Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Mark Ross
Date: 09 May 08 - 10:14 AM

Good job, Andy.
What used to be called the Willamette Valley Folk Festival here in Eugene is now the Willamette Music Festival, which suits me fine, since they didn't have any idea how to run a Folk Festival anyway, no workshops with diverse performers from different traditions trading songs on stage, no MC's to keep the ball rolling(too much dead time on the main stage while the next act sets up what seems to be too damn much equipment). It's a free fest no admission charge, and most of the performers play for the exposure(how I hate that word). And most of the performers are singer-songwhiners. They can't really call it a folk festival, but they did up till now.


Mark Ross

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Jassplayer
Date: 08 May 08 - 02:04 PM

Here's Andy Cohen's thoughts on the subject (he's not a Mudcatter ... yet):
Jack,

I'm in Kent, Ohio. May Fourth, y'know, some things take precedence. Tell 'em this: to all intents and purposes, the same run of gigs is pursued by all parties in the Folk Biz, all unorganized in any rational way. Each performer of whatever stripe, below the level of being able successfully to play at events with some heft, like a folk festival, are stuck with a welter of bars, coffee *shops* like Starbucks, coffee *houses* like Caffe Lena, bookstores (either mom & pop or B & N), local, church basements, bar mitzvahs and weddings, and all the other jobs for hire that musicians do.

Looked at from such a class perspective- there are fewer jobs which, if you had fifty of them in a row, that would be a decent living- most of us must cobble together a unique loop. Some gigs you can repeat, and some, like the Ark, say, you can't for some time, because you are part of a very large stable that has accumulated over the years.

If we had licensure, which I'm glad we don't, some authority would be responsible for the overall balance between traditional and innovative presentation. No such luck. Willy nilly, you are a folksinger no matter what piece of it you adhere to. In forty years I have seen a shift toward songwriting from pursuit of traditional material, as the source people pass away. Youngsters emerge, and a complex arithmetic of publishing, downloading, combined with the crash of distribution and the subsequent influx of hundreds of former mainstream acts into the world where Caffe Lena and the Ark mean something. Traddies get short shrift. Without selling the place out, people who are merely good at spiritedly reproducing an old art have little value except as legitimators representing the group they study and know.

I would rather take a group of source people around, because even at their frailest, they define an obvious baseline against which the kids then have to measure up. Sadly, there are few of those from the pre-war period left to play, and so 'folk' festivals are stuck with those who study the old musics.

I don't have a solution that doesn't involve hierarchical ordering. I wish I did, for myself and others. What is important to me more than anything else is that the bedrock of our national repertoire be preserved 'in the air' as well as on Library of Congress recordings, County, Yazoo and Document.

SERFA, the new Southeastern region, holds some hope for me. The Southeast has the largest concentration of continuators in the country, as far as I can see, and the most loyalty to its own region's music.

For me, there are some false premises involved in the presentation of folk music to begin with, in dealing with the interaction between our musicians and the public: the economics that necessitate publishing and copyright as the main economic drivers, combined with what I feel is a massive overemphasis on asserting one's own 'voice'. I feel good if I can adequately represent some of the bearers of our known and collective musical heritage, our source people. I am at a loss to understand why 'originality' (mostly, recombinance in my view) is considered more artful than faithful reproduction of source material.

Andy Cohen

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: GUEST,mary louise
Date: 05 May 08 - 10:52 PM

Art,
I would love to find out more about your time on the Twilight and Julia Belle.
Could you reply back, please?
Thanks,
Mary Louise

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: DebC
Date: 05 May 08 - 06:49 PM

Ron wrote:
I feel that a mix is needed. Old Songs does a superb job of that.

Again, New Bedford Summerfest
is a festival where you will see an acoustic pop singer songwriter on the same stage as a traditional singer.

Deb Cowan

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 May 08 - 04:41 PM

Poppagator - after reading the quote the way you put it,I don't think I was very clear.

What I was trying to say above is that I feel that there is an audience that accepts both genres - the numbers may show there are more fans of the contemporary side and fewer on the traditional side, and most will accept the term "folk".

Traditional folk music enthusiasts are very important and I wish there were more so that this discussion would not be necessary (or at least different!)

If you go to the Clearwater, Boston or Philadelphia Folk Festivals you probably won't hear much (or any) traditional music - and the contemporary artists are drawing the most SUPPORTERS.

The NY Eisteddfod, which I have had the honor of serving as emcee for several years, is one of the finest gatherings of traditional music I have ever attended. It is truly an inspiring festival and I look forward to LEARNING and having a good time each year.   I only wish that attendance figures would be in the thousands, not in the low hundreds.

I feel that a mix is needed. Old Songs does a superb job of that. I try hard to emulate that feeling on my radio show.

What has happened is that there are more contemporary artists who are singer-songwriters, and the supportive fan base for venues and festivals exists because of them. The Boston Folk Festival is meeting the needs of A community, not necessarily the community that made it possible in the first place.

Should there be SOME representation?? Without a doubt. If you want to petition or picket the festival for their lack of traditional music - I will be the first to sign or carry a placard. If they drop the term "folk", I will also be protesting.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: PoppaGator
Date: 05 May 08 - 04:16 PM

"What has happened is that the children have become more popular than the parents and folk music - to a larger audience ...."

I've been in agreement with just about every thing Ron has been saying in this discussion, but not this (well, maybe not all of it, and/or not in the sense that I'm understanding it).

Is the genre under discussion, that of all-originally-written contemporary song, really that widely popular? Not as far as I can see: I know absolutely nothing about it, never hear a bit of it, and no radio station within my on-the-air reach ever plays any of it. (I'm sure that internet-radio sources exist everywhere, of course.) More traditional forms of American folk music, on the other hand, have some audience in and around the Gulf South, however small, and some presence on the radio and in performance venues.

I could be wrong, but it certainly seems to me that interest in such stuff is geographically regional, and demographically fairly limited.

By extension, it just might be that the acceptance of using the category-name "folk" to describe such music is also confined to a fairly limited circle of enthusiasts, in which case Don and Bill et al have a point.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 May 08 - 04:14 PM

"I don't believe that folk means anything different today than it did yesterday."

I totally agree with that.

The word folk IMHO needs qualifying to describe the precise sub genre under discussion.

Followers of the genre known as Jazz don't have a problem with that word being used to describe three sub groups; i.e. Trad, Modern, and Progressive. There may be others. I am not that knowledgeable about Jazz.

So why do we collectively have so much difficulty living with the idea of a similar set; e.g. Traditional, Revival, and Contemporary.

Nobody has, to my knowledge, suggested that 20th century composers should not be allowed to use the term "Classical" to describe their works.

Are Folkies really the most narrow minded people on Earth? I had always thought that we were rather liberal in our attitudes, but I do wonder.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 May 08 - 03:37 PM

"I did not 'dismiss' you point, Ron...*smile*...I disagreed with it."
Sorry Bill, I thought I would make you happy by using YOUR term (from your 12:16pm post). When I disagreed with you, you told me that I was dismissing your point.


" because they come about as close as is possible in most criteria."
Bingo!


"ITS subcategories where the fans argue about 'pure' forms and 'adulterated' forms, and are often a lot more virulent than *I* ever was about not polluting their genré."
Bingo again!


"Bill Monroe almost single-handedly created a sub-category, which became popular enough that it now occupies a top-level tier"
Bingo yet again!

Lets look at this. Bill Monroe developed a style (following the lead started by people like Charlie Poole) that moved country and old-timey music to a new catagory, and the name came from his group and became THE ACCEPTED TERM for the music.

Contemporary singer-songwriters who have followed in the same path that Guthrie, Ochs, and Paxton have followed (which you called "folk" as well) are now calling themselves AND being recognized as "folk".

Look, if there were a sudden surge to call their style of music Pholk or some other term, then so be it! However, it isn't happening. What has happened is that the children have become more popular than the parents and folk music - to a larger audience - is accepted as incorporating both traditional and contemporary.

It is not a question of who is right or who is wrong - it is question of what is being done. I'm not happy that traditional music is being excluded, but I don't think that dropping "folk" from the title is solving that problem. It is like being in a losing game and one of the players picks up his ball and runs home. Nothing gets resolved.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: GUEST,Bill D
Date: 05 May 08 - 03:07 PM

(where'd my cookie go? It was there when I started typing!)

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 08 - 03:05 PM

I did not 'dismiss' you point, Ron...*smile*...I disagreed with it.

Obviously, if total precision and accuracy were required, (like in making a prescription drug), each song and each arrangement would require an individual category, and I am not THAT silly!

To give a general answer to YOUR "where would put 'X'" questions, I would put 'Woody Guthrie, Tom Paxton, Pete Seeger, Odetta, Phil Ochs' under folk, because they come about as close as is possible in most criteria. Any more detailed differentiation can be done at home by those who care to file their collections that way. Bill Monroe almost single-handedly created a sub-category, which became popular enough that it now occupies a top-level tier.....but now with ITS subcategories where the fans argue about 'pure' forms and 'adulterated' forms, and are often a lot more virulent than *I* ever was about not polluting their genré.(The first time I ever saw "The Newgrass Revival",(1972?) I thought I was gonna see fights among fans!) PEOPLE CARE! (and the funny thing was, when they were under the stands, rehersing and just playing informally, they played wonderful old classics and sounded like Gid Tanner at times...then onstage they switched to ummmm...,HyperGrass.)

as to "Let's face it - the biggest issue is that contemporary folk does not sound like the folk that we grew up with decades ago when we were young.

.....that's partly a psychological observation and partly a judgmental one. We DO often 'lock in' our first encounter with certain songs as THE right way, but it avoids the fact that certain alterations just...do...not...work. BlueGrass bands are famous for doing slower songs 'up-tempo' until the original 'feel' of the song is warped beyond recognition, then- if the band is well-known, new folk get the idea that there IS no other way to play "Lorena" than fast & zippy! (Wish I could remember who I heard doing that!) Fast is fine...let 'em WRITE fast songs that feel right done fast!
Personally, *I* feel "the biggest issue is that contemporary folk" is that it pays far too little attention to clarifying its debts TO and deviations FROM its sources.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 05 May 08 - 02:42 PM

'That isn't very democratic, but it hits the nail on the head"
In your not so humble opinion, I very much suspect that it probably does,but I firmly believe that Ron has 'hit the nail on the head' when he states that " With all due respect Art, you are making an assumption that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is DUMB"

I concur.

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 May 08 - 02:25 PM

With all due respect Art, you are making an assumption that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is DUMB. None of us are in a position to determine what is right.

I would not make the assumption that one person who had a differing opinion is wrong either.

The study of word use and folklore should be about observation. What we have is a line of separation and a lack of perception to see things beyond what we have grown accustomed to.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 05 May 08 - 02:16 PM

Personally I think that this thread should be linked to the other "what is folk music" threads, because that's what this thread has become

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: PoppaGator
Date: 05 May 08 - 02:11 PM

Slight change of direction: can anyone explain to me how and why pianist Henry Butler fits in with that bunch of singer-songwriters and/or acoustic guitar players up in Boston?

I just heard and saw Henry play a spectacular set yesterday as a guest artist with Bob French's Original Tuxedo Jazz Band, closing out the week's proceedings on the traditional-jazz stage of the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival. Henry is a very great musician and a stellar exemplar of a tradition, albeit a tradition not often included under the folk umbrella, the tradition of blues-to-ragtime-to-jazz/R&B. But I certainly do not see how he fits any of the competing definitions of "folk" under discussion here.

The defining characteristic of "traditional"-style New Orleans jazz is group improvisation. It differs greatly (and, to my mind, very charmingly) from more modern kinds of jazz where all the improvisation is essentially solo. Henry fit right in with a group of primarily old-style players committed to this approach, and certainly never violated any of the basic structural rules of staying within the chordal structure of a given song.

On the other hand, much of his playing, especially in his solos, incorporated a great deal of modern (be-bop and post-bop) influence, and every moment of his performance imbued the band's sound with an overall "rocking" (i.e., hard-swinging) feel that would not have been present without him. That said, I still believe it safe to assert that his playing absolutely enhanced the ensemble sound, did not detract from it one iota. The set demonstrated quite convincingly that ensemble jazz playing is a living tradition, not ~ as some would have it, especially an entire school of European and Japanese "recreationists" ~ a hidebound exercise in duplicating the sound of old recordings.

I love this music, definitely consider it to be "traditional" in the sense that it represents an ongoing school of musical thought and values, but I can't see that it qualifies as "folk" under any widely-accepted definition of that term.

It's wonderful music, and maybe it should be generally accepted as more representative of American musical "folk" tradition than the output of the more mediocre of the singer-songwriters, but in actual practice, this in NOT what anyone thinks of when confronted with the term "folk music." And yet, there's Henry's name and picture on the BFF website along with all those other folks with whom he has very little in common.

PS: Anyone who classifies all jazz players as "musical masterbators" really should have been there yesterday, or at least needs to be exposed to some real, vital, current-day New Orleans jazz music. I can certainly understand how people can be left cold by say, Ornette Coleman and Sun Ra, and maybe even Miles and 'Trane and those guys, but anyone should be able to understand and immediately respond to the music being put created today by the bands led by Bob and George French, Kermit Ruffins, Kirk Joseph, etc. etc.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Art Thieme
Date: 05 May 08 - 01:59 PM

As I have intimated before in some threads:
If a million people do a dumb or wrong thing, and one person gets it right,   it is still a dumb thing that the majority has deluded themselves into BELIEVING!

That isn't very democratic, but it hits the nail on the head.

Barry, you are correct.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 May 08 - 01:51 PM

Tim, I'm not sure if this is a waste. The idea is to let people play some folk music somewhere and to hopefully find common ground for all of us. I hate wasting time cracking open a lobster shell, but it is the only way to uncover the sweet meat!

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 05 May 08 - 01:29 PM

Jeez someone pleeze let them play some folk nusic somewhere.
All this brian energy going to waste is such a shame.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 May 08 - 12:54 PM

"you use an obviously true statement "...there is no such "one size fits all" label that you can put upon it." or..."I defy you to find ANY type of music that can fit a single label."....to dismiss MY point that we DO use labels for classification, and that we simply need more accurate ones! "

Yes I did, and you dismissed my point that there is no such thing as an "accurate" label.

When you mention the Battlefield Band and changes - would you expect that different recordings are placed under different labels? You mentioned "red White & Bluegrass" - where would you put it? Where would you put Bill Monroe and David Grissman? Where would you put Woody Guthrie, Tom Paxton, Pete Seeger, Odetta, Phil Ochs? Where would you put Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis? Where would you put the Beatles, Black Sabbath, and Madonna?    ALL are different from one another, yet each falls under an "umbrella" label.

Let's face it - the biggest issue is that contemporary folk does not sound like the folk that we grew up with decades ago when we were young.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 08 - 12:16 PM

Ron...you use an obviously true statement "...there is no such "one size fits all" label that you can put upon it." or..."I defy you to find ANY type of music that can fit a single label."....to dismiss MY point that we DO use labels for classification, and that we simply need more accurate ones!

This is especially true for festivals such as Barry was frustrated by. And when a Battlefield Band significantly changes its style, it would be polite of them to tell me! I wish them well...I just don't wish to attend concerts that I only enjoy 10-20% of. I CAN tell the difference, and I KNOW that, being professional musicians, they are aware of the differences. Whether festival promoters are really clear that they have 'edited out' traditional music in favor of 'new' forms is sometimes not obvious.....as noted above, some clearly do when hiring, whether they note it in promotions or not!

(Just to be clear & honest...I do have genuinely 'classic' folk LPs & CDs that I am disappointed in; and I have a few genuinely 'new', vaguely folkish items that I enjoy very much...but I keep the differences clear in my head, in case I am asked for a recommendation.)

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 08 - 11:52 AM

The experts here wanna start with basics?

What is MUSIC?

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 May 08 - 11:52 AM

"If all CDs were put on a shelf with the label "music", NO ONE would like it. All I want is for the little labels to clarify 'folk' so that I can find the type I want."

I defy you to find ANY type of music that can fit a single label. Bluegrass, jazz, rock, Celtic(ouch!), and even classical does not contain a single archetype that will enable you "judge the book by it's cover".   The best you can do is create "headers" and then allow the various sub-genres to fall behind it.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 May 08 - 11:48 AM

"If all you have to do in order to justify this wide, inclusive use of 'folk' is provide a couple of counter-examples of SS performers who are not 'too' introspective, then all my attempts to show that a large % ARE introspective are easily dismissed."

Bill, it is not just ME that is making the connection. I will challenge your statement that a LARGE number of singer-songwriters are introspective, and I also challenge that introspective songs do not belong in the folk music family.

I'm sorry Bill, but you are starting your arguement with a set of rules that you feel cannot be challenged - "those who had the name and definitions first ought to have some claim to it" - no one can lay "claim" to the use of language. The term "folk music" was broad to begin with - going back to the first time the word was used to describe music of the "common people".

Your insistance on "labels" is your perogative. Do not expect everyone to fall in line behind it, nor do I expect everyone to accept singer-songwriters in the canon. Ozzy Osbourne is a singer-songwriter if you insist on using the definition.

Singer-songwriters, folk songs, and folk festivals come in many different flavors - there is no such "one size fits all" label that you can put upon it. Folk Music is, by its own definition, a broad term.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 08 - 11:26 AM

Oh, I think it IS important to do some generalizing in order to make relevant points. If all you have to do in order to justify this wide, inclusive use of 'folk' is provide a couple of counter-examples of SS performers who are not 'too' introspective, then all my attempts to show that a large % ARE introspective are easily dismissed.
   (that's a long sentence...but...)

It just seems fair to me that those who had the name and definitions first ought to have some claim to it, and those who alter the content ought to be the ones who need to find alternate language

This kinda misses my point:

["Do WE have to write a 2 paragraph explanation when WE have a concert or festival, similar to that Maryrff has done for her Richmond group?"
Naturally!!!   How is anyone to know what kind of folk music are you referring to? Will their be Greek folk songs? Would I be disapointed to discover that you do not have a single performer that sings folk songs of the cowboys?]

Of course it is relevant to mention WHICH types of traditional folk music are being presented! All I was suggesting is that Maryrrf and others should not have to signify by some long disclaimer IN THEIR TITLE, or on their poster, that they are doing traditional stuff.

What IS wrong with SS only festivals using words like "Songsmith's Festival" to indicate their deviation from 'classic' forms?

Ron....Don Firth's pedantic essay on differentia was right to the point. It is not necessary to use ponderous Latin terms like I use to identify wood (Salix purpurea, var. "Eugenii" ..for one type of Willow), but with only a few words, one CAN clarify that 'our band does modern variations of Scots ballads' (I have often thought that Martin Carthy should include some sort of disclaimer...*grin*)
   It seems to me that if a few major venues would develop a simple way in THEIR advertising to make the differentiations, we'd be well on our way to a system comfortable for everyone. (No..of course I won't hold my breath until they do...I don't look good when I turn blue)

One of my usual closing sentences in discussions about language is that "If a word is too broad, it ceases to be practically useful". If all CDs were put on a shelf with the label "music", NO ONE would like it. All I want is for the little labels to clarify 'folk' so that I can find the type I want. (Anyone want the now 'old' LP of"Red, White & Blue (Grass)" I bought because it had Norman Blake on it? I think it was only played once. It was 'different', and I guesses wrong.)

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 May 08 - 10:02 AM

"I don't believe that folk means anything different today than it did yesterday."

Very true, and I think that there has been disagreement on how to define the term for decades. While the academics believe it has been nailed down, there has always been a significant difference of opinion such as how do you classify the writers such as Woody Guthrie or songs such as "Home on the Range".

Charley's example is a perfect one. What performer or group should be considered under "folk" in such a festival.

Even the "I" issue is debatable. It is probably very true that the more "me" type-songs have not survived or have been studied as widely as songs that are more personal. The important thing is not to generalize - it is wrong to assume that ALL of the current crop of singer-songwriters are focused on "I", when we do that - we are blocking out some beauty from our lives.

We live in a different age. Our communities have evolved and while we keept traditions alive, we are also witnessing new traditions being formed.   None of us can see what the future holds, but we can enjoy the present and ALL of the offerings available to us.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Jassplayer
Date: 05 May 08 - 08:48 AM

Debra Cowan makes an important point. She posted:<>
I agree that it is, and the argument also holds true for a battle I've been waging within Folk Alliance, and I'll start a new thread for that, namely: FarWest regional conference has for tweo years now required all submissions for showcases to be through Sonic Bids exclusively. It's said to be fort he convenience of the selection committee, and their board, composed entirely of people on the singer/songwriter end of the FA spectrum, thinks that's a more important consideration than being INCLUSIVe and welcoming less cyber-enabled folks to strut their stuff on a FA stage.
In other words, if it ain't inclusive, it certainly ain't folk!
Jack Radcliffe, Wepecket Island Records
The Taunton River Folk festival

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 May 08 - 08:34 AM

Ron et al-

"Charley brought up the National Folk Festival"

Yes, I did and while I described it as an forum for world ethnic music I was also whining about our experience in Maine where groups such as my own (traditional style sea music) were excluded because we didn't represent a particular ethnic or regional group. We argued with the Festival coordinators that Maine had a long sea-faring past (present and future), and we were part of that on-going tradition. We also argued that as individuals some of us had grown up with this music all our lives. However, not one single individual or group based in Maine who does sea music has ever appeared at the National Folk Festival when it was based in Bangor, or at its successor The American Folk Festival.

There were some representatives of lumberjack folk songs balladeers in the initial festival, but they soon were dropped from the program as mere "folk song revivalists."

It's also true that contemporary music groups were also excluded, but their exclusion appeared to have more logic.

Maybe our experience was unique. I certainly hope so.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 May 08 - 01:59 AM

I don't believe that folk means anything different today than it did yesterday.
I do think that commerical endevors do try to obscure the scope of the folk umbrella so as to include whatever little genre their at present trying to sell/out.

Thanks Bill for the nice explanition of the folk "I" meaning us all & the SS "I" meaning me.

So why would a premoter advertise a festival of singer songwriters when they can hide it's content when pushing it off on the public as a folk festival?
Who would one be targeting by billing a SongSmith's Festival? Or a SingerSongWriter's Festival? Not much attraction there is there?
Folk Festival does sound much better, doesn't it?

If the folk community deceides what is contemporary folk music (they don't need a tech manual to follow) by keeping what's worthy of the title of "folk" alive just by the mere singing of it & letting the rest rot by the way side then why do these others who are not "folk" artists who are not considered folk singers get hire to plug their wares when their wares aren't being carried by the folksingers themselves nor their community? It sounds to me like someone's putting the real ass before the cart.
Shouldn't the songs of a songwriter go into the folk repertoire before they're called folk singers (unless they are already singers of folksongs). If they sing only their own songs (or those of companions SS) what are they then but just singer songwriters (not even singers of songwriters) & not much else. Some folk singers or singers of folk songs do also write but are not considered writers of folk songs, at least not until the folk community & other folk singers have picked up their songs & started to run with them.

Thank you, so far, all for such a great discussion & debate & for keeping it so civil & mild mannered, you all do the 'Cat" a great servive & credit to yourselves.

Keep on, please

Barry

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:43 PM

"If 'folk' now means something different, what ARE we who want to cling to some older styles to do? What shall we call it? "

You do not have to explain it to anyone. It is traditional folk music. How do you explain jazz or rock or rock and roll?

More importantly, if you take contemporary out of the mix - how WOULD you explain folk?   How do you explain that a childrens play song is folk music and so is a chantey? How can you simply explain a cowboy song and a Child Ballad are both folk songs? What about an English folk song and a Spanish folk song? How about songs sung by slaves centuries ago and a song sung by loggers? It is IMPOSSIBLE to create a LABEL that can fully describe the distinction among each of these types, and we get by simply calling it "folk music". The umbrella CAN incorporate contemporary music that fits some basic similiarities.

Barry pointed out the feeling of community. In 2007 with all of our advances, our regional communities have expanded. Is there not a feeling of community among those who frequent modern venues and support contemporary folk music? Besides ethnic and regional groups, communities can be labor unions, field workers, sea farers, prisoners or others that share common characteristics.

As for the "I" songs, it is a matter of perspective.   You can't lump all the singer-songwriters together as being self-absorbed.

"THESE are the songs we narrow-minded pedants make exceptions for! *grin*"

And well you should! I am the first to admit that there is an academic definition of "folk music", but we should not let that stand in the way of a good time.

You like what you like. Charley brought up the National Folk Festival - and that is a perfect example of how many different traditions make up "folk" and how the word cannot have a simple defintion.

"Do WE have to write a 2 paragraph explanation when WE have a concert or festival, similar to that Maryrff has done for her Richmond group?"
Naturally!!!   How is anyone to know what kind of folk music are you referring to? Will their be Greek folk songs? Would I be disapointed to discover that you do not have a single performer that sings folk songs of the cowboys?

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Bill D
Date: 04 May 08 - 10:29 PM

While I was out of town for 3 days, many new additions were made to the discussion, although some were just restatements of earlier points.
Let me address one point Barry made back up there about the use of 'inner focus' in many modern songs.

"There are also many traditional songs that deal with "I" and they are an important part of the canon. "

Well....sort of. Of course many traditional folks songs are written in ostensible 'first person'. "As *I* went out one May morning", "When *I* was a young man, *I* lived all alone, I worked at the weaver's trade...." etc.

But don't you see how that, in most older songs that survived, the *I* was a universal...it was meant to reflect a common experience of many *I's*. Stories of love, war, anger, murder, passion, joy,...that were not MEANT to be read as ONE specific persons life. Even the ones with no chorus, sung by a solitary ballad singer were seldom 'introverted' personal messages! (Yeah, I see your point about 'Greensleeves'....but I said seldom, and who do you know that sings Greensleeves? (other than the first verse, just to be silly)

   The songs which DID name specific individuals were generally not written by that person...("My name's Napolean Bonaparte, I'm the conqueror of nations")
Obviously, with the advent of recording, it was 'possible' to be aware of the author, but still most songs were thematically universal, whereas now the intent seems to be to "tell my story" and "make my personality a part of YOUR concern."

We KNOW the middle ground is fuzzy, and that things which were daily issues in the hundreds of years before the recording industry ane not 'quite' the issues of today...but those early issues made us what we are today. We KNOW that tastes change, and young people often want to express things differently...we simply want them to invent new descriptions for their new ways!

If you look in the DigiTrad database and analyze the songs that EVERYONE agrees are folk, you find a number of characteristics which are common (style, type of tune, chorus, topic/subject matter, etc..)
As Don Firth noted about one "By almost all criteria, Bob C.'s song is indeed a "folk song." Except one.". THESE are the songs we narrow-minded pedants make exceptions for! *grin* (Craig Johnson, who has been mentioned here many times and recorded by Art Thieme, does a FINE job of writing in the tradition, and has done a couple which have fooled folks).


I ask again, as I have so many times over the years in this forum...If 'folk' now means something different, what ARE we who want to cling to some older styles to do? What shall we call it? Do WE have to write a 2 paragraph explanation when WE have a concert or festival, similar to that Maryrff has done for her Richmond group?
It's all very well to say, "well, like it or not, that's what the public thinks of nowdays"...but still the question stands - What are we to CALL the older stuff in public?

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Charley Noble
Date: 04 May 08 - 09:03 PM

I've carefully reviewed this thoughtful thread and am somewhat surprised that no one has raised the question of how in the States we have a National Folk Festival (along with a set of cloned stare folk festivals) that present only "ethnic world" folk music. What's excluded are any "revival" folk style musicians, those who are making an efforts to carry on the singing of traditional songs but are multicultural.

The ethnic folk performers are of various ages, multigenerational, and much of what they present is interesting to listen to. What I object to is the exclusion of anyone or group that is not rooted in a particular community for generations.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 May 08 - 04:50 PM

"What is unfortunate is that folk music has largely become a spectator sport instead of a participatory one"

I agree Ron, & that's part of what seperates "them" from "us". We don't need preaching & we don't want to be sung at!

The language & vernacula, the idiom that the songs like "Greensleeves" were sung in, were in the same tone as was to those listening. The songs were directed towards the people of the community even when they were "whinning" (I do so hate that song but love the melody). It is the lack of connection, the being "full of one's self", the "it's my trip" that I dislike about the current crop of SS. They are not 'folk' when they tend to their own selfness needs. I am not in any way trying to say what's folk & what's not, I'm just saying that when a SS like the crop that's billed at this festival (with few exceptions) don't fit any of the normal excepted discription of folk singer, when they've crossed the line so far that the line's no longer even blurred, when it becomes all about them & nothing about us, then it's time to call them on it. They need to change the name, other wise it's a mockery.

Barry

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 May 08 - 09:23 AM

"The difference being that most of the SS out there pushing their wares about are doing it for themselves. They aren't writing for their community, don't care if they write something that others would want to sing or to sing along with they don't even write about others much of the time. "

There is a lot of truth to that, but I do it see it changing - slowly.

Yes, a lot of songs are personal - but then you could also say that about songs like "Greensleeves". If you break that folk chestnut down, you have one of the most self-absorbed whiney songs of all time! Even a song like "I Gave My Love a Cherry" was probably introspective for it's time.

I do agree however, many of the songs can only come out of the mouth of the songwriter - and I also agree that is not a good sign.   But, if you look at a songs like John Gorka's "Down in the Milltown" or "House in the Fields", you do get the sense of community that you are referring to - AND - they are songs that are being sung by others.

What is unfortunate is that folk music has largely become a spectator sport instead of a participatory one.   Going to venues to WATCH someone else make music is really what we are talking about in this thread. Is that truly folk music of any kind??

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 May 08 - 02:50 AM

"Some great crossover between the US and UK music scenes in this thread!"

We keep having this hoary old 'folk/not folk' argument in the UK. IMHO there is no definitive answer because people have differing opinions on what Folk Music is/was/should be, and it's a genre that's in constant evolution. But I agree with Barry, it's a pretty poor Festival that excludes traditional performers. And I'd reckon a festival that excluded contemporary material was pretty poor too. There's room for both.

But at least the US-contingent keep their arguments civil and civilised, unlike some of the contributors to arguments this side of the pond. Congratulations Ron, Don et al - you do yourselves credit. :-)

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 May 08 - 01:24 AM

Well I'd say you're both right. Neither of you could call it a folk song. But if a bunch of other singers of folk pick it up & run with it, the rest of the crowd likes it enough to pss it around & keep it alive, then it probably stands a good chance. Again it is "we" who would eventually deceide.

Back to the festival topic. Do any of these singers write songs that others would want to pick up & run with. The 2 I heard the other night don't seem to have made a mark & most of those listed don't either. The difference being that most of the SS out there pushing their wares about are doing it for themselves. They aren't writing for their community, don't care if they write something that others would want to sing or to sing along with they don't even write about others much of the time. It's their trip & "we" aren't espically or specificly invited but we can slum along if we so choose, kind of like a 3rd wheel. Mighty nice of them.

Barry

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 May 08 - 01:03 AM

Well, Barry, take a look at the pictures of the performers. I'd say most are under 40 - although Kathy Mattea is almost 50, and maybe that's why you like her.

Are you getting old, Barry?

[grin]

-Joe, almost 60-

P.S. I say I like traditional music, but then I realized that most songs I sing are written by somebody whose 100th birthday hasn't past yet. Still, I don't sing songs written by anybody under 40.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 May 08 - 12:25 AM

right - we can't consider it a true folk song, but we could enjoy it.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 08 - 12:18 AM

I don't think either you or I can say if Bob C.'s song is or can be considered a folk song at this point. Under the assumption that it would be okay with Bob (he wrote it just for the fun of it, and he didn't copyright it or intend making any money out of it, he wrote it just to sing--which, I think, is yet another qualification for folk song status) I intend to put it into circulation. Then we'll see where it goes from there.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 May 08 - 11:39 PM

Thanks Don. I guess we do agree to disagree, although I actually agree with just about everything you say.

Your story about Bob C. hits a key point that I was trying to make, but I don't think I could say it as eloquently - and I don't think you even realized you said it.

When you said that Bob C. probably did not care whether people thought of it as a folk song or not - that is the point.   The appeal of the song is what counts - and where you and I differ is that acceptance of contemporary music by an audience that grew out of a folk revival.

Your friend wrote a song that appealed to you and it was based on a tradition that you understood - a song collected by John and Allen Lomax, who collected from a number of diverse communities and often found commonalities among them.

John Lomax included "Home on the Range" in his first collection, a song where we can trace the author and the melody to specific individuals, and it did go through some changes as it traveled in the west before Lomax collected it. Yet, is it truly a folk song? Perhaps the most important aspect is that the song has been accepted as a folksong.   Could the song from Bob C also be considered as folk song?

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 08 - 10:53 PM

It's not that I don't respect your opinions, Ron, but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this matter.

###

During the 1950s and into the mid 1960s, I knew a fellow who had been a local restaurateur who played the guitar and was a sometime singer of folk songs (I shall identify him as "Bob C."). Bob sang well, knew a lot of songs, and enjoyed singing at parties and songfests. People enjoyed his singing, and even though he was dragooned once into singing on local television, he didn't seem to have any great interest in becoming a professional performer.

Sometime in the late 1950s, Bob C. was present at a late-night party where a knock-down-drag-out fight of monumental proportions took place between two of his acquaintances. He felt that this epic battle was the stuff of which great folk songs are made, and it deserved to be written up in song. So even though he didn't consider himself to be any kind of a songwriter, he set himself to the task. As a starting point, he picked a traditional folk song (approved and ordained as a genuine folk song since it's included in Folk Song U.S.A., compiled by John and Alan Lomax, and recorded by Pacific Northwest folk singer Walt Robertson on his first record for Folkways). The song Bob chose told the story of a similar fight in a logging camp. He took the tune wholesale, but wrote an original set of words, patterning his song along the lines of the "original," much the way Woody Guthrie wrote many of the songs he did. And Bob came up with one helluva song!

He sang it around a bit. In fact, once they'd heard it, people requested it from him. Subsequently, I learned it from him and I sang it around a bit. Other than just the two of us, I don't recall ever hearing anyone else sing it.

It was new words set to a traditional tune (the not uncommon practice of a new song growing out of an older one). It tells a story of a kind very commonly heard in folk songs. And since it does tell a story, it is, by definition, a ballad (although it bears no Child number, obviously). It has the additional virtues of being both funny (even the fellow who lost the fight acknowledged that the song was "pretty funny") and true—including in a manner that even Bob C. didn't know about at the time he wrote it. It has far better "folk song" credentials and it is most certainly more of a folk song that anything I've heard recently produced by the current crop of singer-songwriters, with the possible exception of something written by Gordon Bok. By almost all criteria, Bob C.'s song is indeed a "folk song." Except one.

I do not regard it as a folk song, nor, do I think, would Bob C. In fact, I don't think Bob C. even cared whether people thought of it as a folk song or not.

There is a very good reason that I do not regard it as a folk song—yet. I haven't seen Bob C. since sometime in the mid-1960s, and I understand he left town about that time. Nor have I heard anything from him or about him. As far as I know, unless Bob C. is still among the living, I am the only person in the world who knows this song and can sing it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 May 08 - 06:46 PM

"" 2.Contemporary music in the style of traditional folk music."

So, yes, to be considered "folk" by that definition would be to write songs in the style of traditional folk music.


And I think what we are actually arguing about is whether a festival that excludes performers that actually perform traditional music and who do not write their own material should be labeled "folk" -- and I definitely agree with Don Firth; to call it folk is mislabeling and very much open to misinterpretation. I'm a firm believer in using language as precisely and clearly as possible. That's the point of communication. And if you lose words and nuances, the language is poorer for it.

Just my additional four cents' worth (inflation).

Linn""

Yes Linn, I too have a love of precise English, to the extent that Star Trek, with its split infinitive (to boldly go) drives me to spitting, spluttering fury.

Everyone on this forum who has been involved in this "What is folk music" argument knows that Richard Bridge and myself have repeatedly clashed on this subject.

Richard's views on "snigger snogwriters" is well documented.

I was today involved in a competition at the Rochester Sweeps Festival, called "Folkfactor", at which Richard was one of three judges.

I sang a song which I had composed nearly forty years ago, and the critique from Richard was well thoght out, fair, and cogent, as well as positive. Would that all here could suspend personal bias as well as this.

If you want the actual content, ask Richard what he said. Suffice to say that I felt I had been treated with the utmost fairness, and this from a man with the reputation of being a diehard traddy.

And NO! I didn't win. Truth to tell, I didn't deserve to. I WAS good, but others were better.

I'll think twice before challenging his views again.

Folk is pretty much what we perceive it to be, but traditional doesn't always mean hidebound.

Having said that, I would be very unlikely to attend any event which actively excluded either traditional, or contemporary music.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Acorn4
Date: 03 May 08 - 05:34 PM

Yeh, sorry !

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's unplugged Apprentice
Date: 03 May 08 - 05:22 PM

"Some great crossover between the US and UK music scenes in this thread!"

Plus Canada, Acorn4 :-)

Charlotte R

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 May 08 - 05:11 PM

Don, I was not questioning your background and I never implied that you were speaking out of ignorance. I respect your opinion and while I realize that you do not respect mine, I am not alone in what I have been saying - nor am I saying it is the way it should be.

As an observer and also someone who has devoted a lot of time and energy to the study of this music since MY late teens, I feel I am entitled to have a different opinion than yours. I also believe I have made myself clear and there is no need to make this discussion personal. As you say, let others make up their own mind.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 08 - 05:06 PM

I have studied and do study words, Ron. I've been a wordsmith all my life. And in addition to having been a singer since my late teens, I've been a serious scholar of folk traditions since then as well. So I'm not, as you imply, speaking out of ignorance of the subjects under discussion.

I believe I've made myself clear, and I've said everything I really want to say on the subject. At least for the moment. Let others make up their own minds.

I do have a theory as to why so many singer-songwriters think of themselves as writing "folk songs," and also why some of them seem so desperate to have their songs regarded as folk songs. But that exploration here will have to wait. For now, I have "miles to go and promises to keep."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Acorn4
Date: 03 May 08 - 05:02 PM

Fascinating thread - I think that the key point is the one someone raised about considering the audience.

My wife uses the term "musical masturbation" - it can apply to angst ridden singer songwriters, traditional singers who think they are at a prayer meeting, or nodding "its my turn to do a solo now" guitarists - but the worst are jazz musicians.

Some great crossover between the US and UK music scenes in this thread!

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 May 08 - 04:16 PM

It is not a question of understanding your point, I get it. However, you need to realize that there are some who feel that it is NOT degenerating - but there are those of us who do not feel that way.

We are not ALTERING terminology, the terminology has already been altered - and it has since people like Woody Guthrie and others started writing their own songs.

If you study words as well as folk traditions you will see how these changes come about, and I have great concern about trying to stop the evolution and the effect it has on the culture.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 08 - 04:09 PM

Certainly, language changes over time. But there is evolving and devolving or degenerating. I don't see that altering terminology for the purpose of clouding an issue or peddling one thing as something else is "evolving."

The point needs to be belabored until it is fully understood.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: PoppaGator
Date: 03 May 08 - 03:50 PM

Everything else aside, I certainly think it's a damn shame that a well-regarded professional performer would be turned away from any venue for the sole reason that he/she is not a songwriter. And of course, it's doubly (or triply) wrong wrong for an organization billing itself as "folk" to have such a policy!

There are and always have been singers and musicans worth hearing who are primarily (and even exclusively) interpreters of material that they understand, love, and select for their audiences' pleasure and edification. A couple of pertintent examples from the recent past, in the general area of folk and folk-influenced pop/rock music: Dave Van Rock, Janis Joplin, Joe Cocker. I'd certainly enjoy attending one of those folks' shows; I'm not sure how much I'd enjoy listening to someone whose only claim to legitimacy is the fact that they perform their own compositions to the exclusion to proven material that people know and love.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 May 08 - 03:39 PM

Don, we both know that language evolves just like everything else.    No sense belaboring the point.

Subject: RE: Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 08 - 03:19 PM

Ron, I believe you fully understand the point I'm making in my above post, despite your somewhat flippant remarks. The operational words in that post are "truth in labeling."

". . . to call it folk is mislabeling and very much open to misinterpretation. I'm a firm believer in using language as precisely and clearly as possible. That's the point of communication. And if you lose words and nuances, the language is poorer for it."

Exactly so, Linn. And in addition to my other activities, as a writer and for a period of my life as a radio announcer and news director, I am especially sensitive to the precise and perceptive use of language. I suppose 'twas ever thus, but I find the way language is often used—especially in advertising and politics, but in many other areas as well, to make things seem like they are something that they are not—is downright Orwellian.

Interestingly enough, it was Jeff Warner (HERE and HERE), the son of Anne and Frank Warner, whom the Seattle Folklore Society did not find met their criteria for what constituted "folk music." I learned both "Tom Dooley" and "Gilgary Mountain" in the early 1950s from Frank Warner's Elektra record.

The reason the Pacific Northwest Folklore Society was resurrected after fifty-some-odd years was because the existing society—calling itself a "folklore society"—had cut its traditional roots and its raison d'être, and was presenting contemporary singer-songwriters, some of whom did not ever identify themselves as "folk singers," to the exclusion of singers of historical/traditional material.

As I understand it, due to the success of events sponsored by the very recently reorganized Pacific Northwest Folklore Society, the directors of the Seattle Folklore Society have been startled into re-evaluating some of their policies.

Don Firth

P. S. I do not write songs myself. I know my limitations (many singer-songwriters, I have noted, do not know their limitations). Most of the songs I sing are historical/traditional. But not exclusively. I do, however, make it clear to my audiences which is which. Nor do I call myself a "folk singer" (although others do). I am a singer-guitarist. But the bulk of my repertoire consists of folk (historical/traditional) songs.