Folk vs Folk

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 04:17 AM

I am agreat admirer of Bert Lloyd.
it was just a statement of fact.,but I think once someone has been dishonest, all statements made by that person have to be scriutinised carefully,so no I dont believe we reject everything Bert LLoyd said,we just need to examine it carefully because he has been academically dishonest.
I am not attacking anyone.
if you are not familiar with Mctells music you should keep quiet.DickMiles

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 03:23 AM

Cap'n
I confess I am not that familiar with McTell's music - the only examples I heard to any great length were the few on the radio and the interminable 'Streets of London'.
I was basing my judgment on what he performed when he (fairly regularly) visited the West London Irish Traditional Music Association (the branch of CCE that was expelled). McTell was a great supporter of Irish music.
That bore no resemblance whatever to folk music as I knew it.
However, I'm happy to bow to your greater knowledge - my apologies.
I did intend to raise one point you made earlier, but my last posting was already far too long. Regarding Bert Lloyd, you wrote:
"Doubts about some of Berts scholarship exist ,some of his own songs have been passed off by him as traditional."
I was extremely grateful to Mark Gregory for posting a quote from Bert that I either hadn't come across before, or that I had forgotten.
While I have some queries about parts of Bert's statement (I tend to believe that communities must have more in common that attending the same office each morning), much of the quote makes sense to me.
Are you saying that you disagree with the statement - if so, what are your objections?
On the other hand, are you suggesting that because Bert did some things we wouldn't necessarily approve of, that we must reject everything he says. This latter, in my opinion, seems an extremely draconian stance to take towards someone who did more to give us the music we listen to than the whole of the Mudcat membership rolled in one.
It always seems a particularly facile and unfair method of argument to attack the person making the statement rather than the statement itself.
Will look forward to reading your response when I get back
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 07:04 PM

JIM CARROLL said.McTell never used, or pretended to use folk forms.
what a load of rubbish[Ralph Mctell aka RalphMay]played Blind Blake imitations on his guitar,and very well too,he took his stage name from the blues singer Blind Willie Mctell,blues is a folk form.
You are clearly not very well acquainted with Ralph mctell.
you are also not clearly acquainted with his songwriting,which he brought into his folk club act gradually,and which is heavily influenced by folk forms.,even if his songs are influenced by American folk forms,it is still a folk form.The song about Craig and Bentley is acase in point Album: Other Song Lyrics
Title: Bentley And Craig   Print
Correct


Complimentary "Bentley And Craig" Ringtone


BENTLEY AND CRAIG

Ralph McTell

In 1952 in Croydon
There was bomb sites still around from the war
November that year food was scarcely off the ration
Two boys went out to rob a store.

Craig he was just about sixteen years old
Bentley he was nineteen
But Craig had a shooter stuck in his pocket
Mad him feel more like a man.

Out on the roof of Barlow and Parker
Somebody saw them there
In a matter of minutes the police had arrived
And when they saw them you can bet those boys were scared.

Craig he shouted that he had a gun
And he thought about the movies that he'd seen
Back at Fell Road they signed the rifles out
And arrived very quick back on the scene.

Some of the police got onto the rooftop
Bentley knew that he could not escape
So he gave himself up and they put him under arrest
And he begged his young friend Chris won't you do the same.

Give me the gun the sergeant cried
Let him have it Chris poor Bentley said
But a shot rang out well it tore the night in half
Well the poor policeman was lying there dead.

Some people said it was a bullet from Craig's gun
That laid that policeman away
Some people said it was a police marksman's bullet
Some people said it could be a ricochet.

Both was found guilty of murder Craig he was too young not yet a man
Though he was under arrest when the fatal shot was fired
Derek Bentley was judged old enough to hang
Bentley he was judged to be a man.

Twenty three of January in Wandsworth prison
When they took poor Bentley's life
Some people shouted and some people prayed
Some people just hung their heads and cried.

Oh you men on our behalf who sanctioned that boy's death
There's still one thing left to do
You can pardon Derek Bentley who never took a life
For Derek Bentley cannot pardon you

Derek Bentley cannot pardon you.
Dick Miles.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 05:37 PM

Snail:
"But Cecil Sharp can speak on behalf of Norfolk fishermen, Maud Karpeles on behalf of Gower farm labourers?"
The 1954 definition, from which most dictionary definitions are derived, was arrived at by the pooling of knowledge and experience of those working in the field. It reached far beyond the people present and took into consideration the work of people like Kidson, Broadwood, Vaughan Williams, Butterworth... (the articulators) all of whom had presumably gathered information from their informants. This would have been the case in the other countries represented. It was not an attempt to define the individual communities – fishing, mining etc.; rather it was an attempt to make sense of a world-wide phenomenon based on the information gathered by those working in the field.
If these people were not qualified to make an assessment – who would you suggest was more suited to the job? – or was anybody qualified? Was the job worth doing at all? If they got it wrong, where?
""Folk" had been in use for a long time before 1954...... exclusive use of the word that causes problems."
The relevant definition of folk as applied to music, tales, superstitions, art..... according to my dictionaries anyway is "occurring in, originating among, belonging to the common people. For full discussion of the term in this context, see Funk and Wagnall's 'Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend', under song, music, lore, customs tales dance....etc.
If that is correct – how does it fit in with your new re/non definition; if it isn't - why?
Howard:
"I think you must have been unlucky with the folk clubs you went to."
As I said, I finally stopped going to clubs when I came away not having heard a folk song, or anything that resembles one. Everything I learn about today's scene, including from discussions like these, convinces me that not only haven't things improved in this respect, but have, if anything, got worse – if that were possible. Not to say that there aren't clubs putting on the real stuff, just that my neighbour's hens have more teeth.....! That is why the clubs declined. In my experience the best of the clubs survived on the talents of their residents. Good guests were an added bonus.   
"the folk revival would still have embraced Bob Dylan, Ralph McTell etc"
You might well be right about Dylan – as he was thirty years ago. Eventually he dropped any connection with folk and his music drew more on pop – McTell never used, or pretended to use folk forms.
"you are wrong when you say that the idea of "folk" has not changed."
The persistent mantra that 'people' (what people?) have a different idea of folk music (I think Tom Bliss quoted the figure of 64 million) will never make it true unless you produce your examples. When I was working in the UK I would make a point of talking about my interest to the people I worked with (they often heard me singing at work). If I told people that it was 'traditional' you could almost see their eyes glaze over; if I said it was 'folk' there would be some recognition. (whoops – I appear to be repeating exactly what you said yourself – "If I told them "traditional music" I would have to explain what I meant.") I am not claiming that there was a complete understanding, but at least I had a toe-hold into a conversation. Now apparently, I am expected to abandon even that toe-hold in favour of...... what? If there is a 'broader meaning' what is it, and why should I accept it if is proposers are incapable of articulating it.
If anybody is really interested in the subject I can take any of 100 or so books off my shelf to help them understand, or I could give them the Caedmon, 'Folk Songs of Britain' series, or 'The Voice of The People' (wonderful name that!) both with examples and, clear explanatory notes. What could you give them; what does the word 'folk' signify in your definition?
When push comes to shove, why is all this important?
For a very basic start – when I buy something I want to know what I am getting – at a club or on an album; your non definition does not supply that information.
On a more mundane note – financing our habit!
Here in Ireland the music is on a roll at present (not so much the song – but even that is infinitely better that it appears to be in the UK).
In twenty years we have moved from it being the despised 'diddly-di' music to it being recognised as a significantly important art form. It can be viewed half a dozen times a week on television, both in session and concert form and in serious documentary programmes. We are at present in the middle of a series dealing with regional musical styles. There have been documentaries on performers such as Joe Heaney, Seamus Ennis, Luke Kelly, Pecker Dunn, Maggie Barry, Sarah Makem, Sarah Ann O'Neill..... and numerous others. Radio stations devote large chunks of their programming to playing and discussing the music most nights of the week. At the moment we are in the middle of being interviewed for a series of three radio programmes on the Travellers we recorded in London for the Irish equivalent of Classic FM.
Ireland has two magnificent archives, one at the Folklore Department, the other, The Irish Traditional Music Archive, in the centre of Dublin, which was originally opened by the then President of Ireland, then re-opened when it moved by the current Arts Minister. The latter is recognised as probably the best in Europe, and is of world class. Local archives are beginning to spring up all over the country – we have just purchased premises here in Miltown Malbay to house an archive, library and visitors centre devoted to Clare music, song and lore. The town continues to host an annual week-long school, now in its 34th year, dedicated to local piper, Willie Clancy and teaching all the traditional instruments. Young musicians who we remember as pupils in past years are now taking classes themselves, guaranteeing that the music will continue to be played by at least the next two generations.......
None of this is by any means perfect, but compared to what is happening in the UK, we've all died and gone to a very rich musical heaven!
This has been done by a handful of dedicated individuals who know exactly what they mean, are very clear about their objectives and have dedicated huge chunks of their time and energy into achieving those objectives. It certainly has not been achieved by people whingeing about 57 verse ballads, boring folk songs, fingers-in-ears, purists, folk-police, or any other epithets that seem to take up so much of many U.K. folkies time and energy.
Finally – (t. b. t. g.) – on a personal note.
As I said earlier, the term folk was chosen originally to denote material that "originating among, belonged to the common people".
I was once told by my teacher that all I needed to know when I left school was to "tot up my wages at the end of each week to make sure they were correct". I have gone through life being told that 'ordinary' people like me are incapable of producing great art.
My involvement with MacColl, and to a lesser degree, my contact with Lloyd not only provided me with wonderful entertainment and aroused my curiosity enough to prod me into finding out about this 'folk' stuff. It also gave me a great buzz when I realised that it was 'ordinary' people like me who gave us all the magnificent songs, music and stories – folk music says it all in a couple of words.
Sorry to have gone on at such great length – it's a big subject and I appear to be incapable of writing short letters.
Off to Youghal tomorrow for a couple of days, so we can all recuperate from my verbosity.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: trevek
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 01:59 PM

The ICTM stated aims are quite different, it seems:
"The aims of the ICTM are to further the study, practice, documentation, preservation and dissemination of traditional music, including folk, popular, classical and urban music, and dance of all countries."

The use of the word "presrvation" interests me? How far does the preservation go?

Jim said: "I believe the tradition died when people stopped making and adapting songs and became recipients of rather than participants in their culture."

A good point. In theatre circles I've heard this called "spoonfeeding". I think we can couple this to the increase in recording of information. At one point people might hear a song and learn it without any idea (or care?) of whom the originator was. Now, not only is it easier to find the author it is a risky business to change words. If I were to change the words to a Burns song because I preferred a change I would be bounced on by a million Burns fans. I wonder how many people have been told they got the words to "No Man's Land" wrong because they didn't sing the Fureys' version.


Capt Birdseye: Indeed, as far as song
is concerned, that is the present stage of folklore development:
nowadays there is far greater use of the folk-song repertory and of
folkloric forms of creation in our industrial towns than in the
countryside."

In Poland (and east/Central Europe), in the 1980's there began a kind of anti-folklore ('fake-lore'), sometimes called 'post-folklore' where ordinary musicians and theatre-performers began to research old village music by seeking it out and learning it from the old musicians. Some of these researchers later developed schools for teaching the songs and singing techniques (as well as tunes/playing techniques). In my experience (albeit limited) most of the students of these techniques (and some of the teachers) are townies.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:15 PM

Mark Gregory,do you believe that what Bert said was true? THIS:
Indeed, as far as song
is concerned, that is the present stage of folklore development:
nowadays there is far greater use of the folk-song repertory and of
folkloric forms of creation in our industrial towns than in the
countryside."

Seems to me to be pretty broad but not so broad as to become meaningless and to take into account an understanding of the importance of industrial folk song or folk music in an industrialised era.
Doubts about some of Berts scholarship exist ,some of his own songs have been passed off by him as traditional .

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: mark gregory
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:34 AM

The 1954 definition was an improvement on what came before it in a number of ways ... it had an international focus, it was more inclined to allow in literary sources or was more aware that there had not been a purely oral culture for a very long time.

I first read about it in Lloyd's Folk Song in England

Reading and rereading through articles written by Bert Lloyd I found his 1979 definition of 'Folk Song' in a collection called Folk Music in School (p10)

"I would suggest that nowadays by 'folk' we understand groups of
people united by shared experience and common attitudes, skills, interests and aims.
These shared attributes become elaborated, sanctioned, stabilised by
the group over a period of time. Any such group, with communally
shaped cultural traits arising 'from below' and fashioned by
'insiders', might be a suitable subject for folklore studies. Some of
these groups may be rich in oral folklore (anecdotes, speechways,
etc.) but deficient in songs; others may be specially notable for
superstitions and customs. Perhaps for English society the most
clearly defined of such groups are those attached to various basic
industries: for example, miners with their special attitudes, customs,
lore and language, song culture and such. But it will be seen that my
suggestion does not rule out the possibility of regarding hitherto
unexplored fields, such as the realms of students, actors, bank
clerks, paratroopers, hospital nurses, as suitable territory for the
folklorist to survey.

The present-day folklorist, who views the problem in its social
entirety, and extends his researches into the process by which
traditional folklore becomes adapted to the conditions of modern
industrial life, has to consider the classic 'peasant' traditions as
being but a part - the lower limit, if you like - of a process by
which folklore becomes an urban popular affair. Indeed, as far as song
is concerned, that is the present stage of folklore development:
nowadays there is far greater use of the folk-song repertory and of
folkloric forms of creation in our industrial towns than in the
countryside."

Seems to me to be pretty broad but not so broad as to become meaningless and to take into account an understanding of the importance of industrial folk song or folk music in an idustrialised era.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 03:33 AM

Steve,
I am aware of the printed circulation of the songs and ballads; one of our Traveller singers was active in the trade and gave us a great deal of information on the process.
Surely it's not how a folk song originated (of which we know virtually nothing), but what happens to it when it leaves home - so to speak.
In my experience, not only are the composers of the music hall pieces usually known, but the songs tend to remain static and unadapted to any significant degree. There are exceptions of course, but I have usually found it a fairly common tendency.
I once thumbed through, but didn't get the chance to read fully, an old friend, Bob Thomson's thesis on the influence of broadsides on local singing traditions. I think there is a copy at C# House.
Once again, Walter Pardon had a fair amount to say on the differences between "the old folk songs", music hall, and Victorian parlour ballads, all of which were included in his own repertoire.
Snail and all,
Sorry, I'm not ignoring your postings - will respond when I've recovered from my recent bout of 'shell-shock'. Thank's for once again giving me much to think about.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 03:27 PM

Jim,
I empathise with the majority of what you are saying. I am also aware that a different state of affairs exists in Ireland where there has long been a strong tradition of song making independent of the broadside press, but in the rest of Britain and in Dublin/Cork/Belfast at least 90% of what we call folk song/traditional either started out on a commercial printed broadside, or had been substantially helped along by its being printed on a broadside. These then were the pop songs c1800-1850.
Yes what makes them folk is the fact that to some degree or other they have been passed on aurally, but so have many Music Hall songs and even the likes of Sharp and Broadwood couldn't filter them all out. There are some in their collections, Common Bill, Jim the Carter's Lad, The Country Carrier, etc, etc. John Howson's 'Songs Sung in Suffolk' probably has a majority of these sort of songs.

Even the Child Ballads (gasp!), about a third owe their lives to those revolting broadsides Child so detested. Some of them even originated as broadside ballads. All of the Robin Hood ballads for instance.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 08:02 AM

Jim Carroll

"Were the communities that the songs were collected from were represented at Sao Paulo?"
No they weren't, and I find the suggestion that they should have been somewhat odd.
As much as I admired Sam Larner and Phil Tanner, I couldn't imagine them to speak on behalf of say a Lancashire weaving community or a Durham mining village, let alone communities in Spain, Finland, Rumaina... and all the other places covered by the definition.

But Cecil Sharp can speak on behalf of Norfolk fishermen, Maud Karpeles on behalf of Gower farm labourers?

You previously said "Any definition of a specific activity must surely be that which is articulated by its practitioners (and articulators)."

To my mind,Sam Larner, Phil Tanner, the Coppers, Fred Jordan, Walter Pardon... are the practicioners but it is "somewhat odd" to suggest that they should have been involved in Sao Paulo. It seems that the articulators (whoever they are) are the only ones that matter.

I would suggest that any challenge would be best aimed at the definition itself rather than the somewhat ingenuous approach of undermining the authority of its authors.

I am not undermining their authority to define the music, just the authority to define the meaning of words already in use in the English language. "Folk" had been in use for a long time before 1954. You bizarrely say that your 19th century books "will cease to have a meaning" if the definition is abandoned. Had they been meaningless for the previous hundred years? Woody Guthrie was known as a folk singer. He was 42 in 1954.

The definition is fine, it's just the claim to exclusive use of the
word that causes problems.

Incidentally, the programme at the Royal Oak last night (guests Judy and Dennis Cook) included versions of Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight (Child #4), Sir Patrick Spens (Child #58) and Jellon Grame (Child #90) as well as many other traditional songs and tunes. Nobody sang a Beatles song, I haven't heard one in a folk club for about twelve years. There were some non-traditional songs from 19th C to modern and the evening was rounded off with Ta Ra Ra Boom Di Ay. I really don't think this did any damage to folk music.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 05:04 AM

I would like to endorse the comments above. Jim, I have the greatest respect for your work with the tradition and fully understand the point of view you are coming from.

I think you must have been unlucky with the folk clubs you went to. I regularly went to folk clubs for about 20 years, starting in about 1970. The range of music was very wide, but was substantially 1954 folk, albeit mostly performed by revival performers rather than true traditional singers. But I was lucky enough to see the Coppers, Fred Jordan, Walter Pardon and a number of others.

But in addition to this there was a range of other music, not traditional but which was in some way acceptable to a folk audience. Not all of it was to my taste, but the same can be said for 1954 folk as well.

The reasons for the decline of the folk clubs is a subject for another thread, but I believe it was largely down to economic factors and other demands on the time and money of both club audiences and organisers. The clubs that survive are often singers clubs - on the few occasions I now visit I find the range of material is no different from the heyday in the 1970s and 80s, but they can't afford to book professionals so the standard is often lower.

I'm sorry Jim, but you are wrong when you say that the idea of "folk" has not changed. It hasn't changed for people like you, who are deeply involved with traditional music, but it has for other people. The 1954 definition is still valid, but the term "folk music" which it was applied to has moved into the general language and acquired a broader meaning.

I don't think the "other folk music" is trying to pretend it comes into the 1954 definition, but the folk revival was always willing to embrace other music besides strict 1954. As, of course, were many traditional singers, who often had music hall and popular songs in their repertoire alongside true "folk songs" and often recognised the distinction between them. So this is nothing new.

Let us suppose that "folk music" had kept its strict 1954 meaning. I think the folk revival would still have embraced Bob Dylan, Ralph McTell etc because it saw a relationship with 1954 folk that brought it into the tent. The folk clubs were always about performance and entertainment rather than the study of folk song. They might have had to be called "folk and XXXX clubs", just as the early ones were known as "folk and blues" clubs, but the range of music would be the same.

If people ask me what sort of music I play, I tell them "folk music". They understand this, in a vague sort of way. If I told them "traditional music" I would have to explain what I meant. If I tried to give them the 1954 definition their eyes would glaze over. To them the distinction is meaningless.

As I said, Jim, this is with the greatest respect to your point of view. No one is saying you can't "folk music" in its 1954 sense, it will always be clear, if only from the context, what you mean. But you can't stop others from using it differently - again, it is usually clear from the context what they mean. We could wish for greater precision in the language, but that's not how it evolves.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 04:07 AM

Steve if you wish to believe that we still have a living tradition and that the Victorian and Music Hall songs are part of it, of course you are very welcome to do so.

The 54 definition is capacious enough to include music hall songs, isn't it? Just as long as you get them from someone else (who got them from someone else), rather than out of the library.

I take your broader point, though - I know I'm not part of any living tradition or even a witness to one. As Sedayne said upthread, we're essentially running a museum, albeit an unusually rich and lively one. That thought should probably prompt mourning as well as celebration.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 04:04 AM

I too would like to compliment you on your latest post Jim, and like Tom, I also hold the greatest respect for your views, the more so as I stand further back than Tom in my knowledge and experience of the genre. And I think folk (note the absence of quotes) is all the better for having passionate supporters like you. Put it this way - I'd rather be arguing with you about these things, than not, if you get my drift.

Have a good day now, and I'll catch up with the thread later, the day job calls, you know how it is, pens to pilfer, social evils to commit, environments to pollute... an office worker's work is never done.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 03:49 AM

Thanks for this Jim. May I say I have the greatest respect for your feelings, and understand entirely why you take the stance you do.

That said, if one merely does a 'replace' operation on any of your posts, and substitutes the word 'tradtion/al' for 'folk' all of the disagreement disappears at once.

I think the most telling contribution on this page comes from Sue Allen: "The IFMC morphed at a later date - snip - into the International Council for Traditional Music."

That says it all for me.

As I've said, I wasn't involved in this music in the 80s - but I don't think it was the admission on non-54 music into folk clubs that caused the decline. From the start of the revival many clubs admitted blues and skiffle and music hall and all sorts - and I don't think the repertoire changed in the 80s, or since. If you look at the national picture over the whole half century the songs have come and gone out of fashion, but the styles are largely the same.

Other factors have affected the health of clubs.

Maybe you are basing your views on your own experience in the clubs you frequented. As I say I wasn't there in the middle - but I hear much the same stuff in clubs now as I did in the 60s and 70s. All that's changed is that we say trad when we used to say folk.

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 03:05 AM

Tom and all,
First an unreserved apology, then an explanation.
If I have offended anybody with my arguments and how I have delivered them – sorry, that was not my intention. Twenty-odd years ago I would have sat on my hands and kept silent; that's what I did in those days and that's what I don't do any more; don't really have that time now.
In the early sixties I found a music which sucked me in and more or less took over my life; I didn't know much about it, just that it was different and that I liked it. It was never a 'head' thing - in those days it came from Jeannie Robertson and Harry Cox and Joe Heaney and The Stewarts.... and many more who I was lucky enough to see and hear in the flesh, and in some cases, get to talk to.
Right through the sixties and seventies I attended clubs, I sang at them, helped run them, even helped set some of them up; they became a large part of my life when I wasn't working. I read a little about the music, but not much; I was far more interested in listening to it.
In the early seventies my wife and I began collecting; going out and finding the people who sang the songs I was interested in, whose parents had sung them and whose parents' parents had probably sung them. We met them, recorded their songs and, far more importantly, we talked to them – in many cases at great length.
We met Travellers who had worked in tinware, dealt in horses, built and travelled in horse drawn caravans and had done a host of other jobs and had led lives completely alien to our own. They took us in, made us welcome and sang for us – and talked, and talked, and talked - filling several hundred tapes with songs, stories, reminiscences and information.
Shortly after that we visited this town on the west coast of Ireland and met small farmers, landless labourers, council employees who worked on the road, singers, musicians, storytellers, tradition bearers...
We went to the town/village a few miles down the coast from here and met fishermen who where then still going out to sea in three and four-man canvas boats and whose parents had gone out in the same type of boat earlier in the century and rescued the crew of a French sailing ship which had gone aground in bad weather. They told us of the incident, and sang us the songs that had been made about it. Again we were made welcome, and again these people filled another several hundred tapes with their songs, stories and information.
We went to the East coast of England and met a carpenter from farming stock who sang us wonderful songs and spent the next twenty years filling tape after tape with information about the singing of those songs and with his very strong and thoughtful ideas of how they came about and how they should be treated.
We met East Anglian deep sea fishermen, Scots Travellers, Irish men and women, mainly from rural backgrounds; singers, storytellers, musicians and dancers who had all ended up in London.
We finally moved over here to the West of Ireland and are now in the process of trying to make sense of what we've been given and trying to work out how to make it available to as many people as might be interested in it.
We haven't gone to the books for our information; we've relied largely on the people I've mentioned and on others we've met with a similar interests to our own. The books, or at least some of them, have been a seasoning rather than the main meal; the ball of string that helps us try to find our way through the labyrinth.
All this is a little long winded – sorry for that – it's an attempt to explain who and why I am. In some ways my desire to debate is a repayment of the debt of gratitude to the people who have been generous and patient enough to pass on to us what we have been bequeathed; if you like, a recognition of the responsibility that seems to go with the territory.
I enjoy these discussions/debates/arguments – whatever they are; I find them educational, stimulating, entertaining: I don't particularly like it when they become too heated, but it seems to be an inevitable part of them and it's certainly a two-way street. I didn't start this thread; I didn't call it 'Folk vs Folk'. I regard discussions like this as little more than marking out our own territory, I never understand why people should take them as questions of value judgements – they're not. Why should I object to what other people listen to; my own musical tastes are fairly catholic.   
Just occasionally some of the arguments strike a raw nerve in me.
I was born and grew up in Liverpool, a city I was quite fond of at one time. In the mid-sixties I watched my home town being turned into a gigantic money-making machine by a cynical and highly-manipulative music industry. When I am told that one of the products of that machine is part of the music I have been listening to and recording over the last forty years...... well - sorry for the knee-jerk reaction.
I don't suppose these arguments ever change peoples' minds – speaking for myself, they give me a great deal to think about, I hope they do the same for others. I am, of course, unconvinced by most of the arguments put forward; too vague, too unsubstantial, a little like trying to wrestle fog.
One point I remain absolutely unconvinced on is the idea that the term 'folk' has changed because millions of people now take it to mean something else. One of the great failures of all of us has been our inability to bring people to our music – however we care to define it. We are, and probably will remain a tiny Freemasons Lodge with our own customs and language; these arguments are little more than a heated family discussion over the tea and toast – not the way I hoped it would turn out, but that's the way it seems to be. It's really up to us to sort out our differences; the outside world neither knows nor cares what we are about.
There is still much to be said on the subject of 'folk'.
Steve if you wish to believe that we still have a living tradition and that the Victorian and Music Hall songs are part of it, of course you are very welcome to do so.
I believe the tradition died when people stopped making and adapting songs and became recipients of rather than participants in their culture. I also believe Pat and I witnessed part of that dying in the mid-seventies when the Travellers got portable televisions and stopped singing (except to pests with tape recorders).
My late friend and neighbour Tom Munnelly, one of the greatest folk song collectors in these islands with 22,000 songs under his belt, as far back as the early 70s described his work as "a race with the undertaker". His field-work finally dried up altogether in the mid-nineties.
.............. but perhaps that's an argument for another time.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 06:48 PM

With you on that, George. The oral tradition has never stopped assimilating new material in those few areas left in the country where it continues. West of Sheffield the farming community has a strong mixture of poems set to music, sentimental Victorian songs, Music Hall, Carols, oh and a few of what the rest of us call 'folk songs' which are in fact the pop songs of the early 19th century as printed on broadsides and sung in the street by ballad singers commercially.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tpm Bliss
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 06:42 PM

Hi folks,

I feel I should explain that Jim and I were, above, continuing what was a very lengthy discussion of this topic in another thread (from which we had both retired hurt) - which may be why some of what we said to each other may not have made sense. Many of the images, of tins and larders and genies and bottles and colours and wells and wikis and 54s go back to this. Sorry if it seemed somewhat incoherent out of context.

I have now had this chat with Jim, and with another regular who's not contributed this time, on about 5 occasions over the past two years, without any meeting of minds on the central issue.

That issue is that to Jim, and others who agree with him, the word folk is welded to the 54 definition. Therefore if some music is described as folk, then, to them, this means that the music is being included (or is hoped to be included, in their eyes) within that definition. And this makes them unhappy, and a little bit cross.

To me, and others if like mind, it is not. It is merely that the meaning of the WORD folk has been expanded to include this other music, leaving the 54 definition intact, but now with a new label: Traditional. We see no problem with this. One word has replaced another, and the definition - and all it stands for - is largely safe and healthy.

I have tried umpteen ways to help Jim get his head round this, but every time I think I'm getting somewhere, he comes back with a comment which shows that he's not got the point all - and here, above, we have more examples, with a number of well-reasoned arguments all getting the same response.

It's a shame, it's frustrating, but does it really matter?

Well, there will be many who'll say it doesn't. The music will survive and the only bad thing we can do to the songs is fail to sing them. (©MC)

I'm of that opinion too - but with one crucial proviso.

If Jim and his ilk were content only to defend their position, and fight the good fight for the word folk, I'd have no problem. We could all engage in spirited debate until the end of time.

But what bothers me, and bothers me a lot, is that whose who feel the way Jim does tend to view, and speak about, 'wiki' folk artists, like me and George - and in fact hundreds of others, as cultural criminals - or worse. They plainly feel we are usurping the tradition for our own mercurial ends, and are therefore dishonest (and other things we'd probably rather not be called). Jim's posts are peppered with understated insults aimed at non-trad 'wiki-folk' artists - as others posts by other contributors have been in the past.

Now, I don't actually care about this for myself (and I doubt George does either). My conscience is clear, and I know there are plenty of people who like what I do, and feel I'm committing no crime in doing it.

But what I DO care about is that this battle, when seen by people at the margins of our world - the very people we hope to draw into it - makes us look like a bunch of rather mean-minded plonkers.

And we have a big enough image problem here already - so we can do without this particular own goal.

That's why I've gone 20 rounds with Jim and others, and will probably continue to do so, as long as he has rounds in hi rifle.

Tom

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 06:39 PM

I too am certain that "the real thing will survive and that people will be listening to Walter Pardon and Tom Lenihan a century hence", Jim. We agree there. Though I think they will be singing Webber's Padstow May Song and Bogle's "The band played Waltzing Matilda", too. And - don't turn your eyes up in horror now - perhaps, just perhaps, in some odd and unguarded moments, even "Eleanor Rigby".

What they will call them, I do not know. Perhaps "ancient music", perhaps each will be called something different or all referred to by the same term. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that they should be sung, because they all deserve to be - for different reasons and to varying degrees, but they deserve it. Always IMHO.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 06:26 PM

"the general public...... now use the term in a much wider sense."
Can you give me an example of this Phil?
"For years the folk clubs thrived on a mixture of 1954 and other folk"
and one more or less drove out the other - guess which one?
When folkies describe 'boring folk songs at folk clubs' and whinge about 'long' ballads, I wonder whether we inhabit the same planet.
"I'm not sure what damage has been done to 1954 folk music by this" is it my imagination or didn't most of the clubs disappear in the 80s?
I decided that my last visit was the night I sat through an evening where I didn't hear a song which remotely resemble a folksong; and when I hear ... Penny Lane, for god's sake.
I think I might have fallen down a rabbit hole, now wher are the hatter and the doormouse?
Don't know "James Yorkston" - please don't enlighten me; this is depressing enough as it is.
I have no doubt that the real thing will survive and that people will be listening to Walter Pardon and Tom Lenihan a century hence. I doubt if you can say the same about your music as you seem totally at a loss to define it - surely that says something.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Folkiedave
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 06:12 PM

Nice bloke too. Huge fan of Ann Briggs and Lal Waterson, as it 'appens.

Then whatever else one may think, from that, he has excellent taste.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:18 PM

Jim, it is precisely because of your own Beatles example that I referred to those two songs, in order to show that there is a wider public out there (misinformed perhaps, I won't argue there) that applies the term "folk" to a much wider bag than that defined by the 1954 definition. I will not argue the rights and wrongs of it, there's no point. As Howard Jones said, the genie is out of the bottle, no use arguing the toss no matter how upsetting it may be. You/we may wish dearly that they would use some other term than "folk" for the purpose, but the majority rules. We may call it "newspeak" but that changes nothing.

The time to shore up the 1954 definition was in the 60s. If it proved impossible to do then, by what measure can one hope to achieve it 50 years later?

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Howard Jones
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:16 PM

Jim,

I may have missed something, but I'm not sure that anyone has challenged the validity of the 1954 definition - I certainly haven't. It's a useful and well thought out definition, in my opinion. But the language has changed over the last 50 years, and both the general public and the folk movement now use the term in a much wider sense.

Yes its regrettable, but it's what happens to language. If you think you can reverse it, good luck, but it's been established now for half a century. Personally, I think you're on a loser. That's not to say I don't agree with the principle, but I'm being pragmatic.

I'm not sure what damage has been done to 1954 folk music by this. For years the folk clubs thrived on a mixture of 1954 and other folk. Whatever the reasons for the subsequent decline of the clubs I don't believe it was because they were offering too little or too much 1954 folk.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Ewan Spawned a Monster
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:00 PM

Nice bloke too. Huge fan of Ann Briggs and Lal Waterson, as it 'appens.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 04:51 PM

To confuse things further, James Yorkston actually does traditional material - mostly rather badly, it has to be said (he's a very inexpressive singer), but he does get the songs out there.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 04:26 PM

"Such songs for example, would be "Penny Lane" and "Eleanor Rigby","
Oh dear: I put up the Beatles example as how bad it could get - and it got worse!
Sorry folks - this is nonsense. You can't even agree among yourselves. 'Penny Lane' - give us a break; can Tom Jones and Shirley Bassey be too far behind, I wonder!!!
If anything convinces me of the need for a clear definition, this does.
"However, to the general public, both would be considered folksingers"
Do you have any grounds for claiming this? Since ALL sides of this argument have totally failed to catch the interest of the 'general public' I suggest that they would have no idea what it was.
"Did the communities in which this music thrived call it "folk music""
I replied 'some did' and mentioned Walter Pardon. I could have mentioned 'Straighty Flanagan' Mikey Kelleher, Duncan Williamson, 'Pop's' Johnny Connors, Martin Howley... and a number of others, all who we have heard use the term at one time or another and whose names would almost certainly have meant nothing to you. Your somewhat grudging "well, that's one" suggests that it would have been pointless for me to have done so. Walter was an extremely intelligent, perceptive and articulate man who gave a great deal of thought to what he did; far more so than most revival singers I have met and debated with. He had the added advantage of having been part of a living tradition.
"Were the communities that the songs were collected from were represented at Sao Paulo?"
No they weren't, and I find the suggestion that they should have been somewhat odd.
As much as I admired Sam Larner and Phil Tanner, I couldn't imagine them to speak on behalf of say a Lancashire weaving community or a Durham mining village, let alone communities in Spain, Finland, Rumaina... and all the other places covered by the definition.
It was arrived at, at the time of the greatest collecting project ever carried out in these islands before or since, on behalf of the BBC. Among those involved in that were Sean O'Boyle, son of a traditional singer and musician, Seamus Ennis, a musician and singer with at least one foot firmly in the tradition, and our own Bob Copper, member of Britain's number one 'folk' family. Assisting in an advisory capacity was Paddy Tunney, son of one of Ireland's finest traditional singers and one in his own right.
Also involved around this time was the magnificent American traditional singer, Jean Richie
It would be ludicrous to suggest that the findings of all this work was not taken into consideration when arriving at the definition, particularly as the nephew of one of the IFMC members was head of the BBC project.
This member, Maud Karpeles had worked with Sharp, so was familiar with the collecting in the South of England and in the Southern Appalachians and was a collector in her own right in Newfoundland.
The definition was accepted in Britain and abroad by academics and performers alike.
I would suggest that any challenge would be best aimed at the definition itself rather than the somewhat ingenuous approach of undermining the authority of its authors.
By the way, the damage that has been done to folk music by the attempted abandoning of ANY definition was not done 'a long time ago' as has been suggested, it has been, and still is a process of erosion.
I like to believe that even at this late stage the process can be reversed, but if that is to be the case it will take a little more thought and sensitivity than has been shown so far in these discussions.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:59 PM

I'm with you, Snail!

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:43 AM



"Did the communities in which this music thrived call it "folk music"?"
Some did, some didn't. Walter Pardon certainly did.

Well that's one but it doesn't seem to be general.

Since you ignore my question about whether the communities that the songs were collected from were represented at Sao Paulo I take it they weren't.

"is there any other word in common usage that has been defined by a committee?"
I assume that by this statement, you are challenging the validity of the original definition - on what grounds?

No, I am challenging its authority.

Surely definitions can be arrived at by those working in the specific field.

Of course, for their own use. They have no right to impose those definitions on the general public. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists defines an alcohol as any of a group of chemicals the simplest of which is methanol and the next ethanol. If you ask a scientist if they drink alcohol they are more likely to say "That's very kind. Pint of best, please." than quibble over the definition.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Ewan Spawned a Monster
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:32 AM

Apart from when talking about performers of traditional material, I don't think it's possible nowadays to wholly define who is and isn't a folksinger. I'm not sure it really matters. There does seem to be a massively arbitrary element to it.

I'm with Howard on the "linguistic slippage theory". I also think there's a point to be made about context. For example, George Papavgeris and James Yorkston are both contemporary singer songwriters. George is considered a folk singer, because he often plies his trade at folk clubs and festivals to a folk audience. James isn't because he usually doesn't. However, to the general public, both would be considered folksingers and to the 1954ers neither would. Context and perspective, then.

Blooming good songwriters, nonetheless.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 05:01 AM

Black Hawk, I think the use of the term "acoustic" to describe material that sometimes overlaps with "folk" is simply borne out of people's searching for a term (other than "folk") which can be applied to said material. I see it as a tryout, and by no means as an established term - yet.

Howard Jones said "I have to admit to being unclear by what criteria some modern songwriters are accepted as "folk" while others are not." Well, you and me together, and I am trying to be one of the very ones you refer to. Overall, I would refer to myself as a songwriter, full-stop. I would be the first to admit that some of my material does not belong to the genre (and I do not play them at folk club gigs, but I do include them in albums). But some of the material does move towards that wide and undefined category that the majority of people refer to as "folk". How can I tell? I don't know, the best way I can describe it is to do with the choice of subjects and the approach to them, the storytelling and picture-painting rather than the music itself. That's how it works for me, in my own mind.

By the same token, I consider some songs that sprang out of the pop or rock world to be worthy of inclusion into the same above category, irrespective of the fact that the people that wrote or made them popular are not accepted as folk artists. Such songs for example, would be "Penny Lane" and "Eleanor Rigby", Mark Knopfler's "Prairie wedding" and "Sailing to Philadelphia", Billy Joel's "And so it goes" and the "Piano man".

So whether the song is, or is not, "folk" (always in the wider-than-1954-sense, erroneous or not) has nothing to do with who wrote or sang it. The characteristics - for me - are in the song itself, not in the provenance or how it is delivered.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Black Hawk on works PC
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 03:28 AM

Why do posters keep defining acoustic music as folk music.
C & W was acoustic & is still mainly played on acoustic bodied guitars with pickups rather than solid bodied.
Same with most blues.
My daughter plays cornet in a silver band but has never used amplification.
The content is the definer surely, not what it is played on.
It is difficult enough agreeing what 'folk' is (if we ever can) without bringing method into the equation.
A novice once told me he couldnt see any circumstance where a singer would need a microphone.
I asked him if he thought he could sing at an outdoor concert at Wembley stadium & be heard.
Its a means to an end.
And if it has been recorded (on any medium), on play back it is no longer 'acoustic'.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 02:51 AM

Def Shepard,
In a similar vein, if you turned up at our folk-club (R.I.P. many times over) toting a Steinway and demanding to be allowed to play your selection of Chopin...... (repeat of your last sentiment).
More when I've woken up!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Def Shepard
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 06:07 PM

It is my opinion that too many people try to set too many boundaries and definitions around music, and I for one say "Did you say something about how I should play and what I should play? Because if you did, you need to mind your own business, to be blunt about it.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 06:03 PM

Jim et al,
Long ago I shied away from trying to give strict boundaries and definitions to music genres. Try giving a strict boundary to 'jazz', 'classical', 'rock'. We all have different ideas as to what they constitute. 'Folk' is no exception to this. As has been said it means different things to different people. So what? It doesn't stop me from enjoying it, playing it, singing it. If it overlaps into something else occasionally so what if it's enjoyable?
It is a useful label, but no more than that. AND don't forget words and indeed definitions of words are evolving all the time, particularly in the English language. Most words in the English language have multiple meanings and different dictionaries give slightly different meanings. It doesn't stop us from doing crosswords or understanding each other. Using the word 'Ballad' presents far more problems than the term 'folksong'. Try putting 'ballad' into Ebay and you come up with all sorts of stuff. This word has changed its popular meaning drastically many times over the centuries.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Howard Jones
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 06:03 PM

Jim,

I wasn't using "academic" as invective or as a put-down, what I was trying to convey was that the 1954 definition was intended mainly for those working in the field of folk music, which I am happy to accept includes performers as well as academics. And I don't doubt that in 1962 "folk song" still meant the 1954 definition. But only a few years later it had expanded to include Dylan, Peter Paul & Mary, the Byrds, and pretty much anyone playing an acoustic guitar.

I don't think this is "Newspeak", which is a deliberate attempt to manipulate language in order to mislead, simply a casual misuse of the phrase. Journalists and the public both needed a label for this new type of music which had invaded the world of popular music. It is unsurprising that they latched onto the term "folk" when so many of those involved at the time were also involved with 1954 folk music and described themselves as folk singers. Yes it dilutes the meaning, but for most people the distinction is irrelevant.

Of course the term "folk music" remains in current use, and I use it interchangeably with "traditional music". But I accept the fact that, the original meaning, the 1954 meaning, has become watered down, and if I want to be more specific I say "traditional music". I'm not saying this is a good thing, simply that's how the language has evolved - not through any sinister attempt to undermine traditional music, just through the need for a simple label to cover acoustic music which had at least some links with 1954 folk.

I have to admit to being unclear by what criteria some modern songwriters are accepted as "folk" while others are not. Sometimes it seems to be a bit arbitrary. But I don't think Beatles songs qualify - they don't usually follow a similar structure to traditional songs, nor were they written with folk clubs in mind as a target audience. While they have become popular and may be often sung by "the folk", they have still to show the degree of variation required by the 1954 definition, and I suspect that most people still have the original tracks firmly in their minds when they are singing them. I don't believe the qualify as folk yet, but many of them are strong enough songs that they could well evolve into folk songs, given time.

If you are going to insist on "folk music" only being applied to music which fits the 1954 definition, then you are going to have to find another term for the range of other music which doesn't fit it but is nevertheless accepted in the folk revival. Either that or say the other music has no place in folk. The first is impractical because the wider world is quite happy with its usage of the term, and I don't think you believe the second any more than I do.

Jim, the genie is out of the bottle. You may deplore the dilution of a term with a precise meaning into one which is so vague as to almost defy definition, but I don't believe the linguistic process can be reversed.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 05:08 PM

Thank you for widening this dialogue - I was beginning to feel guilty for monopolising Tom Bliss.
First can we clear up 'academic', which tends to be used as invective nowadays.
My dictionary gives
Pertaining to university... etc
Scholarly to the point of being impractical
Pertaining to formal education
Formalistic, conventional
Merely theoretical - speculative.
or Pertaining to the academy and philosophy of Plato
Don't know which of those you had in mind Sue, but the 1954 definition was based largely on the work done by Sharp in the field, which he wrote up in 'English Folk Songs, Some Conclusions'. Sharp certainly was a collector, but if he was an academic he spent a great deal of time at the coal-face, and his aim in collecting what he did was specifically for performance.
The fact that the IFMC includes performance and dissemination in their list is surely indicative that their aims were not purely academic.
Sharp's work was re-visited by Bert Lloyd in 1967 - was he an academic? As I remember him he was that lovely balance of researcher and performer. It was he who drew my attention to the 1954 definition in Folk Song in England. I seem to remember that Bert was involved in drawing up the 1954 definition - not sure if he was wearing his 'academic' or 'performing' hat at the time!
MacColl / largely performer with a deep interest in the subject, was happy to accept the definition
Me - I spent my working life as an electrician, fell in love with folk song as an apprentice on the Liverpool docks and, even though that interest tended to go fairly deeply from the word go, that love-affair has lasted a lifetime; I am certainly not an academic.
The revival I came into in 1962 was largely the offspring of the 1954 definition; that's what you got when you paid your entrance fee.Any knowledge I might have on the subject came from singing, listening, reading, helping run clubs and thirty years worth of interviewing traditional singers.
Snail
"Did the communities in which this music thrived call it "folk music"?"
Some did, some didn't. Walter Pardon certainly did. I think I included transcripts of what Walter had to say in a thing I wrote for the Enthusiasms page of Musical Traditions entitled 'By Any other Name'.
Blind Travelling woman Mary Delaney called the songs, "Me daddy's songs' even though she only learned a tiny handful of the 100 songs she sang us from her father. Mary refused to sing us any of her country and western songs because she said "they had the old songs ruined' and had only learned them because 'that's what the lads ask me for in the pub".
Traveller Mikeen McCarthy, Traveller called them "fireside songs" and Clare small farmer Tom Lenihan called them "the old tradition". Other singers we have met have called them 'folk' 'the old songs' and '"come-all-ye's". The point is, whoever we questioned isolated a group of songs and named them. I referred to Tom Lenihan as a 'small farmer' the term generally applied to those of his occupation and background. He would not have referred to himself by that description; others in his position might even take offence - but that is what Tom was.
The name on the door I came in - folk - whether it was chosen by a committee, or whether it evolved, was widely accepted internationally, was part of the definition, and, as far as those of us who continue to research the subject, is still very much in current use.
If you wish to challenge it, adapt it to include other types of music or replace it altogether, please feel free to do so, but you have to take the original definition as your starting point, and explain how, why and into what it has changed.
"is there any other word in common usage that has been defined by a committee?"
I assume that by this statement, you are challenging the validity of the original definition - on what grounds? Surely definitions can be arrived at by those working in the specific field. As I write at present, two of my friends are working on definitions of aspects of music for an Irish encyclopedia. I believe VWMLibrarian Malcolm Taylor has contributed definitions to various works. Personally, I can't think of any better arrangement.
Howard:
"I agree that a performance of Beatles songs doesn't qualify as folk under any definition,"
How dare you make such a claim; what makes your definition, or non-definition any more valid than a club that decides to call a night of Beatles songs 'folk'. I've certainly heard people argue for the Beatles songs to be considered folk because of their continued popularity in pub sing-songs. Are you claiming exclusive rights on changing the term?
The only solid argument I have heard for expanding or discarding the term folk has been it's alleged misuse, though that misuse appears to be a largely cynical exercise by a self-interest pressure group.
It makes gibberish of our language, but it also has a more sinister side.
George Orwell referred to such practice as 'Newspeak' and more recently, it has led to 'torture' being replaced in the vocabulary with 'special rendition', killing your own side as 'friendly fire' and 'the massacre of civilians as 'collateral damage'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 12:41 PM

Jim, I didn't say that "folk song" no longer means "traditional song", but it no longer means only that, at least not in general usage.

The examples of traditional songs you mention are correctly labelled "folk songs", both under the general and 1954 definitions. However "folk song" now includes other things, unless you are explicitly working under 1954.

All traditional songs are folk songs. Not all folk songs,as the term is generally used, are traditional songs.

I agree that a performance of Beatles songs doesn't qualify as folk under any definition, but folk clubs aren't academic institutions, and if they want to put something like that on (presumably as a one-off) that's a matter for them and their audience. But if that sort of thing becomes the club's staple, then the name "folk club" would become inappropriate (and would probably put off the target audience for that music).

You seem to want the world at large to use the specific 1954 definition, but the term isn't even limited to that sense on this forum of enthusiasts. Language is defined by its usage, not what we would like it to be.

I understand your frustration at the way the term in general usage has largely lost all meaning, but it's too widely established to change now.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 09:33 AM

I'm probably going to regret this, but here goes -

Jim Carroll

Any definition of a specific activity must surely be that which is articulated by its practitioners (and articulators).

Did the communities in which this music thrived call it "folk music"? Were the travellers, farm labourers, shantiemen, fisherman, waulkers, shepherds... represented at Sao Paulo or was it decided on their behalf by self-appointed folklorists? It seems reminiscent of European explorers "discovering" foreign lands.

Looking at it another way, is there any other word in common usage that has been defined by a committee?

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Sue Allan
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 08:36 AM

For information, for what it's worth, some info on the International Folk Music Council for those who don't know. It seems pretty clear to me that it was primarily aimed at academic researchers and collectors. Certainly its journals give that appearance.

Maud Karpeles wrote an article in Ethnomusicology magazine (Vol 1 No9 1957) called "The International Folk Music Council: its aims and activities", in her capacity as Hon. Sec. of the Council. It opens:

The International Folk Music Council, which was founded in London in 1947, is a worldwide organization with a membership drawn from over fifty countries and an Executive Board which is served by members from fourteen countries. Its President is Dr R Vaughan Williams. It is affiliated to Unesco through the International Music Council, of which it is a member.
The Council's aims are (i) to assist in the preservation of folk music (and dance) of all countries; (ii) to further its study; and (iii) to encourage its present day practice.

Following the formulation of the 1954 definition Maud Karpeles also, if memory serves me right wrote, a piece adding various riders to the original … but I'd have to check details at home (am at work at present with no access to academic journals.

The IFMC morphed at a later date - someone with more information than me mentioned this recently on a thread, with reasons why - into the International Council for Traditional Music.

The ICTM stated aims are quite different, it seems:
"The aims of the ICTM are to further the study, practice, documentation, preservation and dissemination of traditional music, including folk, popular, classical and urban music, and dance of all countries."

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 05:47 AM

Howard,
"You appear to be overlooking the fact that the 1954 definition was for the purpose of academic study."
No it wasn't; it was an attempt by researchers and performers to identify a specific genre of music for all purposes, study and performance included.
"We can't really complain, since the folk revival was happy to go along with this at the time."
No we weren't - we walked away from the clubs in our thousands - and we never came back.
"the term "folk" slipped away from the 1954 definition long ago."
Again, not the case. A couple of years ago I completed my set of 'The Greig Duncan Folksong Collection', an incredible source of material for students and singers alike - and spot on '54'.
Shortly before that I received as a birthday present Vance Randolph's 'Unprintable Folksongs and Folklore' as a birthday present.
Far from having gone away, the term is still very much alive and kicking.
I was never a stickler for the strict use of the term as long as it didn't stray too far from its correct meaning, just as (occasionally) I am prepared to eat food which contains taste-alike ingredients that have never even seen the shadow of the real thing.
Traditional doesn't do as a term, as I am more than happy to listen to contemporary songs composed using traditional forms, even though they are neither/nor.
I certainly will never accept a folk club evening of Beatles songs, as happened not so long ago in the North of England.
If someone is prepared to come up with a workable definition which leaves the 1954 one intact, fine, let's look at it, but what is constantly being proposed is the total abandonment of any definition, which will ring (and has rung, to a great extent) the death-knell on folks song as I understand it as a performance art.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 05:09 AM

Jim, you appear to be overlooking the fact that the 1954 definition was for the purpose of academic study. It is commonplace in all activities for practitioners to use words in a more precise way than in general usage. It is therefore possible for "folk song" to have two meanings, the wider one in general use and the narrow, more precise one for specialists. Confusion arises on a forum like this which is composed of enthusiasts but not necessarily academics, who may use both senses without being clear which one they mean.

I suspect that in 1954 "folk song" even in general use still meant pretty much what Jim would like it to mean ie traditional song. However by the mid-60's it had broadened to include acoustic popular music. Now "folk" can mean almost anything - I have been listening to the BBC 2008 Folk Awards CDs and there's stuff on there that I can't see as being "folk" under any criteria (but perhaps that's just me turning into a Grumpy Old Man).

The fact is that the term "folk" slipped away from the 1954 definition long ago. We can't really complain, since the folk revival was happy to go along with this at the time. By the time I started to go to folk clubs in the early 1970s you could expect to hear all sorts of music there, including blues and "contemporary folk", probably a wider range than you would now. The accusation of "Judas" levelled at Dylan was because of his use of electric instruments, not because he was outside the 1954 definition of folk.

If the 1954 definition was being formulated now, it would probably have to use the term "traditional song" rather than "folk song".

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:54 PM

Pardon?

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:29 PM

what the f#### going on here?.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Def Shepard
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:11 PM

And this was stated, Bob Pegg astounded a roomful of people by announcing that he was no longer interested in folk music. When asked why he still played it, he replied "for the money".

Well at least Mr. Pegg was being honest about his intentions.

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 12:27 PM

I wrote 'articulated' by its practitioners, not labelled.
'Folk' is not a label - it defines the music; it refers to its origins, it's creation, transmission, its function and the people it served.
Exclude tomatoes from soup and it ceases to be tomato soup, take folk out of folk music and it ceases to be folk music, no matter how many people wish it were otherwise.
Tom says his particular tin is labelled 'Story songs', which could place it in the 'opera', 'country and western' or 'music hall larder; it has no part in the overall definition.
Wikepedia includes 'electric folk' in its definition, yet does not include Vaughan Williams or George Butterworth or Percy Grainger, who all have a greater claim to the source of the music. If you are going to widen your definition, surely you must remove all the boundaries.   
Incidentally, at the 1971 Loughborough Folk Festival, one of the leading exponents of 'electric folk' Bob Pegg astounded a roomful of people by announcing that he was no longer interested in folk music. When asked why he still played it, he replied "for the money".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Black Hawk on works PC
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 07:00 AM

any definition of a specific activity must surely be that which is articulated by its practitioners

I thought that was what Tom was saying?

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 06:42 AM

The Wikepedia definition flies in the face of all other definitions ancient and modern. It is vague and generalised, and even in the terms it has set itself - totally out of date.
Any definition of a specific activity must surely be that which is articulated by its practitioners (and articulators).
Wells became Wells because it had wells, not because it was one, and a butterfly was always a butterfly, and still is.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 06:02 AM

I wouldn't advocate that Genealogy should be replaced by Geneology, but if it happens -as it may well do - the dictionaries will be altered to recognise it. Any study of language shows that this is exactly how words change and always have done. By common use. A Butterfly was once called a Flutterby - and yes, dictionaries ARE now showing the grocer's apostrophe as correct.

"If you are going to re-define the word (nobody else has), then do it"

Err - Jim, it's been done very nicely. And I've told you I accept it. Look again at Wikipedia.

Yes, it's a shame about the books, and about the correlation with folk art etc, but the Wiki does take that into account, and a link remains intact.

A minute, self-interest pressure group?

Jim, wake up and smell the coffee mate. If you'd written that in 1965 you'd have had a point, but you are simply wrong. Look again at the iTunes list. There is the proof that it's way past a minute self-interest group.

My own tin has a label which I've already told you about: 'Story songs.'

Do you know the town of Wells in England? It has wells in the middle of it. The wells gave the town its name. No-one complains that the town has houses and shops in it and isn't actually only some wells. Oh, and if you do want to find the wells, you have to follow the signposts to the Bishops Palace.

Sorry Jim that's all I can say.

I need to go change my strings

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 05:58 AM

Tom,
Sorry, meant to say what a good analogy your 'larder' is.
Music or song is your larder, folk is the label on the tin.
The putting of The Canterbury Tales into modern English is a far cry from making the Wife of Bath an advertising executive in the city.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 05:44 AM

Tom,
Any definition must take as it's starting place what has gone before.
Would you advocate that we now use the term 'Genealogy' instead of Genealogy because of constant misuse - I won't begin to talk about the grocer's apostrophe?
If you are going to re-define the word (nobody else has), then do it, otherwise we will have no definition for what we do. In which case, all the books on the subject on my shelf (dating from mid 19th century to a year ago) will cease to have a meaning.
By bowing to (or being part of) a minute, self-interest pressure group it is you who is confining our music to obscurity.
Tins in a larder carry their own descriptions and definitions - tomatoes, beans, marmalade, whatever - nobody in their right senses would refer to them all as a larder and nobody would suggest that they are all the same. Your particular tin doesn't have a label; put one on it!
The general definition is 'music' or 'song'; 'folk' is the specific term to describe the contents of the tin.
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Folk vs Folk
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 05:32 AM

Sorry - I meant to respond to this too:

"What you are proposing is not a re-definition, but an abandoning of the existing one because it has become meaningless and undefinable, which to me is cultural vandalism."

Yes that is what I am proposing, but it is NOT cultural vandalism.

It is the way that language is, and was, and always will be.

Go read a bit a Chaucer, then tell me that that the reason you don't understand much is because of cultural vandalsim. (Ok, the Norman Conquest was - but even that is just What Happens).