1954 and All That - defining folk music

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Will Fly
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 09:32 AM

I hope I didn't give the impression that I was taking the piss either. It's every person's choice to position themselves where they want to in society, and who am I or anyone else to comment on that?

I also have a fear, that I will get so stuck in my ways, in likes and dislikes which have accumulated over the years, that I end up refusing to listen to - and thereby miss out on - things of interest and value and substance. My son - 30 years younger than me - has evolved his own musical tastes, many of which are not mine and some of which are. What pleases me beyond measure is that, when he comes to visit, he brings music with him on CD, or on his laptop, that he thinks I might be interested in listening to. It's his taste - not mine - and what amazes me is that, when I listen to it, I find something interesting and worthwhile in more than I expected of it.

When the day comes that I can't do that, then I'll give up.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 09:38 AM

"I find myself alienated with respect to much modern, popular culture - which seems shallow and lacking in 'texture' to me."

Shimrod, I assume you are using threads like this to help you work out your problem, which based on your last post is evidently a singular issue that you need to resolve. Your resistance to change is obviously a personal issue as evolution continually bring change and the way we adapt to it will progress. You statement about "the havoc that I've seen wrought on the world by uncontrolled, unregulated change" indicates you are blinding yourself from the positive changes that have improved our condition and instead focusing on the issues that have yet to be resolved. You come across as dwelling on the negative and not allowing yourself the opportunity to be positive.   Good luck with working it out.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 11:12 AM

I hesitate to intrude when you seem to be enjoying yourselves so much, but there is something in what Shimrod says without assuming he "dwells on the negative". For decades, in every field, especially work and technology, there has been the implicit assumption that new=improved. It is hard to keep detached from that, as every advertisement bellows it constantly. But the truth is, paraphrasing Bob Copper in "Early to Rise", you shouldn't adopt the new without at least considering what you are losing from the old. For lots of things, we are carried along by the change whether we like it or not, but that does not diminish the past.

As it happens, I'm quite happy listening to Bellowhead et al, and can see something of value in it. But I can also - admittedly after applying some patience to the mix - see something of value in this. (Wait for the singing!)

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 11:36 AM

"For decades, in every field, especially work and technology, there has been the implicit assumption that new=improved."

This is not "work" or "technology" - this is art and heritage. Change does not necessarily mean "replacement" in this area, but rather "addition".

With all due respect to Bob Copper, the idea of change in music is not meant to replace what already exists. The works of Michaelangelo are on view for all to enjoy and learn from, but we do not want to discourage artists from creating their own. It is the same thing with music.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Will Fly
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 12:00 PM

I can't see any allusion anywhere to a credo which says that new necessarily equals better either. Nor would I ever suggest replacing something old with something new for its own sake - let new and old exist side by side and take your pick. What I never want to do is to refuse to listen to the new on principle - simply because, if I do so, I may actually be losing out on something worthwhile.

Just take a look at 1954, the year in which, not only was the 1954 definition of folk music published, but also the year in which:

* The first public demonstration of a machine translation system was held in New York at the head office of IBM.

* The first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus, is launched in Groton, Connecticut by Mamie Eisenhower, then the First Lady of the United States.

* President Dwight Eisenhower warns against United States intervention in Vietnam.

* CBS television broadcasts the See It Now episode, "A Report on Senator Joseph McCarthy," produced by Edward R. Murrow.

* Bill Haley and His Comets release "Rock Around the Clock"

* Roger Bannister becomes the first person to run the mile in under four minutes.

* World's first nuclear power station opens in Obninsk, near Moscow.

* In Memphis, Tennessee, WHBQ becomes the first radio station to air an Elvis Presley record.

* The Fellowship of the Ring, the first part of The Lord of the Rings, is published in the UK.

* The U.S. Navy submarine USS Nautilus is commissioned as the world's first nuclear reactor powered vessel.

* The Viet Minh take control of North Vietnam.

* Texas Instruments announces the first Transistor radio.

* The first human organ transplant, of a kidney, was performed by Doctors Murray and Harrison at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in Boston.

Quite a year! It's interesting to see the simultaneous emergence of the transistor radio, Presley and Bill Haley - signs of things to come. When Elvis and Haley exploded on to the UK scene in early '56, the soundwaves from that reverberated around the nation's youth. The beginnings of conflict in the Far East, the kidney transplant and the rise of nuclear power are also signifiers of things to come. Whether any or all of these new things is good or bad is in the mind of the beholder.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 12:10 PM

I'd agree with that, as a matter of principle, but in music (and indeed some of the other arts) we do seem to find it difficult to do that without disparaging those that differ from Our Personal Preference.

As to whether we are talking about work or not, that depends. In my case, I rarely sing in any sort of club, but have done. Most of the time I sing it is purely for my own entertainment and for the displeasure of evesdroppers. But for Bellowhead, et al, it is certainly work in the sense of an activity undertaken for monetary gain. And who can blame them if they look at what sells best and adapt their style to suit it? As I was once told at during some art lectures, you must never lose sight of the fact that Rembrandt's main goal was to earn enough to survive.

Anyway, I'm interested in people's reaction to the link I posted. That is folk in the 1954 sense (albeit with microphones); I doubt if many UK or US folk clubs would give them a half-hour slot.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 12:21 PM

One of the benefits of technology is art is simultaneously on record for all to enjoy. There is no displacement, supplanting or superseding of previous forms; they're all on text, youtube, tape and every conceivable digital format.

You can hear a shanty and follow it through to the music of British Sea Power if you were so inclined, then all the way back to shantys by a different route, being informed and entertained along the way.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 12:32 PM

Then Be VERY afraid!!

There's This

The Louder and Brasher Version of the Same Thing

No more going back I don't think

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 12:51 PM

DMcG

But for Bellowhead, et al, it is certainly work in the sense of an activity undertaken for monetary gain.

I'd given up commenting on this increasingly surreal thread, but, I happen to know some of those guys and that is a gross slander on people who are deeply committed to what they do. They are fortunate to have the talent to be able to make a living, although probably not a luxurious one, doing what they love.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 12:59 PM

Well I perform, as a solo and in a couple of bands, and we play for money PLUS!! we pay for the love of it. Snail's right, the pedigree of Bellowhead is impeccable, witness Benji Kirkpatrick, you've asleep in some isolated cave if you don't know who Benji's dad is.

DMcG - if that's the best you've got......

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 01:23 PM

Suggesting that Bellowhead, RU and the Winterset, Kate Rusby or any successful folk artist do what they do for monetary gain is plain barmy.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 01:53 PM

Besides everything else, the profit margin, if any, would be extremely low for the 11 piece band (or a small European country, as some have described them) that is Bellowhead. Once more illustrating that DMcG's comment makes absolutely no sense at all.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Howard Jones
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 02:13 PM

SS, we both agree that the music played at folk clubs, festivals etc is much broader than traditional folk. However, your reaction to that appears to be to re-classify the non-traditional music as "folk". I prefer to recognise it for what it is: traditional, "folk", or something else.

I don't think your approach is helpful, for two reasons. Firstly, it tells us nothing about the music, only about what the venue or event chooses to call itself. Secondly, I think it is actually damaging, since it validates the non-folk stuff and encourages people to perform it at folk clubs, when they should really be finding more appropriate outlets for their music.

I am confused by your attitude to this. In your earlier posts you appeared to celebrate the fact that your local club encourages people to play any kind of music, and yet in your latest post you appear to deplore the fact that so little traditional music is to be found at folk clubs and festivals.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 02:44 PM

Sorry to all, especially to the players in Bellowhead, and those who think I have offended them. That was certainly not my intention. I was not meaning to suggest that they they were only concerned with money, nor that it was even necessarily that important to them. I was simply meaning that they will consider factors - such as the entire visual impression - that simply don't apply to such as me who almost never sing in public. Being professionals they will present such things in a way that is as appealing as possible, and factors like this - lighting, backdrops and so on - are influenced by the current fashion.


Again, apologies if I phrased things in an offensive way.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 02:52 PM

"lighting, backdrops and so on - are influenced by the current fashion. "

True, but I think you also need to put things in perspective. Many of the traditions that were handed down were also influenced by the fashion of the time - or the circumstances in how the songs were sung.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 03:00 PM

The lighting rig on the youtube footage I flagged up was at Shepley festival. It was the same one for every artist, in a freezing tent - the audience had thermals and coats. Rock and roll, it wasn't.
There were performers in the traditional, singer-songwriters, bands, duets and solo. There was music that ripped your heart out, stamped on it and threw away the left-overs and with Bellowhead, stuff that made you want to do a hornpipe.

Keeping Bellowhead on the road must be a labour of love. I shall look forward to seeing them at Holmfirth.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 03:12 PM

I am confused by your attitude to this. In your earlier posts you appeared to celebrate the fact that your local club encourages people to play any kind of music, and yet in your latest post you appear to deplore the fact that so little traditional music is to be found at folk clubs and festivals.

I'm trying to be objective and dispassionate, Howard. For my personal (and polemical) feelings on the matter see my blog The Liege, The Lief and the Traditional Folk Song.

Irrespective of what I feel is the reality of the situation, which is what I'm trying to accommodate, and what, ultimately, this thread is all about irrespective of what the likes of Primadonna Firth has to say on the matter.

Anyway, here's Dido & Aeneas on BBC4 - an unexpected treat, though I saw it before back in the Purcell tercentenary year (1995). Maria Ewing is repulsive but she sings Dido like a demon and even though the setting looks like a bad Kate Bush video the music is, as ever, sublime - just about as sublime as the half hour of vintage Oscar Peterson footage that preceded it.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 03:43 PM

I always forget what a fine bit of writing "The Liege, The Lief and the Traditional Folk Song" is. You need to lose the "as Nigel points out" line, though...

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: John P
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 03:46 PM

"One clear manifestation of this autism is a fear of change and a need for clearly defined boundaries; a lack of personal security and a deep seated need for belonging which exists, paradoxically, alongside ones status as a resolute outsider."

Hmmm, I'm one of those who think that traditional folk and contemporary music are different genres. I accept, for the most part, the 1954 definition as a good description of where this genre of music came from. I lament the fact that the concept of folk music has come to mean so many things that it means nothing. Oddly, I'm not afraid of change, I'm not autistic, and I don't have a need for clearly defined boundaries. I am something of an outsider, but I'm certainly not resolute (or particularly concerned) about it. I just like different things than most of the people around me.

I love traditional music when well played in the most "traditional" method imaginable, and I love it when well played with prog rock (or other) sensibilities (I do a fair bit of that myself). I dislike badly played music of any genre. I like a lot of contemporary music, and play a fair bit of that also, mostly rock, blues, and jazz. I confess to disliking most singer/songwriter music I hear. This is because so much of the lyrics are about the unremarkable emotional state of the songwriter, and so much of the music is bland. A good songwriter can still make my hair stand up, hit me in the gut, make me think, or whatever.

The quote above, and several others in this thread, seem to be saying that accepting the 1954 definition means a person is trying to tell others what to play, that they only like music if it's old, that all modern music is by definition inferior to all traditional music, etc. I'm tired of hearing that, especially since I've read every post in this thread, and almost everyone has been at some pains to make it clear that they're NOT doing any of that. Get off it, folks. Let's talk about music and stop making unfounded assumptions about other peoples' inner emotional landscapes.

Everyone plays the music they feel called to play, and enjoys the music they enjoy. No one thinks anyone should change their mind about that, or is stupid enough to think it's possible to do so.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 03:54 PM

You need to lose the "as Nigel points out" line, though...

I invoke the name of The Rover to ground me in the good sense of good influence thus moderated and inspired; he is, in many respects (and total respect) a guiding light in the all too mutable folk firmament.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 04:17 PM

"I love traditional music when well played in the most "traditional" method imaginable."

it dosn't get anymore traditional than:

Pete Flood (Bellowhead) - Drums, glockenspiel, stomp -box, FRYING PAN, KNIVES & FORKS, PARTY BLOWERS ,COAL SCUTTLE, clockwork toys, Casio VL-tone, megaphonic scratching.
I couldn't resist*LOL*

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 04:30 PM

Rather than list which audible ingredients suggest it is folk can you list the musical factors than means it isn't?

Not really, since I've never heard it. Besides, the assertion you made wasn't that it sounds vaguely folkish but that it "contains all the audible ingredients that mark it out as folkish". Serious question: what did you mean by that?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 04:34 PM

I don't think this "afraid of change" idea stands up, either. Afraid of losing something valuable, perhaps, but that doesn't sound quite so neurotic. Put it another way - is change always positive? If I say that I prefer the 1945 version of Labour Party values to the 'New' variety, does that necessarily mean I'm a hidebound old reactionary who needs to get hip to the programme daddy-o? I rather think not.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 04:54 PM

". . . the likes of Primadonna Firth. . . ."

Really, Sinister! Descending to taking cheap shots, then?

You seem to be saying that anyone who has a viewpoint a bit less maleable than Silly Putty, especially one that doesn't square with your own, is a "primadonna." If so, then take a good look in the mirror.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 04:57 PM

The bullshit factor has overwhelmed the discussion as usual. Nobody owns folk, let alone definitions of it. If 1954 makes people feel safe, that's their Alamo. Enjoy it.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 05:20 PM

'Round and 'round the mulberry bush,
The monkey chased the weasel. . . .

They could be circumnavigating at 7200 rpm, but the mulberry bush seems to be staying right were it is.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: John P
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 05:33 PM

The bullshit factor has overwhelmed the discussion . . . If 1954 makes people feel safe . . .

Rant:
Glueman, with all due respect, what the hell makes you think you have any insight into what makes anyone feel safe or otherwise, based on the contents of this thread? And what does anyone's security or lack thereof have to do with this discussion? Comments like this are extremely offensive when offered without invitation and without evidence. If you don't like the bullshit factor, cut the bullshit. If you don't want to talk about the music, please go away.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 05:37 PM

Despite the best efforts of Mr McGregor, Jemima Puddleduck and Peter Rabbit the Mulberry Bush grew wild and free, spread it's seeds, threatened to take over the neat lawns and herbacious borders, drove the head gardeners almost mad but is alive and well, flowing and dropping berries all over the place.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 05:39 PM

John P, nobody owns folk; not you, not me. It's hard but there it is.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 05:54 PM

Who said that they own folk music? I didn't hear anybody say that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 06:00 PM

Don, you couldn't have been listening. It's written through the posts like Blackpool Rock. Just bite a little harder, it's there.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 06:26 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQaUNeErVM

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 06:26 PM

Glueman, I've been following this thread right from the start, and no, I haven't been listening, I've been reading. "Owning" folk music and endeavoring to distinguish folk music from other forms of music are not the same thing.

One can tell when a thread has reached its sell-by date:   when the cheap shots and personal attacks start proliferating.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 06:40 PM

No shots from me, especially cheap ones. I utterly reject any attempt to impose theoretical limits on my traditions wherever they're from. If people accept that they'll get no problem from here.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: John P
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 06:54 PM

John P, nobody owns folk; not you, not me.
It's written through the posts....

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Glueman, that was supposed to be funny, right? Oh, you were serious?? How tiresome.

Just for your benefit, and in the full knowledge that I'm being tiresome myself, here's some quotes from my posts on this thread. If you can find any indication that I think I own folk music (what's that mean, anyway??), I wish you'd tell me so I can learn something. If not, please stop casting unfounded aspersions.

By the way, I don't care much about defining folk music as a part of my playing. My only interest in definitions is so we can actually talk about the music.

I'm a big fan of inclusiveness and personal taste in music making, but not in definition making.

I gave up years ago on trying to maintain a definition of "folk song". I know that most people who use the term use it very loosely.

How interesting that, because I favor a less broad definition of the term "folk music", some folks seem to think I'm some sort of folk police. I've said it before and I'll say it again now: YOU SHOULD PLAY AND LISTEN TO WHATEVER KIND OF MUSIC YOU LIKE!!!! Clear enough? None of this is about what people should sing or listen to, what happens at folk festivals, whether or not a song is any good, or whether or not a singer has any value. It's about the definition of a word, nothing else. No real-world repercussions for anyone's music making or enjoyment.

As someone who has been accosted by the authenticity-snob folk police in real-world situations (like during performances), I would never tell anyone they were playing the wrong music or that they were playing it wrong.

It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not people should sing it, or where they should sing it.

I'm simply saying that there are two quite different genres of music encompassed by the "folk" label, and they are mutually exclusive.

No policing! Just a discussion of the definition of a word.

A good songwriter can still make my hair stand up, hit me in the gut, make me think, or whatever.

Everyone plays the music they feel called to play, and enjoys the music they enjoy. No one thinks anyone should change their mind about that, or is stupid enough to think it's possible to do so.

Sorry to be beating this over the head, but I'm getting tired of leaving threads that I'm enjoying because I don't want to put up with people engaging in name-calling and jumping to negative, unfounded conclusions. I will cheerfully confront this type of behavior in uncompromising terms.

Now, can we please talk about music?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 07:04 PM

Anyone who starts a thread with hahahahaha is neurotic. You were right about the tiresome list though.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: John P
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 07:25 PM

Glueman,
Here's what I mean by uncompromising terms: You are behaving badly, sort of like a nasty child. You are insulting people and calling them names without any real reason to be doing so. You are rude. You are part of why Mudcat has acquired a bad name for nastiness. If you can't bring yourself to have an adult conversation, please at least stop inflicting yourself on the rest of us.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: John P
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 07:41 PM

I'm curious about folks' opinions about something that has been touched on in this thread, but not really discussed fully. What about traditional music that is played in a way, or in a place, that doesn't have any real part of the tradition that started the music? Full band arrangements of music that started as solo songs, performing on a stage with a PA system, using electric guitars and synthesizers, getting paid for it, that sort of thing.

My own definition of traditional folk, being musical-based rather than context-based leads me to say it's all traditional music, some of which is played in a traditional way and some of which isn't. Opinions?

Also, if we use the context as part of the definition, where do you draw the line? Is there a way to know the original "use" of the song? Has the same song been used in different contexts within the original tradition? What, really, is the traditional way to play a song, and how do we know?

What about the evolving tradition? I'm from the United States, and as such have no chance of ever being part of the original context for English traditional music. Does the fact that the same English songs are sometimes played slightly differently in this country mean they have left the tradition, or just that there are now new variants?

What about variants that occur in modern times? I sometimes hear distinct differences in my playing from my source version. Is that a new variant, or am I just playing a traditional song "wrong", or is it no longer a traditional song, since it's now different than anything that was ever in the original tradition? What about regional styles of Irish tune playing in the United States? Is a Kerry tune still a Kerry tune if folks in Oregon play it a bit differently than folks in Kerry, or is it now an Oregon tune?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 07:49 PM

You're confused John P. I disagree with you about the validity of the 1954 definitions. You conflate my attitude to that definition with a maverick approach to the tradition. I feel your approach to the tradition harnesses it to an agenda that's ultimately very destructive.

I didn't begin the rudeness, I found it surrounded discussions of the OPs title.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 08:12 PM

Give it a rest, glueman.

Interesting questions, John. I'm going to be busy for the rest of the evening, but I'd like to get back to examining that some.

In the meantime, here's a little rant I just had:

It strikes me that things have gone a bit nutso when a singer of traditional American songs, the son of two prominent American folk song collectors, and who has impeccable credentials of his own, contacts a local folklore society to inquire if they would be interested in sponsoring him in a concert, and they turn him down based on the fact that he is not a singer-songwriter. He doesn't write the songs himself.

What's wrong with that picture?

There are some really excellent songs being written by singer-songwriters. But, unfortunately, there is also a great deal of really miserable stuff. And interestingly enough, it is usually the poorer songwriters who are the ones who insist on calling their songs "folk songs." And it's pretty obvious that they do so in an attempt to stamp their songs with a distinction and respectability that they have not earned.

As I believe I said somewhere above, this is an example of Gresham's Law as it applies to things other than money

Considering some of the things that are being labeled "folk songs" these days, I sometimes feel motivated to try to distance myself from the label "folk singer" or even "singer of folk songs." It seems that the way the word "folk" has been used and abused within recent years, associating myself with the word "folk" tends to create a false impression of the kind of songs I sing.

(How's that for "primadonna," SS?)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: John P
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 09:37 PM

Hi Don,
It fits the theme of this thread: a folklore society turning someone down because they are folkloric. The "Folk" part of the name I can almost put up with, given our language's current use of the word "folk". But perhaps they should leave off the "lore" if they want to have a concert series of modern folk.

Having finally been forced to accept that "folk" has taken on such a broad definition that it is meaningless, I fell back on "traditional folk", only to be told that pretty much the same broad definition can be applied to the word "tradition". What do we have to do, capitalize the words, to make it clear we are referring to a particular tradition: Traditional Music? Well, that still doesn't solve the problem when confronted by a traditional musician who is a singer/songwriter, the tradition in this case being a solo singer with a guitar who writes their own songs. No shit, I've heard this. What, does the fact that string quartets traditionally have two violins, a viola and a cello mean that they're playing traditional music?

Another problem with trying to pretend like it's a particular tradition when we say Traditional Music, of course, is that it's not any one tradition. Which brings us back to 1954, and part of why I find it useful; speaking of traditional music in this context is speaking to the process which produced it, not to the specific traditions or ethnicities from which it sprang.

So, having lost "folk" and having people trying to take over "traditional", we now are losing the "lore" from a folklore society. I know it's all just a matter of semantics, but it does leave me wishing it were easier to hang a label on it when people ask me what kind of music I play. I think part of what rankles is that these changes have been made, and are being made now, by people who ought to know better. In the name of inclusiveness, they are taking away part of the identity of a whole genre of music and the people who play it.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 02:28 AM

Refreshing and new the way this thread has ended up, hey what?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 03:50 AM

All too familiar. Agree or suffer scorn. Respond and get ridicule. SS's "autism" with the greatest respect to those suffering it, is a perfect analogy. Sinister spends a great deal of time putting together consistent and logical explanations of how folk works on the ground, with intelligence and wit and more forbearance and humour than I could ever muster to be confronted by illogicality.

It comes down to the same old twaddle; folk is in danger, the tradition is being blurred, definitions are our guarantees, what about 'our' music. All complete bunk. No evidence whatsoever.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 04:07 AM

Re John's post of 7.41 above. My own view is that when a full electric band (for example) takes traditional songs or music (from any tradition - this argument equally applies to all traditional musics) and cranks it up, works out new arrangements, takes it to a new audience etc, what they are doing is still playing traditional songs and music, but has nothing to do with folk. If this matters, which I really don't suspect it does. I also think if they are throwing some of their own tunes into the mix - written in a style of and displaying a deep understanding of and appreciation of the tradition they are working from (as opposed to in), this is a good thing and to be saluted and encouraged: especially if we accept that traditional musics are now about entertainment and enjoyment rather than a visible manifestation of some mystical process of transmission. Check out some of the brilliant French bands who create music based on their own regional traditions: they don't seem to have any difficulties with these issues (of course, there may be a French equivalent of Mudcat seething with conflicting passions about this...). I'd also say there was a world of difference between music written in the style of the tradition and most of the singer songwriter stuff and cover versions you hear at folk clubs (or other DFCs). Which is not a value judgement, just a statement.

Does anyone want some examples of what I'm talking about? It's all good stuff... Tenareze, for example

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 04:08 AM

Well, that's novel - two old codgers grumbling in a corner about all these upstart traddies and how they're ruining Mudcat...

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 04:45 AM

It's interesting that this thread started out as a debate between those who believe that folk music is a limited and definable genre, with the 1954 definition being a good guide to the limits,and those who don't.

It has now turned into a slanging match between those who believe that folk music is a limited and definable genre etc. and those who insist on insulting them, baselessly accusing them of authoritarianism and speculating about their emotional states. I rather think that the second group have run out of arguments; perhaps we should stop now(?)

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 05:05 AM

My notion is that Folk Song is a matter of context whereas a Traditional Song is a matter of definition. You can put a Traditional Song into any musical context (including folk, as does occasionally happen I believe) and it remains a Traditional Song. I'm not sure about traditional ways of performance however, because our culture doesn't have those sorts of parameters, thank God. I use a Turkish kemence / Black Sea Fiddle, not because it's Traditional to Traditional English (speaking) Song & Balladry, but because in some serendipitous moment a few years ago I discovered it to be the perfect instrument for me.

Whilst this sticks in the craw of anally retentive little fuckwits like Walkaboutsverse, I don't think anyone who cares about MUSIC is going to be too bothered by it - and if they are I might efer them back to a notion of Cultural Autism, which, although I mean it with genuine kindness, isn't something I'm exactly proud of personally.

I am proud that I was once a member of Rhombus of Doom however. There is a now a 25th Anniversary myspace page where you might enjoy the exquisite sounds we made back in the day.

http://www.myspace.com/rhombusovdooom

That's me on electric viola (and bass on Kallisti!)

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 05:05 AM

Some of us are still trying to have civilised debate, honest, guv! Let's not stop the party just because a couple of people have had one too many... the occasional slanging match is merely a sideshow to the main event. Mudcat - even threads like these - is a paragon of decorum compared with some internet boards...

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 05:25 AM

"...speculating about their emotional states"

IIRC correctly you volunteered the idea that change terrified you. It was a rare and honest insight. However as change is part of the human process the sensible thing is to engage with it. Any other approach is doomed to failure.

"perhaps we should stop now"

Perhaps, perhaps not. Have people reached an accomodation with the other's point of view?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 05:28 AM

Er - 601?