What makes it a Folk Song?

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 06:56 AM

"What's diegesis - dictionaries didn't help?"

The word roughly means 'story world', one created by the teller. A fiction so apparently complete it draws the listener in so he believes the tale. The beguiling story here is mysterious, unknowable individuals created a music that was adopted seamlessly by society until an apocalypse (industrial, communications or in some other way post-Edenic) atomised a nation until rescued by seers. Research with a dusting of the numinous if you like. Tweedy shamen capturing the dying flames of a disappearing world backed up by a committee who bought the idea.

You couldn't make it up, but someone did.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:05 AM

> You couldn't make it up, but someone did. <

You.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:13 AM

"It's as useful a method as hurling insults then playing hurt."
Not convinced that I ever did the first, certainly not the second.
However - have resolved to be more careful in future in order not to upset people - perhaps you'd like to join me?
On the other hand:
"End of discussion. Now run along and play some music."
Hav never attempted to issue direct orders - wouldn't dare for fear of being branded a member of the FP
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:23 AM

You're tangling people again Jim. Those of us with doubts about the folk process (sic) as laid down by the 54 definition aren't some hydra-headed enemy waiting to spoil the party. I think it's wooley, relies upon wishful thinking and attracts sentimental adherents who lose all sight of what they're on about. Slim facts mixed with value judgements.

I never said 'run along'. I try to avoid Pip Radish style snippiness at all times while still making the point.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,Smedley
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:27 AM

The '1954' thing surely falls apart for the simple reason that a committee cannot define any cultural form, unless their aim is to freeze-frame it and stop any future evolution.

Oh, of course, that is *exactly* what some folkmeisters want to do..........

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,Working Radish
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:45 AM

I try to avoid Pip Radish style snippiness at all times

Sure you do.

glueman, every time you've raised a specific issue with the 1954 definition I've responded. Every time I've asked you a straight question you've ignored it. This has made me suspect that you weren't entirely serious about wanting to have a debate about definitions. Your admission that what really floats your boat is ringing people's bells and running away tends to confirm my suspicion.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 12 May 09 - 07:49 AM

"Tweedy shamen capturing the dying flames of a disappearing world backed up by a committee who bought the idea."

Perhaps glueman should get hold of a tardis on Ebay, set the controls for the heart of 1907, and make his concerns known to Cecil Sharp. Who knows, he might even have a case!

As to the present, he came rather unstuck (geddit?!) last time he tried to convince this forum of his 'music ruled by committee' conspiracy theory, and if the best he can offer us now is: "So in answer, a folk song is anything an informed person says it is", then the imaginary army of "1954 protagonists" that he so enjoys "baiting" are more likely to be rolling their eyes to heaven than girding themselves for battle.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:13 AM

I've asked repeatedly what terms like 'the people' really mean. What the transference process is and how many stages are necessary to comply. Why anonymous means a damn to a music. How reliable are the collectors and how scruplous their methods. How peer reviewed (to use a modern term) the 1954 committee were, etc, etc.

The answers were either superficial or insulting. I never run away from anything BTW Pip, least of all keyboard warriors.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:17 AM

"You're tangling people again Jim......"
I'll take that as a "no" to my invitation then - in which case I'll leave you to it.
"I never said 'run along'"
No, you didn't - and that's what I responded to.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:19 AM

Jim, you don't make the rules.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:37 AM

Glueman invents meanings to suit himself -both for "diegesis" and for "folk".

"Diegeses" - a narrative, a statement of a case". Oxford English Dictionary.

Glueman, if the above questions are representative of your questions generally, then they are plainly self-serving irrelevancies, and no basis for rejecting the Karpeles defintion out of hand.

I know of no-one who has rejected out of hand as flawed in its nature the famous US definition of a democracy - government of the people for the people by the people - the expression "the people" is in widespread current use, and I know off hand of no wide divergence about its meaning.

But even more damning of Glueman's bona fides, the word "people" is not actually part of the Karpeles definition: -

"Folk music is the product of a musical tradition that has been evolved through the process of oral transmission.

The factors that shape the tradition are:
(i)         Continuity which links the present with the past:
(ii)        Variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or group:
(iii)        Selection by the community, which determines the form or forms in which the music survives.

The term can be applied to music that has been evolved from the rudimentary beginnings by a community uninfluenced by popular music and art music, and it can likewise be applied to the music which has originated with an individual composer and has subsequently been absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community.

The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready—made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the refashioning and recreation of the music by the community that gives its folk character."

Likewise, the absolute requirement of anonymity is not part of the Karpeles definition. It was a conclusion of Sharp's.


In short, Glueman, you are not a builder but a despoiler and there is no reason to listen to you on this topic.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 12 May 09 - 08:46 AM

"GUEST Smedley" says "The '1954' thing surely falls apart for the simple reason that a committee cannot define any cultural form, unless their aim is to freeze-frame it and stop any future evolution."
A singularly ill-informed remark, as the 1954 describes a system undergoing continuous eveolution. In fact continuous evolution is the basis of the defintiion.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:18 AM

"The answers were either superficial or insulting" - Glueman 8.13am

"In short, Glueman, you are not a builder but a despoiler and there is no reason to listen to you on this topic." - R. Bridge 8.46am

Still waiting for precise answers pertaining to the 1954 definition, not hocus pocus.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:20 AM

glueman wrote:
"How reliable are the collectors and how scruplous their methods."

There's plenty of published material available to those who want to read and learn, rather than merely "bait". Read Harker, Boyes, Bearman, and others on Sharp, for instance, but don't expect consensus. Baring-Gould is controversial, too. Later collectors have learned from their mistakes and prejudices.

Here's a couple of articles just a mouse-click away:

Yates on Sharp
(scroll down left column and click on #36)

Baring-Gould

Or you could try asking Jim Carroll, who is a distinguished collector himself. I'm sure he could give you an answer on the identity of 'the people' - oh, but he already did, and you ignored it, preferring instead to indulge in provocative cliches about "the great unwashed".

Here's an interesting snippet from Wikipedia's page on Sharp - any attitudes here we can recognize?

"Dave Harker's harsh criticisms... reflect an idiosyncratic Trotskyist Marxist framework that views any and all folk song collecting, scholarship, and attempts at revival as malign forms of appropriation and exploitation by the bourgeoisie of the working class."

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:30 AM

So I'm a Marxist now to add to my faults?

1) I enjoy traditional music
2) I see it for what it is
3) I don't base any kind of lifestyle upon it
4) I believe the folk revival gives but a passing nod to what ordinary people would have understood by 'their' music
5) That's fine by me
6) Collectors do interesting and useful work
7) It doesn't make them right
8) The 54 definition wouldn't be written in that form now, it would be more intellectually and academically rigourous
9) It requires specific rather than notional claims for completeness
10)I don't like the company it keeps

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:31 AM

1954 Folk music definition


This is the 1954 definition as adopted by the International Folk Music Council.

"Folk music is the product of a musical tradition that has been evolved through the process of oral transmission.

The factors that shape the tradition are:

(i) continuity which links the present with the past;

(ii) variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or the group; and

(iii) selection by the community, which determines the form or forms in which the music survives.

The term can be applied to music that has been evolved from rudimentary beginnings by a community uninfluenced by popular and art music and it can likewise be applied to music which has originated with an individual composer and has subsequently been absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community.

The term does not cover composed popular music that has been taken over ready-made by a community and remains unchanged, for it is the re-fashioning and re-creation of the music by the community that gives it its folk character."

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Smedley
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:33 AM

"GUEST Smedley" says "The '1954' thing surely falls apart for the simple reason that a committee cannot define any cultural form, unless their aim is to freeze-frame it and stop any future evolution."
A singularly ill-informed remark, as the 1954 describes a system undergoing continuous eveolution. In fact continuous evolution is the basis of the defintiion.

---------------------------------

Ill-informed ? Not really, merely my interpretation. But I admire how your absolutism keeps the spirit of 54 alive and well.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:38 AM

I agree completely with 1-3 and 6-7.

4 I suspect is dead right in some cases and dead wrong in others, although either way I agree with 5.

I'm agnostic on 8.

I think 9's a mistake on your part - there will always be grey areas and borderline cases which some people call just-about-trad and others call not-quite-trad; that doesn't mean there's no difference between trad and not-trad.

No idea what you mean by 10, although it does seem to be a self-fulfilling prophecy - if you start by setting out to provoke and antagonise, people will tend to be unpleasant to you in return.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 09:50 AM

"if you start by setting out to provoke and antagonise"

It's entirely an acquired skill from spending 60 seconds on Mudcat. Absolutism (good word Smedley) of the kind found here is rarely encountered in modern liberal democracies, at least without a barrel of salt. It's quasi-religious, old testament judgements handed down in unalloyed form on a daily basis from desert-minded fathers with a definition fixation. That's where my amusement comes from, not provocation but swing-jawed amazement of a 'did he really just say that' kind, over and over again.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 12 May 09 - 10:01 AM

"So I'm a Marxist now to add to my faults?"

I've no idea and wouldn't count it a fault anyway. I just noticed a similarity between "folk song collecting, scholarship, and attempts at revival (are) malign forms of appropriation and exploitation by the bourgeoisie of the working class" (wikipedia pp Harker), and "the middle classes nicked the tradition" (glueman) - not to mention sarcastic remarks about "noble savages" and "the great unwashed".

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 May 09 - 10:28 AM

Don't you get it? It's not about "form".

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 10:39 AM

It's not about form for you. Everyone else gets on fine with form as part of the mix of identifying characteristics. Some even bristle at being told what constitutes historical common music. There are too many elements of myth making in the definition for me and it seems, for many others.

1954 has become a gate to keep things out which will never be folk however you look at it.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 May 09 - 11:46 AM

Form is indefinable. That was the problem the "anti-rave" legislation faced. You would replace a definition that you would criticise as inexact (although I think you are wrong) with one inherently indefinite.

The function of a definition is to enable determination of what falls within it and what without. Your problem with that is?

It also of course helps if the definition correctlyspecifies the subjectmatter, and I can see no fundamental defect in parameters addressed by the 1954 definition. They might be capable of more precision - but actually you don't seem to want that, do you?

I am reminded of the argument between Manfred Mann and Sonny Boy Williamson, about how many bars there were in a 12-bar blues. To MM (all trained musos) the answer was "12"! To SBW it was "as many as I want".

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 May 09 - 12:49 PM

Compare and contrast the following two statements from 'glueman':

"So in answer, a folk song is anything an informed person says it is." (11th May 09 - 12:15 PM)

But on the 1954 definition:

"I think it's wooley, relies upon wishful thinking and attracts sentimental adherents who lose all sight of what they're on about. Slim facts mixed with value judgements." (12th May 09 - 07:23 AM)

Is it just me but isn't the first, so-called, 'definition' about as "wooley" (sic) as you can get? Doesn't it depend COMPLETELY on wish fulfilment, no facts whatsoever and value judgement?

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:05 PM

Here's some of my issues with the 1954 definition (for the umpteenth time). It assumes one moment in time, the mid-late C19th, was an uncompromised window on common popular music and the recorders of it were impartial. If true, they would be the only historical sources I can think of which are beyond reproach and untainted by the scientific, social and political mores of their time.
It's extraordinary that a definition which grew from the work of such collectors has survived intact until the present day without revision. It offers a closed world to all intents and purposes - read the consequences of it in entirety - an historic one that deals in centuries in an age where proliferating means of popular expression and exchange have changed the rules in unimaginable ways. It also has romantic undertones in keeping with the period that spawned it.

It contains interesting ideas, a challenge to authorship in a period marked by personal rather than community expression but takes the point to absurdity insisting anonimity is of the essense, not a consequence.
My personal opinion is the definition is either irrelevant or in need of rewriting, it is a product of its time and certainly insufficient as a tool to browbeat doubters with.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:11 PM

'Shimrod' my answer of 11th May attempts to show the absurdity of pinning down something indefinable, namely what the music of the people 'is'.
Why do all the 1954 types throw insults into their posts? Does it make you feel part of some common good? Is it cynicism? Patrician values before us undeserving thickos? Is it a rule like something out of the '54 definition?

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:25 PM

It assumes one moment in time, the mid-late C19th, was an uncompromised window on common popular music and the recorders of it were impartial.

How does it assume this?

It offers a closed world to all intents and purposes

Two questions. Firstly, how does it do this? Secondly, I am personally of the opinion - although this is nowhere in the 1954 definition - that there probably won't be any more folk music in Britain or Ireland; the conditions under which the process described by Karpeles could work don't obtain any longer. But if I'm right, so what? What do you object to in the idea that the folk process as described by Karpeles is a thing of the past? I'm genuinely curious - this is a real stumbling-block for me in understanding some of the arguments made here.

It contains interesting ideas, a challenge to authorship in a period marked by personal rather than community expression but takes the point to absurdity insisting anonimity is of the essense, not a consequence.

It doesn't do this, as has already been pointed out on this thread. Anonymity is precisely a consequence, not of the essence.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:34 PM

GUEST GLueman says:"Here's some of my issues with the 1954 definition (for the umpteenth time). It assumes one moment in time, the mid-late C19th, was an uncompromised window on common popular music and the recorders of it were impartial."

Well, Glueman, if you read the 1954 definition in a little more detail than you have obviously managed so far, you will find it was written in 1954 (as it says on the tin). Not in the mid-19th century. And I have read it quite carefully(there is a lot wrong with it, it's worth a close look), and I can't find anything that claims, or even implies, that it is about the mid-late 19th century. Perhaps you could point us to the relevant bit, if you are so sure? I may well have missed something, I am a musician, not an academic.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:53 PM

Right now gents I don't have the time to give the subject the linguistic clarity it warrants as it'll probably end up in a circular discussion and nitpicking and I have a publisher on my case but when I do, you'll hear it if I can be arsed.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 12 May 09 - 01:55 PM

Come on Glueman, won't take a minute to explain why you think 1954 is in the mid-late 19th century. (Was it the 19 that confused you?)

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:05 PM

Greg Stephens look up romanticism, neo-romanticism, new visionaries and see a link between late victorians and sentiments of the post-war period, esp with regard to folk song and dance. Or hang onto the idea I fluffed sixty years and snort to yourself, up to you.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:24 PM

One of the most important characteristics is that you can change it. That's why folk songs
have "variants" and run afoul of copyright laws. But these changes keep it alive over decades. Most of them are composed by Anonymous.

Accessible, simple, direct, sometimes narrative, and easily singable.

Some may have been written to make buck but that's not the reason they survive.
It is a way to make them popular on the media though.

Frank

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:43 PM

"Why do all the 1954 types throw insults into their posts?"
Do they? Point out where that is the case - (when you get the time and the inclination).
On the other hand - why do the antis always approach it as it has been presented as a gospel writ in stone - it never has been in my experience.
The definition was a not-too-far-off-the-mark attempt by people working in the field of folk song to make some sense of their findings. It worked for us, particularly with the Travellers, a non-literate community with , certainly up to the mid-seventies, a living, active tradition, still taking in and adapting songs and making new ones using the old forms.
As people have said, the definition is by no means perfect and is in need of a re-visit, but this needs to be carried out with far more care than the "out with the baby and bathwater" - or 'Somerset chainsaw massacre') approaches of the past.
Glueman wrote (before he took his vow of silence) "How reliable are the collectors and how scruplous their methods."
Perhaps he'd like to specify which collector and what particular reservations he has, then we might be able to help.
For me, the gravest charge that we can lay at the door of the early collectors is that they didn't get it completely right first time round, but given the time and circumstances, they will always have my admiration and gratitude.
It would be nice to get some reasonable alternatives to consider from Glueman, Sinister Supporter (can't get my tongue around his new persona just yet,) et all, but the latter dropped the ball in such a spectacular manner on the '1956 and all that' thread that it will be some time before I can take him seriously again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:56 PM

Fight on, fight on says Captain Ward. In your case Jim, he'd have thrown himself overboard. Happy to swap insults so long as they're short.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:02 PM

Just tell us where the 1954 definition refers to the mid/late 19th century, as you claim.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:03 PM

Right now gents I don't have the time to give the subject the linguistic clarity it warrants as it'll probably end up in a circular discussion and nitpicking and I have a publisher on my case but when I do, you'll hear it if I can be arsed.

It's déjà vu all over again!

glueman, every time you've raised a specific issue with the 1954 definition I've responded. Every time I've asked you a straight question you've ignored it.
- me, a few hours ago

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:05 PM

I agree with it but feel the following part needs to be clarified: "it can likewise be applied to music which has originated with an individual composer and has subsequently been absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community."...I think known composers should always be recognised, even though their songs may be leant and performed in a traditional style.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Brian Peters
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:14 PM

"why do the antis always approach it as it has been presented as a gospel writ in stone - it never has been in my experience."

You can say it as often as you like, Jim (you and others have done so repeatedly), but glueman is never going to listen to your denials. He knows the truth: you, Pip, Greg and your ilk are an all-powerful committee who rule the world of folk music and can decree that nothing is performed that fails the 1954 test.

"Fight on, fight on says Captain Ward."

Indeed he does. Perhaps someone with time on their hands might like to tot up the number of postings our adhesive friend has made on the subject of '1954' (not excluding threads that started out with no apparent reference to the subject) and wonder who is the obsessive around here.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:18 PM

GS do the homework I suggested, it'll make sense if you do and won't if you can't be arsed.
PR for people to get what the fuck I'm talking about, I mean people who might be interested rather than those who think pedantic is a complement and obsessive compulsion is a lifestyle aspiration, would need something lengthy and occupying the same head space though different subject matter to important stuff that pays bills. So by all means throw rocks - I'd expect no less - but be wary of putting a full stop under the conversation. Then I'm off to a folk festival for the weekend so it'll have to be ya-boo for a while. BTW you didn't answer my questions.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:22 PM

Brian Peters why do you think you're a friend of mine. Someone said 1954 to my first post on Mudcat (about Rachel Unthank IIRC) and they've been banging on ever since. I wanted to know what was so precious and having read it every time someone's posted the definition still can't see it. And I ain't that fick.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:42 PM

To try and shed some light on my last post:

"FORKS: folk music may usefully be divided into two main categories – Traditional (unknown composer), & Composer (known: either deceased or contemporary, which appear as self-penned or covers)." ( from here)

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:52 PM

Simple question Glueman. If you can't answer it, fine.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:55 PM

Make the link. Learn. Open your eyes. See the folk revival in context, not isolation.
You have to see the connection.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:57 PM

It would be nice to get some reasonable alternatives to consider from Glueman, Sinister Supporter (can't get my tongue around his new persona just yet,) et all, but the latter dropped the ball in such a spectacular manner on the '1956 and all that' thread that it will be some time before I can take him seriously again.

Nice one, Jim. Hardly the wonder folk's dying on its arse with such charming sleights being hurled around without provocation.

Otherwise, the 1954 definition has been quoted in full on Mudcat several times today. Here's another:

All music is folk music. I ain't never heard no horse sing a song. - Louis Armstrong

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:05 PM

"It [the 1954 definition] contains interesting ideas, a challenge to authorship in a period marked by personal rather than community expression but takes the point to absurdity insisting anonimity is of the essense, not a consequence." 'glueman'

Well, here's the relevant part about authorship (as recently posted by Mr Happy):

"The term can be applied to music that has been evolved from rudimentary beginnings by a community uninfluenced by popular and art music and it can likewise be applied to music which has originated with an INDIVIDUAL COMPOSER and has subsequently been absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community."

So where's the insistence that "anonymity is of the essence", 'glueman'?

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:10 PM

On a lighter note, did Mr. Ed ever break into song?

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:20 PM

Well it's 1954 okay
War across the UK
It's another year
For me and you
Another year
With folk all to do

Iggy Pop, screwed up by the folk process. Ok, by me.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: glueman
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:24 PM

"it can likewise be applied to music which has originated with an INDIVIDUAL COMPOSER and has subsequently been absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community."

What does unwritten mean? Never written? Once written but now mostly sung? Written but changed? How much change until it becomes unrecognisable? If I turn Captain Ward into Captain Peace who says, 'Hey man, like don't give me that heavy cannon shit' and change the tune to Colonel Bogey is that a folk tune and who decides (don't tell me, the people. Well the people can kiss my fat white arse until one talks to me directly and not part of some people shaped committee). Can the individual composer be known and how if not through an attributed song? So how is a written down tune that is unchanged a folk song and are the changes also folk songs. You can tell I'm barely started here.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:29 PM

Don't ask Glueman difficult questions, he needs a bit of a rest before he tackles the last batch. Actually, Glueman, have you ever actually read this famous 1954 definition you are so obsessed with? You seem quite unfamiliar with what it actually says. Read it, it's quite interesting.

Subject: RE: What makes it a Folk Song?
From: greg stephens
Date: 12 May 09 - 04:32 PM

Because of Mudcat's strange habit of changing names retrospectively if pseudonymous posters redisguise themselves, threads can become remarkably incomprehensible. References to Sinister Supporter seem somewhat irrelevant, unless you know he regularly transmogrifies.