Does it matter what music is called?

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:23 AM

If it doesn't matter what music is called, why get mad if somebody says somebody isn't folk?

Good point. I don't think anyone here's really indifferent to definitions. Some people seem to be saying "don't define music" but meaning "don't define the music I like as not being folk".

I can see both sides, I have to confess. I got into folk in the first place through Steeleye Span in one of their noisier periods, so I completely understand kids watching Seth Lakeman shredding his bow and thinking this is how folk ought to be. (Although I'm sure Peter Knight used to play actual tunes. Tsk, kids these days...) Even when I got into performing (much more recently) I only had a very hazy idea of which bits of my repertoire were echt Trad and which came from earlier folkies; one of the first songs I did in public was The Snows, which I introduced as an old song by Bert Jansch*. And when I started writing and singing my own stuff, well, that was when I felt like I was getting somewhere with this folk music lark. Most of the younger performers I hear seem to think the same way - 'singer-songwriter' is the goal, the traditional repertoire is just another source of cover versions.

But I've moved, just within the last few years, to a much greater appreciation of traditional songs and tunes. The thing is, it's very largely thanks to my exposure to a handful of performers, floor as well as pro, all of whom I've seen at the local club (in between the singer-songwriters). I think it's tremendously important that more people get that opportunity - and the more 'folk' becomes synonymous with 'someone playing an acoustic guitar', the less likely that is to happen. Unless we can collectively do a Tom Bliss - settle on 'traditional' for what we do and leave 'folk' to the acoustic-contemporary crowd. (A fine and talented crowd - I'm not dismissing that kind of music, I still write it myself from time to time. But traditional music is different.)


*I know, I know, I know. If your toes are curling think what mine are doing.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: glueman
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:43 AM

"Some people seem to be saying "don't define music" but meaning "don't define the music I like as not being folk".

To be fair Pip I think it's the other way round. These threads almost always start from 1954 definitions and suggest anyone who doesn't stick to them is being a charlatan. The truth is the cat's been so long out of the bag that it only has any life on forums like this. It's like saying steam locomotives are the only ones worthy of the name and forgetting diesel traction has been consigned to history too and the general public are riding on multiple units made in the Czech republic.

This is against a background of fine diferentiations between what 'English Traditional Music' means, if anything.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 06:46 AM

Leveller:
"I think it's a compliment that anyone wants to perform one of my songs."
I think I would feel like that if I wrote songs, it must be even nicer to have them mistaken for 'trad'.
Glueman:
"These threads almost always start from 1954 definitions and suggest anyone who doesn't stick to them is being a charlatan."
Never saw that one - where was this suggested?
The misuse of language is not 'being a charlatan'' it's just misusing language.
Pip:
Welcome - nice to have someone as receptive on board, but be ready for a rough ride!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 06:47 AM

Much of it has to do with ownership. With who decides. With who calls the shots. Trad means thousands of things all around the world. I would suggest that more people around the world know a stanza from "Blowing in the Wind" than know any stanza from any Child Ballad. If music is supposed to be shared and passed around, then let people do it. A song like "Last Trip Home" speaks more loudly to me than anything from the 1700s.

That said, when I send out CDs of my own writing to prospective radio stations, they will be sent NOT based on what various radio shows call themselves. The CDs will be sent based on their play lists over the past six months. If they played Prine, Staines, Lightfoot, Dylan, Steele, Lakeman (and newer contemporary songwriters)--hey, maybe they'll play something from me, too. If they have played Trad, then they have no need or want for anything I've ever done. That's the way a market place works.

Some of this stuff reminds me of a Literature class I was in about 25 years ago and a discussion that centered around the true meaning of LITERATURE. I horrified the prof when I said, "Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness' makes me want to chew my leg off." Keriste. You'da thought I pissed on the Persian rug. He tried to belittle me as opposed to ask why. I suggested that more people had read Robert Ludlum than had read Joseph Conrad, and while that did not necessarily speak to the quality of either writer, it certainly spoke to their popularity. He responded by saying that popularity often results from people appeasing their baser instincts. Twenty five years later and nowt's changed. To get 'honours' in the course I jumped through the hoops and wrote 'all the right things', and Ludlum was still out-selling Conrad. And Dylan is still out-selling Child.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: glueman
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 06:58 AM

"The misuse of language is not 'being a charlatan'' it's just misusing language."

But the only people who care are those I wouldn't invite for dinner. So pedants and 1954 Taliban get no fish and chips at our house. Sorted (in the non-postal service derivation of the term).

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 07:09 AM

"By the time he recorded the song, in March 1970, Dylan may have even checked his copy of Child's five volumes of British balladry, English & Scottish Popular Ballads, published between 1882 and 1898, a copy of which, Allen Ginsberg once confirmed to me took pride of place on the shelves of Dylan's MacDougall Street townhouse."

Clinton Heylin "Dylan's Daemon Lover"

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 07:15 AM

You are saying he was influenced by traditional music. Of course he was. I was saying he out-sold Child.

Don't let your blind arrogance and complete stupidity from another thread muddy your thinking.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 07:25 AM

> From: Lord Batman's Kitchener - PM

> Jack Campin is one of those people who simply has to have everything labelled, see,
> he get's confused otherwise.

I don't get confused, I get my time wasted.

I go to sessions to play (many instruments) or occasionally sing. I can adapt to a number of different styles, from Scottish and English instrumental and vocal trad to blues, bluegrass, classical Arabic, British music hall and French musette, but have zero interest in spending an evening playing nothing but Denver, Dylan and Prine. (I've been hearing that stuff for forty years and if it was ever going to do anything at all for me it would have done by now. I just want it out of my way). I have recently ended up in a pub for an evening with people whose interests and knowledge were that narrow. I got bored with their stuff very fast and they couldn't even accompany Soldier's Joy, let alone the range of trad tunes I'd have liked to do. Nothing in the email announcement suggested it'd be like that. Since the place was an hour's travel away in a one-pub village, I couldn't just walk round the corner and find something else, and since it went on with the same stuff all evening I couldn't just go for a pee and come back when they'd switched to something different. That was an evening out of my life I won't get back.

I have by now worked out case-by-case which sessions feature the range of stuff I like - the Hole in the Wall in Linlithgow is great, no session in Midlothian seems to be worth me bothering with any more - but a label would help. I would be happy with "roots" to describe the range of stuff I like playing, and I think the singer-songwriter crowd would generally be happy with "acoustic" for the narrowly exclusive events I'm trying to avoid. (Except presumably for people like you who think you can only get an audience by false advertising).

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 07:32 AM

Well, I'm off to the supermarket - I need some tomatoes.

But you can be damned sure I'm gonna check out when they were planted - where - by whom - when they were picked - when and how they were transported and who packed them.

Because they may look, smell and taste like tomatoes, and it may even say 'tomatoes' on the packet but, hey, I'm not stupid!

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: theleveller
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 07:41 AM

"it may even say 'tomatoes' on the packet "

As I pointed out above - you say 'tomatoes' and I say 'tomatoes'.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 07:52 AM

Peace

You are saying he was influenced by traditional music. Of course he was. I was saying he out-sold Child.

You are not comparing like with like. Food out-sells cookery books.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 08:10 AM

LOL--that was good.

I agree that trad was the basis for some of Dylan's work. But his work today is not trad. My saying he out-sells Child does not mean I say he's better or more important. Just that he out-sells him.

Where have you been all the day,
Rendal, my son?
Where have you been all the day,
My pretty one?
I've been to my sweetheart, mother
I've been to my sweetheart, mother


Oh, where have you been, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, where have you been, my darling young one?
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains,
I've walked and I've crawled on six crooked highways,
I've stepped in the middle of seven sad forests,
I've been out in front of a dozen dead oceans,
I've been ten thousand miles in the mouth of a graveyard,
And it's a hard, and it's a hard, it's a hard, and it's a hard,
And it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.



Issues of the time.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 08:31 AM

Glueman: These threads almost always start from 1954 definitions and suggest anyone who doesn't stick to them is being a charlatan. The truth is the cat's been so long out of the bag that it only has any life on forums like this.

I agree that 'folk' now means something much broader and vaguer than it used to, and as a result includes a lot that it used to exclude; I don't think anyone here would dispute that. The question is how we feel about that redefinition.

I'm very suspicious of the sheer amount of energy some people are expending on saying they don't care about definitions; I don't think there's anyone here who really doesn't care what gets called what, or more specifically what gets called folk. I think there are people who think it's a positively good thing if the doors are thrown open, and people who think it's a bad thing. I certainly think it has some bad consequences, which I've commented on.

I agree with Nick in many ways; John Martyn was great in his day, and it would be daft to go through your Pentangle albums skipping the self-composed tracks (you'd miss some of the best stuff on Basket of light). To me what went wrong is that labels like folk-rock and jazz-folk never stuck, and that there never really was a label for sensitive-young-person-with-acoustic-guitar (apart from 'protest song', and for obvious reasons that didn't last). Lots of people doing folk-and- or folk-plus- or folk-sounding-, and somehow they end up with the unhyphenated 'folk' label.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 08:33 AM

Pip nailed it, imo.

It's a two-way street. Traditionalists don't want it misapplied and guess what? Neither do contemporary singer/songwriters.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 10:20 AM

I'm just amazed that everyone is so confused that they need their handheld in order to determine if they "might" enjoy something.

If you see a sign saying "jazz concert" - do you really know what you are going to hear?   You could hear anything from swing to bebop to cool jazz to fusion to hard bop to Latin jazz to Dixieland to who knows what.   Same for "rock". There are so many variations that a single word cannot describe, yet the single word encompasses a genre.

We are not comparing apples and oranges or tomatoes. What we are discussing is whether we it can be classified as a fruit or a vegetable (technically, they are all fruit - but most people think of a tomato as a vegetable - should we scold them???)

While I am hearing the Folk Altercockers of Mudcat pontificate about the importance of language and sanctity of the words "folk music", I have yet to hear specific examples of what they consider folk as there are many different traditions.   Would something Don Firth considers "folk" be considered "folk" by Jim Carroll?   

Since there are many different traditions, why is there such a reluctance to even considering that there are contemporary communties that have developed their own culture and music - influenced by their environment and common tools of their time?   Is it so hard to conceive that the person who first wrote "Barbara Allen" was doing anything different than what John Gorka does? Granted, there were no recording devices back then and the song evolved as it was passed from generation to generation and community to communuity.   Yes, there is a certain charm to realize that traditional music has gone through an oral tradition and been added to, but when you boil it down - isn't the beauty of the words and tune and the way they are delivered more important than whatever lineage can be traced?   You can breed dogs as pure as wish, but who really gives a crap when the joy is having the companionship that your best friend offers?

By a purist definition, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Lead Belly, Bob Dylan, Phil Ochs, Si Kahn, Joe Jencks, Janis Ian, Joni Mitchell, Anne Feeney, Utah Phillips and so many others do not sing folk songs. From an academic standpoint, I understand and respect that.   However, I feel that academia does not dictate human behavior and culture. The songs created by the individuals I've noted above have played an important role in establishing a modern community and influencing culture.   I cherish their songs and feel no qualms with calling them "folk songs". They are not traditional, but they are music of the people.

You cannot box people in with rules designed by committee. Folklore is the study of culture, and culture continues to evolve. You can take a snapshot to freeze a moment in time, but you cannot expect the subject to keep the same pose forever.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 11:02 AM

Altercockers

Mmmm... that word again. Delicious.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 11:06 AM

"By a purist definition, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Lead Belly, Bob Dylan, Phil Ochs, Si Kahn, Joe Jencks, Janis Ian, Joni Mitchell, Anne Feeney, Utah Phillips and so many others do not sing folk songs."

I don't actually give a flying fuck what you call them, I do in fact like some of those people's work. But I want for people who set up events where the kind of music I know much more about and actually play is excluded, to be honest enough to tell me they're excluding it so I don't waste an entire evening going to their club or session.

It's very common practice for people into singer-songwriter music to try to keep all other kinds of music out of their venue. The problem isn't exclusivity in verbal definition, it's exclusivity in actual practice, hidden behind the verbal screen of the word "folk".

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 11:09 AM

Nowhere at anytime have I ever said that I'm a 'folk singer/folk musician', I'm not, and if I did say I was, THAT would be false advertising. By the way, I'm not a singer/songwriter either.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 11:18 AM

"It's very common practice for people into singer-songwriter music to try to keep all other kinds of music out of their venue. The problem isn't exclusivity in verbal definition, it's exclusivity in actual practice, hidden behind the verbal screen of the word "folk". "

You need to get out more Jack, and ask more questions. Perhaps in your corner of the world it is common practice for singer-songwriters to keep other kinds out of their venue, but I do not see that here.   I will grant you that there are economic forces that factor into booking possibilities, but I do not see exclusion of traditional music in circles like you described. I do see more exlusivity among traditional artists and venues than I do the singer-songwriter genre - here in the northeast.

I really don't give a flying fuck if you wasted six hours of your life at a session that wasn't your cup of tea - and if you could not convince the others to explore traditional music, then either you did not speak up or they were too limited in range to explore.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 11:35 AM

I cherish their songs and feel no qualms with calling them "folk songs". They are not traditional, but they are music of the people.

I get a bit peeved with this argument. I revere Dylan - I think he's one of the greatest poets of the 20th century - and I don't doubt that his work would be passed on, from singer to singer and from father to son, if it wasn't possible to listen to recordings. If recording technology were somehow abolished next week, a 22nd-century collector might well pick up local variants of Blowin' in the Wind and Mr Tambourine Man. But we'll never know: Dylan isn't music of the people, Dylan's a recording artist. Traditional and folk-transmitted music survives here and there - football chants, playground rhymes, some hymns and carols - but there's no really music that's of the people in the sense of living and developing among ordinary people in the course of their lives. The ubiquity of broadcast and recorded music changed everything.

That's a real break in the history of music, and a very recent one. Traditional music - folk music, as far as I'm concerned - is all about reaching back before that break and finding out what people used to do for music, before they could all listen to the same thing at the flick of a switch. And if you want to do that and put it in a regular 4:4 with a backbeat, or draft in a jazz bassist, or even throw in a couple of your own, that's fine - as long as you don't lose sight of the fact that the bits that make it folk are the bits that were there before you. We seem to be in a position where the bits that have been added on to folk are seen as compulsory, or at worst as defining what folk is.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 11:44 AM

"no really music" should be "really no music", of course.

No really.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 11:45 AM

Yeah, definitions change...most children call riddles 'jokes', because most adults are too careless to explain the difference.
   I have been served 'Strawberry Shortcake' which was merely some strawberries poured over this spongy bit of yellow stuff, rather than real *SHORTBREAD*.
I do woodworking, and have to constantly fight the tendency of wood dealers to try to sell me 'rosewood' that is NOT in the Dalbergia genus. (THEY say 'rosewood' is just a descriptive term and that I am being too particular, and that it is pretty wood and the term is useful because it 'resembles' rosewood).
I buy frozen 'Mexican' food from Trader Joe's, but they have recently reformulated a couple of my favorites by changing the recipes to be less spicy and to have appeal to Yuppie tastes with cilantro and chopped exotic greens on it. It may still have a vaguely Mexican base, but it-ain't-the-same, and the metaphysical question arises: How many changes can they make and still suggest it is Mexican food?

Ron---you have a radio program, right? What do you play on it? Music?

Probably so, but is that what you tell people you meet? They are bound to ask you "what kind?" Do you play jazz? Opera? Gregorian Chant? Rap? (cough).....oh...FOLK! I see...that's different from jazz & opera 'other stuff'. What if I complain that your label is too narrow, and that what I hear on your program is just 'music'?
I **KNOW** definitions and usage change over time....but certain types of changes muddy & dilute any hope of clarity. Just as 'music' wouldn't convey enough information, so now neither does folk...or even 'trad'!! There are those who wish to say Dylan is 'trad', when all they mean is 'popular' and 'older than me'.

If a word is to be really useful, it cannot be too broad: YOU wouldn't go into a restaurant and ask for 'food'...or even 'soup' or 'bread' or 'meat'...and if it purported to be ethnic (Italian, Chinese...etc) there are certain basic recipes you'd expect...even though there ARE variations! If you do NOT like chocolate sauce on your Rigatoni, you'd wonder why they didn't say somewhere that they practice nouvelle cuisine in Italian.

"Does it matter what music is called?" ....only if you wish to be able to converse about it without constant disclaimers and order it without risking frustration.


Do I expect this, Ron, to alter your concept of musical nomenclature? No...of course I don't....but it IS an alternate viewpoint that can sit here for others to ponder and perhaps make them think twice and ask before offering the latest singer/songwriter hit in the midst of a Child ballad session.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 12:03 PM

Bill D - I think we are talking over each others heads and not listening to one another.

I am not arguing against descriptions. What I am arguing is that "folk" is a broad term.   When you say "folk music", it is the equivalent of going into a restaurant and asking for "food". There are many different folk traditions at play here. An evening of English folk song would differ from an evening of African-American folk song.

What are you expecting when you hear the words "folk music"?

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 12:05 PM

Personally I prefer to play rather than converse, but to each their own.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 12:05 PM

Batman- what do you play?

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 12:12 PM

I am a singer and player of traditional tunes

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 12:13 PM

Oh, so you must play a lot cajun fiddle??

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 12:20 PM

I don't play fiddle. Guitar and melodeon are my instruments and the British Tradition only

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 12:26 PM

Bingo!! You made my point!!!!!!

What you are playing cannot be accurately described as "folk music".

When you said "traditional tunes", that can desribe a variety of instruments and cultures.   Someone who dislikes British Traditional music would be bored to tears with what you play.

This is the problem with labels!   Having a bin that says "folk music" does NOT tell me if what you are playing is something that I would like.   While we can argue about whether contemporary singer-songwriters belong under the umbrella.

Folk music = fruits and vegetables (sometimes in more ways than one!)

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 12:33 PM

Far as I'm concerned it definitely wasn't called folk music when the songs and tunes were written (I'll stick with popular music) The term 'folk music, for me, is a generic one, covering a multitude of sins.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 12:35 PM

By the way if the term singer of traditional songs is good enough for Martin Carthy, it's definitely good enough for me. Somewhere in the Mudcat forum is a posting from Eliza Carthy stating that her fther is not a folk singer but a singer of traditional songs.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 12:43 PM

:: It's very common practice for people into singer-songwriter music to try to keep all other
:: kinds of music out of their venue. The problem isn't exclusivity in verbal definition, it's
:: exclusivity in actual practice, hidden behind the verbal screen of the word "folk". "
: You need to get out more Jack, and ask more questions. Perhaps in your corner of the world
: it is common practice for singer-songwriters to keep other kinds out of their venue, but
: I do not see that here.

Other people do see it: we had a long thread on Mudcat recently about an event in the US North-East, much bigger than any I've ever attended, which the thread initiator described as a "Not Folk" festival. It had the same sort of exclusivity I'm talking about, except there they stated it explicitly (which is easier to deal with -it doesn't matter so much when people tell you up-front that they're making up new meanings for words).

I suspect one factor in this divide is the increasing tendency for guitarists to learn from tab instead of using their ears. It's easy enough to find tab for singer-songwriter music; memorize it and you're there, your fingers are emulating a karaoke machine. Most of the people going to "folk" events in Midlothian seem to have learned that way. But learning how to back a traditional tune effectively, even with the simplest possible I-IV-V7 chordings, is a different skill that needs practice in its own terms (ear training, and inventing harmonies and rhythms on the fly). Most people who learn DenverDylanPrine stuff never take that additional step.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 01:05 PM

"The term 'folk music, for me, is a generic one, covering a multitude of sins."
At last, we agree on something. If that is what you have been saying all along, I apologize for not recognizing it.

"we had a long thread on Mudcat recently about an event in the US North-East, much bigger than any I've ever attended, which the thread initiator described as a "Not Folk" festival. It had the same sort of exclusivity I'm talking about"
I agree with you, that sort of exclusivity is not right. The promoters of the festival are doing a disservice, yet I still feel they can call themselves "folk".   That particular festival is making a huge mistake.

"Most people who learn DenverDylanPrine stuff never take that additional step. "
I agree. It is their loss. It is also a loss when DenverDylanPrine material is not learned (at least Dylan and Prine), but that is an individual choice and their loss.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 01:06 PM

Individual choice is, in the end, what it's really all about, regarless of whatever any of us say.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 01:08 PM

I think people who are stuck liking just one kind of music are doing themselves a disservice, big time. It leads to having scratch pads a half inch wide.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 01:59 PM

LBK: Guitar and melodeon are my instruments and the British Tradition only

Ron: What you are playing cannot be accurately described as "folk music".

Eh? Whyever not?

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 02:04 PM

For the final time, I do not consider myself a folksinger/musician, I am a singer and player of traditional songs.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 02:10 PM

Pip - what I am saying is that "folk music" does not give enough of a description to know that he is playing only British Tradition.   

Yes, it is indeed folk music - but that doesn't tell me everything - not that I am expecting a full description from two words like "folk music". Many of the posts in this thread seem to indicate that simply saying "folk music" is enough of a description. My arguement against the need for labels is that they only pigeonhole, and they are not inclusive of modern acceptance.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 02:11 PM

Batman - it really doesn't matter what you call yourself.

Perception is reality.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 02:15 PM

The term" folk music" is fine if you're into a generic/bland label. What I call myself matters to me, what doesn't matter is what other people call the music I play

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 02:24 PM

You are exactly right Batman! Perception is reality!

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 02:26 PM

whatever you say

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 02:31 PM

I'm with you.. the label means nothing.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 04:28 PM

*sigh* I guess *I* have not been clear. It is quite true these days that the label 'folk' means nothing. My point is that it should mean something....and 40 years ago, it did, even though it was already fraying about the edges. In any area where definitions are not absolute and monitored by a committee, such as those who control biological names, there are vague in-between gray areas.

Music is like that...we know "Barbry Allen" is folk AND trad, we know "Stardust" is not...and we debate everything from most of Utah Phillips to all of Lou and Peter Berryman. Now, when the Berrymans were here, I went and saw them, and 'mostly' enjoyed them, but if I were in charge of organizing a **Folk Festival**, I would not include them, though I might well include Utah..(well, if...). It's a subtle distinction to spell out, but it feels obvious to me that what Bruce Phillips did was ummm..72.039% 'in the tradition' compared to the Berrymans'...ummmm..41.638%..YMMV. Dylan songs, to me, vary individually from 70-80% down to 20% or so...which means Dylan is hard to place, but since (to me again) most of his are below 50%, I'd tend to NOT list him under 'folk'....

This has NOTHING to do with good or bad, but only with relevance to historical perspective and style and melodic forms and subject matter...etc...(maybe 3-4 more categories).
The point is..if I were in the promotion business, and you knew me, you could at least have a good idea of what I'd offer, and a VERY good idea of what I would not. You might not guess what I played that day, because I might have done a Berryman song...just because it was fun.

I don't suppose 'folk' will ever be rescued, and 'trad' is on slippery footing, and when people ask me what kind of music I 'mostly' listen to, I will, if I wish to be clear, always need to add a 3 paragraph disclaimer if I tell them 'folk'. 40 years ago, I didn't have to do that.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 04:35 PM

"and 40 years ago, it did"

and 40 years ago I was 22

That was 40 years ago, today is today, fortunately there is no going back.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 04:54 PM

fortunately? I see your milage DOES vary.

I'm just glad I won't have see what they do to the language 40 years from NOW!

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 04:58 PM

My mileage does what? That would be laughable, but...Let's just say I honour the tradition by playing the music, but I'm not chained to the past, besides, as I've said at leat twice, this will be three times, I don't consider myself a folk singer/musician.

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:08 PM

"I don't suppose 'folk' will ever be rescued, and 'trad' is on slippery footing, and when people ask me what kind of music I 'mostly' listen to, I will, if I wish to be clear, always need to add a 3 paragraph disclaimer if I tell them 'folk'. 40 years ago, I didn't have to do that. "

Bill, the sky is not falling. Folk does not need rescue and "trad" is standing up quite well.

40 years ago, these very discussions were going on. I'm a bit younger than all of you geezers, but one just needs to read the publications and books from the time, and speak to those who were there.   Purists had issues with Woody Guthrie in the 1940's.

I get the impression that people are trying to clarify a label as if that will make everything better.   When you say "folk" needs rescue - do you sincerely think that it is being ignored because no one can define it to your satisfaction?   Your own words, as published a few notes ago, give notice of that "gray" area - should Utah Phillips and the Berryman's be considered "folk" for a festival.

If the Berryman's are excluded from a folk festival, I would rip off the arms off of the artistic director and give them a sound thrashing with their own limbs to beat some sense into them. In your description, you create your own rating system and give percentages to determine how "folky" the artist is. You would step in less bullshit if you went rollerskating in a cow pasture.

You do not need a 3 paragraph disclaimer. If you need to have an artist give you references and footnotes about the pedigree of a songs authenticity, then folk music WOULD be in danger of boring the living crap out of any listener. You are sending up huge roadblocks to anyone who will discover the music as you and I did - simply for the joy and beauty of the song.   I don't give a rats ass if the song was written yesterday or is rooted 500 years ago - enjoy what you can while you are still around to enjoy it, don't get hungup on labels!!!!

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: M.Ted
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:10 PM

BillD, and his Trader Joe Mexican Food problem, has finally defined the issue in a way that makes it more addressable--to wit:

The "Mexican Food" items that BillD talks about originally were food items from Mexico that TJ's simply packaged and sold to a wider market outside the culture of origin, and in that sense, were both "traditional" and "folk" foods that had been borrowed.

Over time, the recipes are modified by the borrowers to suit their own needs and tastes, which are different from the folk/ethnic culture where the food item originated. The question is, how much, if any, does the food change before it stops being Mexican?

In the same way, the Folk/Traditional music of certain British/American subcultures was collected, compiled, and introduced to wider audience outside the culture of origin(by Child,Sharp,tge Lomaxes, et al), and in that sense, it was both "Traditional" and "folk" music that had been borrowed.

Over time, the music was modified by the borrowers to suit their own needs and tastes, which differed from the folk/ethnic culture where the music originated. The question is, how much, if any, does the music change before it stops being "folk/traditional" music?

You can work it out from here...

Subject: RE: Does it matter what music is called?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:17 PM

Whatever you wish to call it, there's a fundamental difference between what one hears at most "folk" festivals and what one hears from more traditional singers. And that's why, despite the spate of Folk Festivals in the US, I'm going to travel some 3000+ miles to go to Whitby Week (which doesn't even call itself a folk festival) to listen to the kind of music I like to listen to.