presume to judge. However many songs you know, though, it's self-evident that you don't know how to LISTEN to music, because you're completely wrong about "Blood Red Roses". It's probably three or four years since I've actually heard anybody sing the song, yet as I read the lines you quoted every single note of the vocal melody came back to me. I don't think this is because I have an exceptional musical memory, I think it's evidence of a very strong tune.

(also, I didn't say lyrics couldn't be obscure. I said they couldn't be WILFULLY obscure- a subtle but very important distinction. Usually in traditional songs obscure lyrics are that way for reasons specific to the purpose of the song, "Nottamun Town" being one particularly obvious example).

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 11:38 AM

Gene, I don't think from your last comments that you've looked deeply into the tradition. There are many folk songs with neither a "strong melody" nor "intelligent lyrics."

Work songs are a good example; the point there is rhythm, not melody, and the words can be literally whatever the singer thinks of at the time:

It's 'round Cape Horn we all must go
Go down, you blood red roses, Go down.
'Round Cape Horn in the frost and snow.
Go down, you blood red roses, Go down.

cho: Oh, you pinks and posies,
Go down, you blood red roses, Go down.

Or, say, American banjo songs. The melody tends to be almost non-existent, and the words just silly stuff like:

Yonder comes Sal with a snicker and a grin, groundhog.
Yonder comes Sal with a snicker and a grin, groundhog.
Yonder comes Sal with a snicker and a grin,
Groundhog grease around her chin, groundhog.


There are also plenty of traditional ballads that I think many of us would find pretty inane. The truth is not that they wouldn't have survived in tradition; they did. They did not, however, survive in the revival, because they're not to modern folk-revivalists' taste.

(Folk revivalists are a generally image-conscious bunch in their way, and especially concerned that their music and lyrics be intelligent. The people who sang these songs a hundred years ago had other criteria.)

Then there are the songs that are melodically so hard to sing, you have to be bloody good to make a go of it. Not, in other words, readily hum-able. "The Streams of Lovely Nancy," for example. That song also has some lines so obscure, no-one knows what they mean. It survived, I believe, because it was beautiful, not because it was readily hum-able or lyrically intelligent.

The real problem for your "definition," though, it that the two main criteria are really just value judgments. What you find "strong" and "intelligent" will be very different from anyone else. I know this might not seem important to you, but what is the point of even having a category of "folk music" if it's just, as Shimrod and others have said, "what I like and approve of?"

If you want to define music that way, just call it "stuff Gene thinks is strong and intelligent." We won't necessarily disagree with you on the individual songs, it's just that many of us think that pop and classical and jazz can be lyrically intelligent and melodically strong, without requiring that it therefore also be "folk music."

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Gene Burton
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:26 AM

Can't actually think of very many traditional songs with silly/inane words...apart from the Whistling Gypsy Rover which I mentioned on the other thread, none spring to mind...and none at all with weak melodies (presumably because virtually by definition, if they weren't singable they wouldn't have survived beyond the lifetime of their creator).

Melodic strength = Can you hum the tune back to yourself after (say) an hour since hearing it for the first time?
Intelligence = Not banal, inane, or gratuitously obscurantist.

(BTW thanks for your message re Bellamy- will respond later today/tonight)

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:53 AM

Gene, your definition would exclude a fair few traditional songs... but maybe you think that's for the best!?

The upside is that it's so subjective, each individual could include and exclude what they wanted depending on their definitions of 'strength' and 'intelligence'...

Defining strength and intelligence makes a nice change from defining folk, mind...

Nigel

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:51 AM

Weak melody and silly lyrics ?

Try 'Poor Murdered Woman' . . .

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Gene Burton
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:37 AM

Sorry, folk-classical is a bad example, because that would imply acoustic instrumentation anyway. Scrub that out.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Gene Burton
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:33 AM

"What about a weak melody and silly lyrics from a well known folk-musician?"

Wouldn't survive in people's memories long enough to ever be widely sung, therefore not folk.

"Is there any underling-genre less worthy you would file it under?"

I dunno..."Bad Music"? But folk, to me, isn't a genre but an adjective denoting quality and staying power.

"Your definition on the other hand would exclude the use of electric instruments, if I understood it right?"

That's a good question. I think it's possible to play folk songs in a way that whilst the nature of the song itself remains folk, the instrumentation isn't. The best-known example being folk-rock, of course; though folk-classical, folk-jazz, folk-metal etc. of course are also perfectly feasible. So the songs are folk while the backing is not, if you get my drift.

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Ernest
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:21 AM

So everything with a strong melody and intelligent lyrics is a folk song - even if the artist/arrangement etc. clearly indicates a different genre?

What about a weak melody and silly lyrics from a well known folk-musician? Is there any underling-genre less worthy you would file it under?

Sounds a bit like musical imperialism to me.

The concept of living tradition has nothing to do with it. Of course songs within the folk genre are written today (a good few by mudcatters btw). Your definition on the other hand would exclude the use of electric instruments, if I understood it right?

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: KeithofChester
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 06:06 AM

But the two most important identifying features of a folk song are a strong melody and intelligent lyrics.

Indeed, and that is why I don't distinguish between Lennon's Girl and Trad's Greensleeves as to which is "folk".

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Gene Burton
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 05:37 AM

And if folk is only a genre of music, where does that leave the concept of a living tradition?

I do NOT, however, believe that "every music is folk". Here, preserved for dubious posterity, is my definition of folk music from a previous thread.

"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."

Subject: RE: John Lennon - Folk Singer
From: Waddon Pete
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 03:57 AM

"Gene, that means that every music is folk. And it means that folk has no meaning at all."

Ah.......music is not about labels.....it is about quality and artistry, enjoyment and spiritual refreshment.

If a performer is best known for a certain repertoire, then they will be labeled by those that need labels. Actually, because they are an artist they can turn their hand to many different repertoires, as their need to perform and communicate dictates.

That's why we get so many wonderful musical experiences!

Best wishes,

Peter