What do you consider Folk?

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 10:32 AM

It all depends on how you punctuate the question

1) what do you consider folk? (do you know that one by The Spinners?)

2) what...... do you consider folk?(how is your sense of social rsponsiblity?)

3) What! do you consider, folk? (do you think a lot?)

4) What do you? consider folk! (what are you up to? give it some consideration!)

As someone said there seven types of ambiguity, people aren't aware of the layers of profound meaning that lie hidden in these seemingly dull repetitious questions.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 10:34 AM

as one of the most insistent 'trad' defenders, I find I kinda like the definitions offered by " llareggyb "

" anything goes for us so long as it has entered the general cultural consciousness, at least that of the "folkie" community (definiton of folkie: people like us)

This is the basic attitude I 'put up with', as long as newish, songwriter, commercial stuff doesn't become the majority. This IS how various music becomes folk/trad, so it needs to be recognized. Unfortunately, for some of us...(like me)... the process goes much too fast these days, and people want to include everything THEY liked or were familar with as kids...so the Beatles and Dylan are being offered status in just one generation.

Anyway, if an evening includes ONLY a few such things that have recently"entered the general cultural conciousness", I'll survive.
(unless the evening/event has been specifically planned as a trad/folk event!)

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Jayto
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 10:51 AM

Not everyone was raised up around alot of folk music. They may have came to it and "discovered" it later in thier musical journey. Then they have to play catch up with others that may have grew up hearing it and/or been into the scene longer. In turn alot of times they will take songs they are familiar with and try to make them sound folk. The whole time they are discovering and learning true folk music. I always try to give people credit on this and really I think everyone should. Kind of like a learning curve you know. I might get upset if someone comes up saying " I am going to play a folk song." and then busts out Metallica on an acoustic guitar. Unless they were joking about the folk nature of the song then I would laugh. Hell I'd laugh one way or another on that one lol. Metallica did do a version of Whiskey in a Jar though lol (at this moment I a ducking from flying debris being hurles at me from members on of this board lol). We can't expect someone that wants to play and sing or someone that already does play or sing to stop playing or singing until they build up a large volume of "True" folk songs. Even if they did we can't even decide what folk really is or is not and have ran across more ultra talented folk singers,writers, and musicians on this page than I have anywhere else ever. Just wanting everyone to keep that in mind and be something this world is not very much of anymore----tolerant.
cya

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 11:02 AM

I couldn't agree more with Bill D.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 01:45 PM

Goodness me! I thought everyone knew what I thought was folk. 1954 definition.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: GUEST,Otis Luxton
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 05:04 PM

In my belife...

Peoples ideas of the word 'folk music' are a romantacised myth. Its the same with the word 'traditional music'. You cant define a tradition of an art form- its simply a contrived style as is all musical and art 'styles'. Of course you can say that this contrived style is what we now call 'Folk Music' or 'Traditional Music' - but you have to ask yourseves should people really be attaching the word 'Folk' or 'Traditional' to this style of playing or singing. I find It hard to say that 'Folk Music' is in other words the 'Peoples Music' because then you seperate it to any other stylised form of music, claiming that such genres such as pop, rock and classical arent the 'peoples music'- people made this music, and therefore it belongs to them.

As for tradition, all music is traditional. All music follows patterns, cliches, contrived forms, even if the maker of that music is trying to make something completely new. Hip Hop is a traditonal form. There isnt a certain age or popularity something has to be to become traditional. It becomes traditional through continuity, which I feel all art forms have; so why link it to only one style of music?

Call me synical, but I feel many 'folkies' as they like to be known can be very snobbish on what they feel folk music is. I think they they feel 'folk music' is a more pure, true and honest form of music. - Infact i feel the contrary about what they would call 'folk music' Ironically, I belive its stagnant and has lost any continuity because of that and thus looses its status of being a Traditional form. - of course many would argue that this type of music isnt stagnant, and is ever evolving - in my honest opinion, i dont think it is evolving (not enough to call itself 'traditonal' form anyway)

Maybe on their folk festival line up next year, these so called 'folkies' should visit an illegal techno rave in thetford forest or maybe a three day german heavy metal concert because I feel these are the truest forms to a 'folk festival' today.

I have no problems with people playing/singing 'folk' music or 'traditional' music - I would just rather that it not be called folk/traditional because I belive this is a bastardisation of words which carry alot of meaning and weight. Furthermore much 'folk' music also carries alot of meaning and weight, so we must treasure this like all other forms of music and art which also carry alot of meaning and weight. - No art or music form is superior to another, because they all have meaning and a social/historical context - wether it be Harry Cox singing 'what will become of England' or Girls Aloud on MTV.

In conclusion, the way I see 'folk' music is that is that it is like a medieval re-enactment society. - We perform what we thought music was like many years ago. Often idealising it, or romantacising it. A theatrical performance of History. We treat the music like a play, as the re-enactment society does - a spectacle for others to observe. As Antonin Artaud would put it - Deadly Theatre.

I happen to be studying a Degree in Folk and Traditonal music at Newcastle University, which doesent make me superior or educated in any way. I dont want to give the impression that because I am studying 'Folk and Traditonal' music it makes me more knowledgeable than anyone else in any way because i dont feel like this - But if anything, it has made me look more critically at the 'folk' scene. Maybe not coming from a 'folky' family, its all a bit of a shock to the system.


I hope what i have said isnt too dysjunct or intelligable - ive just had too much coffee.

Please feel free to send me hate mail at [e-mail]

Otis.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 05:14 PM

No Otis. Its very reassuring to hear from a young person like yourself that the accepted 'truths' and truisms of the folk revival are being questioned somewhere other than on the threads of mudcat.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 05:15 PM

ps the other side always win the argument though - there are more of them!

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: GUEST,Otis Luxton
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 05:19 PM

Weelittledrummer - i guess there will be more of the otherside, being Mudcat and all. but thanks for reading though. Im glad you think its the truth too. :)

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 05:38 PM

Otis, IMHO you need to read a lot of the linked threads here before accepting what WMD (oops, WLD) says - he has opposed the linkage of "folk" as a concept to what has gone before ever since I first online met him, and it is contrary to the ideology of a "folk art" however you slice it.

If you want to conceptualise the ideology of "folk" from a modern perspective, it would be useful to investigate the roots of "folk metal" which I at best imperfectly understand (but for an old fogey I am learning) but which I understand largely divides into two classes - the racist/fascist on the one hand and the historical/mythological on the other (funny, I wonder where Wagner goes).

I have a view that differs from yours (and his) but at this stage I urge you merely to review the old phrase "analysis before synthesis".

BTW old as I am I have pretty recently done sound for grunge postgrunge and metal bands and I am not unreceptive to re-invention, but we all have roots.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Tootler
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 05:51 PM

I came across this in another forum. I thought the person concerned had something interesting to say so I kept it. It refers to instrumental music rather than song, but much could be applied to song:

Traditional music, in my opinion, harks back to a time when communities were a horse ride away from each other and styles were localised. Tunes would be played at celebrations and would be known tunes within a particular community or group of communities. At weddings and other celebrations, dances would be a form of community bonding. Knowing the steps would be a form of cohesion, of belonging. New dances and styles would be slowly absorbed from the periphery, variations from the next village etc. Occasionally a newcomer would bring something new – a new instrument, a new dance a, new tempo, a new variation. This would be absorbed into the culture and molded into the repertoire. The industrial revolution started to distort traditional music, through mass migration, and the opening up of even the most isolated communities to the world. At the same time collectors with wonderful foresight started to gather tunes from areas, preserving in aspic many of the old traditional tunes, before they were lost. Mass communications, firstly radio, then TV, allowed music traditions to be both preserved, and diluted and distorted and marketed. New tunes in the tradition, so to speak, were composed in their thousands.
Lastly, the Internet has allowed musicians to communicate directly with each other, and express their own views on the traditional music, they can hear tunes from around the world. On the one hand all these modern innovations (from transport, through mass communications to the internet) have diluted traditional music and spread it to the four winds to be played by any musician with a whim to play it. Here in Scotland I can happily collect Appalachian music, Northumbrian music or Japanese music and add them to my repertoire of local tunes. Some I meet will only play local tunes, others have their specialities, cajun, bluegrass, shanties etc etc etc.

The important thing to me is that these tools have also allowed people who care about the traditional music of a locality to study and preserve it too. There will always be people who believe that the music should be preserved at all costs while others are open to any and all influences. One day, with the passing of oil, and mankind being thrown back onto the resources of the local community, the time may come again when a style of music and dance will identify us with a particular locality. Meantime we live in a time of unbounded richness of music, and I for one will play anything if it is a good tune and stirs some emotion in me and those who will listen to me.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: JHW
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 05:54 PM

Who pays for all this?

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: GUEST,Otis Luxton
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 05:58 PM

Hello Richard, thanks for your reply.

I'll be honest with you, without wanting to sound arrogant or rude, but your reply has confused me. Where did the 'folk metal' bit come from? - I know i made reference to German Death Metal in my post, but i didnt expect for someone to ask me to look at the roots of 'folk metal'.

But in response, I have experienced and looked at this kind of music. Like you say, you can compare it to Wagner and Nationalism (which can easily be confused with Racism/Facism) and historical/mytholocial kind of stuff. Its quite a popular trend in Scandanavia and northern Europe - for example music such as 'Viking Metal' which exists in Sweden. But just like the 'folky' scene, 'folk metal' it takes a highly stylized music, and encorperates it into another highly stylized music. - im not sure its much to do with roots, rather i feel its to do with mixing two sounds of music to create a 'quirky' and i feel gimmicky kind of music. Still though, you can argue the roots of 'folk' and 'metal' all day long.

Im not sure we can divide 'folk metal' so simply into the two classes of it either being racist/facist or historical mythological though. Although Wagner is known to be Hitlers favourite composer, I feel his music has alot of artistic merit, and is possibly a highlight in the Renaissance of Germanic Culture. - Just because Wagner made what we now call Nationalistic music, it doesent mean he was a Facist. ( which he actually probably might of been, considering his social group/context )

What does IMHO mean?

Otis.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:19 PM

"..claiming that such genres such as pop, rock and classical arent the 'peoples music'- people made this music, and therefore it belongs to them."

Well, Otis, I see your point, but "people made this music, and therefore it belongs to them." is something between a cliche and a tautology. It is very close to the old "I ain't heard no horse singing it" line.
   The point is not to debate whether some particualr word should be defined precisely or not... the point is that categories exist, and some people make special efforts to find, buy, listen to, collect and play & sing...varying types of music. There ARE people who listen mostly to orchestras playing 'classical' music & opera...so they need a word for it when they go to the music store or search for it online.
   Obviously, the same goes for Hip-Hop, Rap, Bluegrass, 'Country', Dixieland jazz, Heavy Metal...and many etcetras! Some people, like me for instance, discovered in the 50s & 60s a type of music which had most of its roots in older music & song that was traditionally played at home for fun and passed down orally for sometimes hundreds of years. As this music was gradually recorded and talked about, the terms 'folk' and 'traditional' were used to refer to it. It wasn't a clear, precisely defined area, but for 30-40 years it was pretty clear what was meant, even though the edges were often fuzzy!
Now, we often STILL need to refer to those old songs, tunes... and the people who kept that music alive. *IF* people keep crowding new genres and variants under the umbrella of 'folk', the word ceases to have much use at all! I can no longer say "I like 'folk' music" and be sure you will know what I mean.
I do NOT care much for 'electrified' folk, or most 'singer/songwriter' stuff...with certain exceptions. So... after most of my early years being able to say "I like 'folk' music, what am *I* supposed to do now to avoid spending my money badly when I see a 'folk' concert or festival advertised?

   I repeat, as I have repeated in this forum for over 10 years...if a word is used too broadly, it begins to have little meaning at all... The reason we HAVE different words & phrases is to differentiate between various categories..in places like stores and web sites and concerts.

   I am quite aware that I have essentially lost the battle to preserve 'folk' to mean music with a certain set of characteristics...the word is just too short, simple & useful.
But maybe, in little corners of the world, I can remind a few 'folks' what we are really dealing with.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: GUEST,Otis Luxton
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 06:39 PM

Bill D. - I completely agree with you on the necessity of having labels and categorys. - it helps things immensly and makes life alot easier. It also means we dont have to beat around the bush when we talk about things. And of course, there is a distict difference in sound between Chiago Blues, and Delta Blues for example - and having the labels is a great way of being able to talk about each individual style without great deals of confusion.

But, i think what I would like to clarify is that I think that the label 'Folk' is one that shouldnt really be applied as it currently is. - Folk is, undoubtedly a huge umbrella term for all sorts of music. But i think with the particular word 'folk' - it carries with it alot of meanings, connotations and ideas that arent particulary true to its actuall form. Furthermore, the word 'folk' isnt just used in reference to the music, its used in reference to the dance, food, philosophy and culture. Which i dont feel is very healthy as it is, like i say, some kind of re-enactment, which we cant live throughout our day to day lives because we dont live in the past.

Otis

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 08:54 PM

Otis--as much as I appreciate any mention of Antonin Artaud, in fact, the concept of "deadly theatre" comes from Peter Brook--

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 08:57 PM

In My Humble Opinion

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 09:48 PM

"I am quite aware that I have essentially lost the battle to preserve 'folk' to mean music with a certain set of characteristics..."

Did you ever stop to think that there might be a reason why the battle has been lost.

The sacred 1954 definition that so many people cling to seems to be misinterpreted more than anyone will admit to.   If you look at the "set of characteristics" that can be gleaned from using that definition as a guideline, you would see clearly that traditions live and are created,a true folklorist examines such trends and sees that connections.   Unfortunately, most people who cling to that definition seem to have a finite view of ONLY a small section of "folk music".

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 10:40 PM

Well, Ron... *I* have barely read that 1954 'definition'. I am trying to discuss, from a pragmatic viewpoint, what *I* am faced with....totally apart from your 'we all have to realize how things change and evolve' mantra. You do a radio show, and I am quite aware that it would have a hard time surviving if you limited programming to "Bill D's preferred format".
   Here in the DC area, our own Mary Cliff has made essentially the same point to me for years....yet she understands precisely what I am saying and tries hard to keep a 'reasonable' amount of.......whatever it is I am looking for - the 'older' sorts of folk.... alive and relevant. Sometimes, her program is excellent (in my view)...and sometimes it is full of newly written stuff, or older stuff 'speeded up and loudified' (to coin a phrase) by 'modern' young folks with LOTS of talent but not much perspective...and I end up turing it off.

Now, if I were running a radio station or financing a CD company...or even booking for festivals... I would no doubt realize that, in order to have listeners & customers, I have to offer what is 'popular'...and "louder and faster ...and more chords and navel gazing" IS a lot of what sells! Let's just be more candid about what it is and is not! It may have many roots in traditional folk, but it's very like the guy who claimed he owned George Washington's axe..."yeah, it's had 5 new handles and 2 new heads, but this is G.W.s axe!" He needs to call it something else...a 'replica'...whatever... and not use the words which should be reserved for the original.

    BECAUSE 'folks' have expanded and muddied the meaning and relevance of 'folk', I can no longer use it, except in certain situations, in its classic mode. *shrug*...so....I get by. As I said, I don't expect anyone to change and words... all I hope for is that the IDEA stays in the heads of enough people, even if it now takes 2-3 sentences to describe what used to be 'almost' clear in the phrase 'traditional folk'.

I would hope that that "true folklorist" you refer to can keep in HIS head some perspective on what the origins were, even as he "examines such trends and sees that (sic) connections."

I rest my case...now I go rest my body.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 11:25 PM

When I first became interested in folk music ~ along with MANY others, in the USA at least, back in the mid-1960s ~ the distinguishing characteristics of the genre were (a) genuine human feeling expressed in generally unpolished vocals and (b) a simple and straightforward instrumental sound devoid of "studio tricks" and orchestration.

This approach distinguished this newly popular old-style music from an earlier generation's favored theatrical-style songs and also from that era's rock n roll, which had lost most of the vitality characteristic of the first RnR/R&B recordings, znd had seemingly become the province of corporate interests intent upon "marketing" at the expense creative personal expression.

This "authentic" sound was about equally accessible in old-time/traditional folk (both as performed by "source" artsts and as reinterpreted by younger performers) and in the new music created by artists who would later be called "singer-songwriters." It was only in later years, and/or in other cultures, that contemporary compositions would become definitively excluded from the category of "folk" by some enthusiasts.

I certainly understand that some people will prefer art of one or another historical era and/or bygone culture, whether out of some kind of academic preference or simply because they like the sound. What irks me about some of the less tolerant of the "traditionalists" is their contention, implicit or otherwise, that their particular favorite subcategory of song is superior, and some how more valid, more heartfelt, more expressive of the communal feeling and experience of The Folk, than someone else's.

It is patently absurd for contemporary people, often fairly privileged economically and culturally, and almost always tuned into electronic commuications of various sorts, to pretend that they are "preserving" some long-gone and never-to-be-seen-again culture that evolved in relative isolation from the wider world. They are only enjoying the opportunity to attempt replication of the sound of recordings that they've been privileged to hear ~ nothing more.

All those preserved-in-amber songs and musical styles were the communial musical expression of various different human communities, but they're something different today. They're artifacts.

The human community to which all of us here belong today is international, electronically interconnected, and English-speaking by default. The musical culture that we all share, even when that "we" is self-defined as a group sharing special interest in music that is vaguely defined as "folk," includes plenty of music that we've all heard and, to different extents, enjoyed ~ almost none of which stands up to "the 1954 definition."

While we all have our different favorite areas of intense interest, the musical culture that we all share as "folk" of a common group includes, yes, the best-known traditional songs of older English and Celtic English-speaking cultures ~ but it also includes the best-known and deservedly enduring songs of the British music-hall and the American musical-comedy stage and movie screen, jazz "standards," blues, rock "oldies," country-and-western classics, Stax and Motown, "British Invasion" pop, "singer-songwriter" pseudo-folk, etc., etc., etc.

Without any intention of denigrating anyone's favorite subgenre, I content that this very broad range of popular (i.e., widely disseminated) music ~ essentially, anything one might sing around a campfire ~ constitutes the real folk music of the world we live in today.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 11:37 PM

"I would hope that that "true folklorist" you refer to can keep in HIS head some perspective on what the origins were, even as he "examines such trends and sees that (sic) connections." "

Or "her" head! :)   Just teasing! What I was saying is exactly that - a true folklorist would keep perspective on what the origins were.   The question is- there are many different cultures and communities, and many different origins.   I could be off base, but it seems what you are describing is a "folk" music that you are familiar with.


"Here in the DC area, our own Mary Cliff has made essentially the same point to me for years....yet she understands precisely what I am saying and tries hard to keep a 'reasonable' amount of.......whatever it is I am looking for - the 'older' sorts of folk.... alive and relevant. Sometimes, her program is excellent (in my view)...and sometimes it is full of newly written stuff, or older stuff 'speeded up and loudified' (to coin a phrase) by 'modern' young folks with LOTS of talent but not much perspective...and I end up turing it off."

I love Mary and I think we have similar perspectives. I try to do the same in terms of keeping the "older" sort of folk alive, but I do see a connection in contemporary music that tends to be overlooked. The idea of "speeded up and loudified" is an indication that the traditions you look at are based on musical styles that probably came out of the folk revival. If you look at how those styles were developed in the first place, you might see why the "speed up and loudified" contemporary style is simply a reflection of the culture that created it.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Sep 08 - 11:54 PM

Ron-
You've convinced me. As of now, my two favorite examples of folk music are the Bach B Minor Mass and a chocolate eclair.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: GUEST,Otis Luxton
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 05:27 AM

- M. Ted.


Thanks ever so much for correcting me. Indeed it was Brook. I read both of the books at the same time, which was obviously a mistake, because i always mix the two up. ta da. Cheers

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 10:06 AM

Strange. No one in this thread has yet referred to (disinterred ?) "Horsemusic" - and I do not advert to the 'Topic' record by Lea Nicholson et al.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 10:20 AM

In the last analysis Otis - you must do what is right for you.

Folk is more of a smorgasbord than a set menu. Its no use saying the only real folkmusic is this or that. You might get up on stage and find you haven't got the right length fingers, the comic or narrative talents and your sound crap or you're boring everybody, or even worse - you're boring yourself.

Find some music you enjoy doing or writing about and give it your best. It position or non position in folkmusic will become apparent to you eventually.

Folk is a bit like God - it regardeth more the thoughts of the heart than outward displays.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 10:32 AM

"You've convinced me. As of now, my two favorite examples of folk music are the Bach B Minor Mass and a chocolate eclair. "

With all due respect Dick, you are being ridiculous. We have had this discussion in person and whether you wish to admit it or not, you know that I am NOT saying that "everything is folk music", but you seem to want to put those words in my mouth.

Dick, I respect the work you have done and I respect EVERYONE that has preserved and perpetuate TRADITIONAL folk music. I don't buy the fears that people like Jim Carroll have expressed about these traditions being lost because of an interest in the folk music that is created by contemporary cultures and communtities.

These discussions are getting more absurd because no one wants to listen to what the other person is saying and people cling to their own stubborn beliefs. I am really sick and tired of all the narrow minded attitudes that will only acknowledge one or two particular styles - usually something that starts with a British tradition - and fails to acknowledge that other cultures in contemporary settings are doing EXACTLY the same things that their ancestors did - utilizing the tools and modes of communication that are available. These expressions are dealing with the same issues and serving the same purpose.

No one is saying that you need to enjoy rap music in order to earn your folkie stripes. Everyone is certainly entitled to listen to music that appeals to their senses and satisfies their needs. At the same time, there is something seriously wrong when the organic process that created an interest in "folk music" can no longer be acknowledged.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 10:55 AM

I wonder if Jayto is still monitoring this discussion, or if he's already seen enough...

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 11:13 AM

Please note: I did not start it this time...

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: goatfell
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 11:27 AM

anything really, including rap? because the songs/tunes today in the future will be considered trad in centuries to come

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Jayto
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 11:27 AM

Yes PoppaGator I am checking it. Wondering what I have started here lol. I will have more input on this sometime today. I am in a rush right now running to a couple of sessions (Recording sessions for those across the pond lol I found out about the different meanings last week lol). When I get back I am going to add :)
cya

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 11:34 AM

If anyone really wants to get serious about defining "folk", he should recognize that there are several definitions currently in use: a sociological one, a literary one, a stylistic one, a performance one...and so on and so on. TRying to have a discussion on the subject without agreeing on which definition you wish to use is totally pointless.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 04:26 PM

I like chocolate eclairs, but someone tried to pass off one made with carob the other day...boy was HE sorry after my 2 hour lecture...☺

Poppa Gator:re:

"I contend that this very broad range of popular (i.e., widely disseminated) music ~ essentially, anything one might sing around a campfire ~ constitutes the real folk music of the world we live in today."

I know exactly what you mean, but I would express it differently. "Widely disseminated", to me, MEANS 'popular'...or pop-folk music. After it has been filtered and mellowed for a number of years, it may BECOME traditional and get absorbed into the realm of trad/folk. So, what the difference? Why get so picky? I just hope that using clarifying words can help retain clarity of thought and remind people that styles, melodies, topics (subject matter) and venues (how & why played) were quite different in earlier times. If they are all called the same thing each generation, no matter how different, who knows what chocolate eclairs will taste like in 100 years...

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 04:34 PM

...and, you note, that in a forum that tries to discuss Morris dancing and Child ballads, with an attached database filled with presumed 'folkish' music, we get threads started about the death of a guitarist in "Pink Floyd". To me, that is a clear sign that distinction are blurring and that many people just can't be bothered with silly categories...after all,"it's all just music".

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 05:09 PM

Hi Bill,

The furthest thing from my has been to "get picky." As I'm sure you can perceive, my intention is to open up areas for consideration, not to shrink 'em down.

And also, even though I may have allowed myself to be understood otherwise, I certainly understand that meaningful category-names or "labels" are necessary, just so we can understand each other, each knowing what the other is talking about.

I believe that "traditional" is the clearest label and most fitting name for the kind of music that some would like to be the only music graced with the honored name of "Folk." In fact "traditional" alone is probably inadequate; for more meaningfull identification, "traditional English," "traditional Appalachian," "traditional Bulgarian," etc., are probably more helpful.

When it comes to the meaning of "Folk" beyond, or deeper than, a simple category name to be used in music stores, the meaning that resonates with meaning as "of the people," etc., that's where I have to differ. The traditional folk music that many people embrace is NOT the primary "soundtrack" of anyone's lives in the present day, it's an historical curiosity and a hobby for those who so choose, not unlike interest in classical "early music" as performed on valveless horns and other obsolete intruments. Not that there's anything wrong with that; I'm simply arguing that such music is very much less central to our community life than it was when it was current, that is, when it was folk music.

Quoting you, in regard to the wide spectrum of popular contemporary music:
"After it has been filtered and mellowed for a number of years, it may BECOME traditional and get absorbed into the realm of trad/folk."

You're right, insofar as not all the songs widely known and enjoyed today will withstand the test of time. Thing is, we don't yet know which will survive and which won't. For now, we simply share a huge and motley assortment of music; ALL of it is the communal property of us 21st-century internationally connected folk.

Now, compare our shared contemporary musical heritiage with the then-current folk music of some 17th century fishing village. The best of their songs may remain known to this day, but certainly not all of them. I'm sure they had a number of other songs that did not, in the long run, prove resilient enough to gain immortality. Still, back then when they were current, they were part of that culture's "folk music." I feel the same status should be conceded to all the songs that all or most of us recognize today; some will live forever and some won't, and we have no idea which are which.

Do I think CDs of "Louie Louie" or "Over the Rainbow" should be labelled as "folk" in the record stores (insofar as record stores still exist)? Of course not. I am simply arguing the position that, labels aside, the best and/or beast-loved music of many different categories functions as the "folk music" of our new, unprecedented, communal, global world.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: GUEST,A Traddie
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 05:16 PM

Back in the "dim dark ages" there were some people who discovered the music of the peasantry, farmers and the like and they started collecting this music (which probably would be lost by now if not for their efforts). They needed a name for this music and hence the term "Folk Music" was born along with a definition which is largely unknown now. As time went by other people who did not know of this definition or bother to do any research were a bit confused by what the term "Folk Music" meant and started formulating their own ideas as can be seen by all the comments made on threads such as this, to the point where it is now very muddy water. My main musical interest is in the music this term was originally devised to cover but I don't care how wide the compass is now as it helps to draw more people to this genre. A small number of them will be attracted to the original folk by their exposure hence the wider coverage will help to keep the older music alive and will provide "a venue" for this music. I also enjoy the wide diversity of music that can be heard on the folk scene today.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 03:52 AM

The original version of 'Louie Louie' - calypso and lyric sounds very much like a folksong to me. Certanly has the feel of an old sailor's song - and something in the lyrics - I bet it's first cousin to a shanty something like Lowlands Away, my John.

Nobody else ever thought that...?

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 05:22 AM

What still puzzles me, after all these years, and all the hot air, is why are some people so desperate to have their own favourite form of music accepted as folk?

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: glueman
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 10:43 AM

Folk is easy to find: just follow the anger.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 12:35 PM

Hello Gluey! Where ya been?

I've given up on definitions. It's much better fun listening to the damned stuff, rather than spewing out 54 ways of shouting yerself horse...

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 12:43 PM

"What still puzzles me, after all these years, and all the hot air, is why are some people so desperate to have their own favourite form of music accepted as folk? "

A better way to phrase your question would have been:
"... why are some people so desperate to have music that they do not like or understand disputed as fitting the definition of folk?"

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 12:48 PM

Well Ron-
Let's reverse the field a bit. What don't you consider to be folk?

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 12:53 PM

I keep feeling like a broken record. folk song and folk music are for people who want
to share their music in a musical community that isn't catered to by commercialism,
professionalism or some grey-bearded academic's idea of what it is.

It transcends definitions by its application.

It's accessible (folk) and doesn't require singing on stage or on TV.

It's not for the purpose of making money. That's bs.

It happens in living rooms, front porches, sometimes as a lullaby, sometimes as
a work song or schoolyard chant. It is constantly changing as people add to it,
new verses, new variants and is never frozen in time.

It is a might river (not wind) and has many tributaries.

Sometimes it is filtered through someone who speaks for a given community or
sometimes it is the lifted voices and instruments of those in a community.
It heals because it brings people together.

My friend Mark Dvorak put it this way, "To be able to play the blues, I once heard, you have to be born with the blues. Well, I wasn't. And the world of jazz is filledwith cats who are hip and cool. I'm not. And rock music has been entwined forever with the dazzle of celebrity life. I don't care anymore. I like folk music. It's for the rest of us."

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: glueman
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 01:16 PM

Jus' hanging Spleen, jus' hanging. And writing a book that isn't about folk. Still look in but I'm all outta wordz.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 01:21 PM

Promoting "folk singers" today is kind of like promoting "stars".
That's a real oxymoron.

It's like saying that politicians and preachers are the American people.
Or that they really represent the American people.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 01:30 PM

"What don't you consider to be folk? "

Broadway show tunes, rock and roll, and classical for a start. Music that is created for a commercial purpose and not coming "from" a community but rather "directed at" a community.

Now Dick, can you tell me what you consider folk music.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 01:32 PM

"I keep feeling like a broken record. folk song and folk music are for people who want to share their music in a musical community that isn't catered to by commercialism, professionalism or some grey-bearded academic's idea of what it is."

Very well put Frank!!

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: Jayto
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 01:45 PM

It seems to me that anything with acoustic instruments is called folk. I know it is not right but that is what I run up against alot. I play all kinds of different styles of music. My instrument of choice is an acoustic guitar. I swear I can get up and play nothing but rock gat off stage and somone will say something about it being bluegrass or folk. I am not sure if the general public doesn't know what folk or not. I think traditional is a good term for it. I always point out traditional songs when I play them. Alot of times I will give a short history of the song before playing it. When I am around home I like to tell the people about the songs that are more local. It gives them a connection to the song and hopefully it will stick in thier heads a little better. Of course I say that because I want the old songs to live not as a way of marketing myself. I want to be clear about that. As far as the Folk Metal movement that someone mentioned earlier I have listened to some of it a few years back. I sometimes get on wikipedia and look at the different musical genres trying to find something I have never head before. That is a good way to find styles you may otherwise miss. I came across that genre one time and checked it out. Don't stone me or anything but I thought it was pretty cool not something I would really get into. It reminded me of Norwegian Death Metal with fiddles lol. What I heard (and I haven't listened to tons of artists from this style) takes the term folk from an idealogical point and from using traditional instruments mixed with the Metal. I don't really see much Folk in it other than that. If there are some better examples than what I heard let me know and I will check it out. I missed the whole Wagner thing. I know the socialism aspect and yeah he was Hitlers fav (He saw Tristan over 7 times alone). Are you saying Wagner was folk? If so would KMFDM and bands that use Wagner as sampling in thier music Folk? If so I guess it would be industrial/folk/metal/NGM lol just kidding but someone clarify a little on the Wagner thing. I have been in a big rush all week and just glanced over the posts so if I got something wrong let me know. Speaking of rush I have to go. Check back later
cya
JT

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 01:50 PM

Ron-
"Music that is created for a commercial purpose and not coming "from" a community but rather "directed at" a community. "

Now consider who's appearing at virtually every folk festival, and tell me that they don't fit that description.

To me, "Folk" (at least as far as it goes in terms of professional performance) would suggest a strong connection with the style (and type of content) of past traditions. To repeat what I've said many times, "Folk" is NOT a value judgment. I like a lot of music that I don't consider to be folk, and I dislike a lot of music that i do
so consider.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 01:59 PM

"Now consider who's appearing at virtually every folk festival, and tell me that they don't fit that description. "

They do not fit that description.

To begin with, if commercial interests were the major criteria, they would not be performing at a "folk" festival. The music comes from past traditions - a more recent vintage that can be traced to the folk revival and the community that it spawned.   Even though there are known authors, the music evolved from a singer-songwriter style that can be traced back to artists like Woody Guthrie. They also use the form of traditional music. Some use the form and update it to reflect changes in the culture.

" "Folk" is NOT a value judgment."
I would think we are all in agreement on that.


"To me, "Folk" (at least as far as it goes in terms of professional performance) would suggest a strong connection with the style (and type of content) of past traditions."

The only issue is that most professional performers have very little connection with the past traditions other than as students or observers.

Subject: RE: What do you consider Folk?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 02:26 PM

Ron, I think Dick's point is well taken. Just because a professional (i.e., "commercial") performer makes his/her living on a relatively modest scale, rather than by playing huge arenas, does NOT ipso facto make them folk performers. Their tastes, abiliites, etc., help to determine what kind of audience they can appeal to, how large a demographic, what age group, etc. They're still doing it for money, even when the money is not obscenely huge, but merely "a comfortable living."

Acoustic performers who have managers and spend weeks at a time on tour buses are "commercial," even though they don't appear in the pages of People magazine and don't attract crowds of papparazzi. Their audience may be concentrated in college towns, not is the suburbs of every metropolitan area, but it's an audience that a performer might well learn to reach using a very calculated, strategic approach.

Such performers may well be classified under the category of "Folk" as a way to finds their CDs at the music store, but Dick has a point in arguing that what they're doing is NOT, strictly speaking, "folk music" in the same way that those old traditional numbers WERE folk music in their native environments and eras.

On the other hand, you and me sitting on the porch swapping songs, without the slightest thought of remuneration, IS folk music ~ even if we don't do a single "traditional" number and play nothing but Beatles songs, Everly Brothers, "Over the Rainbow," "Hey Joe," "Mr. Tambourine Man," etc. etc.