Boston NOT Folk Fest?? Singer/songwriter

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:42 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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