1954 and All That - defining folk music

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 11:44 AM

SS, a definition which encompasses anything is no use as a definition.

The reality is that anything goes in a Folk Club, or a Folk Festival, or even a Folk CD / CD-R. If people can play it or sing it, then bet your arse that they generally do. I'm looking at context here - the context of Folk - which is pretty big I'd say, or small, depending how you look at it. Thus, Folk is like Flotsam, which can encompass anything by way of context (just as long as it floats) but remains pretty useful as a definition nevertheless. Thus Flotsam might encompass a Rubber Duck from the 2006 Liffey Rubber Duck Race washed up on Fleetwood Beach is Flotsam; likewise a French Fishing Float washed up on Brighton Beach or indeed the Fish Crate from Castletownbere or even a Salmon Crate from Connemara (both washed up at Fleetwood).

In a Folk Club or Folk Festival there is Individual Diversity yet there is a Communal Unity - and Unity in Diversity is a very good thing; a tad ecumenical for fundamentalists perhaps, but the Folk Thang rides on its own sweet groove, regardless. So whatever your particular stripe, whatever your dig-bag might be, we welcome you in the name of Folk and the message shall forever be - Come All Ye!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Howard Jones
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 11:18 AM

SS, a definition which encompasses anything is no use as a definition.

I'm quite happy to agree that songs which aren't traditional can be performed in a "folk context". Broadly speaking, I think these fall into 3 possible categories:

1) Traditional songs, which I think (hope) we can all agree are "folk songs"

2) A loosely defined genre of non-traditional music which is easier to recognise than to define, but which is generally described as "folk" (as opposed to another genre).

3) Music which is recognisably from another genre, performed in a folk club.

I think it's entirely admirable if people wish to gather together to play music of any sort. If it's music from the third category, I don't see why it is necessary to reclassify this as "folk" - it doesn't need validation, and no one is fooled, if someone plays a jazz classic or a piece of Bach, no one is going to go away thinking it's folk music, just that it's good music.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 11:08 AM

Pip Radish

Mainly because we've got this word 'folk', and most newcomers aren't likely to know that it can mean two almost completely different things.

Only two? Yes, that is the situation as it exists and (deep breath) there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it. The club you describe is not going to stop calling itself a folk club just because you tell it it is not conforming to the 1954 definition so stop agonising over a couple of words and concentrate on the music. Go to the clubs that sing and play the music you like and recommend them to anyone who shows an interest.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:58 AM

"Mainly because we've got this word 'folk', and most newcomers aren't likely to know that it can mean two almost completely different things. "

Why only "two" completely different things? Do you feel a blues song and an old English Ballad and an Italian folk song are the same? Industrial ballads, logger songs, songs of the George Sea Islands, Mexican folk tunes are all "folk songs" by that 1954 definition - but saying "folk" does not describe anything.   If you recognize that "contemporary" folk songs spring up from a contemporary community and fit most of the terms of that definition - with the exception of recognizing modern transmission methods - you have "folk music". That does not make it traditional.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:51 AM

If only they had gone for a non-exclusive "description" rather than a rigid "definition" back in 1954, we would have had no problem.

If they had chosen a different word to "define", other then "folk", say "George"; but then the Georges of this world would be complaining that their name has been usurped. And rightly so.

When a word exists for decades already, if not centuries, why do you feel the need to "define" it? I cannot help feeling that intellectual arrogance is involved.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:51 AM

Here is the fallacy - you say the definition is a "reasonably good guide to music I enjoy".    The 1954 definition only describes how a traditional song was created but says absolutely NOTHING about what kind of song it is.

I know. Where's the fallacy? In my experience, the traditional definition (which does indeed include a lot of blues songs) has proved to be a reasonably good guide to music I enjoy. (Not, just to be clear, the only music I enjoy.)

Why should they be obliged to promote traditional music any more than we at the LSFC are obliged to promote singer-songwriters?

Mainly because we've got this word 'folk', and most newcomers aren't likely to know that it can mean two almost completely different things.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:31 AM

"I think the fact that a definition which was formulated 55 years ago - some time before I was born - works for me now, in the sense of being a reasonably good guide to music I enjoy, is a very good reason to retain it. It's not a value judgment, just a suggestion that one thing is not like another thing."

Here is the fallacy - you say the definition is a "reasonably good guide to music I enjoy".    The 1954 definition only describes how a traditional song was created but says absolutely NOTHING about what kind of song it is. You say it is not a "value judgement", but when you claim that a defintion of a songs creation is a guide to the music you enjoy you are saying that the "label" is what guides you. Some people will only wear designer clothes, but it doesn't make it a comfortable fit.

There are wonderful blues songs which fit that catagory - and I've always felt that blues are a style of folk music.

The 1954 definition does nothing more than recognize a tradition.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 09:52 AM

It gives people a cosy feeling. Us-them, before-after, pure-impure, real-unreal.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 09:38 AM

I am not sure why any of you need to define what "folk" is. I am also baffled as to how and why the notorious "1954" definition has either meaning or importance to any of the people here.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 08:35 AM

FCs where anything goes are a lousy gateway drug - they don't do nearly enough to get people on to the hard stuff.

Or...

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourselves. Choose your future. Choose life...

But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got Traditional Folk?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 08:21 AM

Pip, please go abck and read my post of 29 Mar 09 - 04:34 PM. You are attacking me for things I haven't said.

What I meant you couldn't do anything about was the fact that the club you describe calls itself a folk club. The 1954 definition isn't binding in law.

FCs where anything goes are a lousy gateway drug - they don't do nearly enough to get people on to the hard stuff.

Why should they? You said that it was "pitched towards singer-songwriters right from the off". Why should they be obliged to promote traditional music any more than we at the LSFC are obliged to promote singer-songwriters?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 07:33 AM

Years ago when I was studying for an MA the tutor was keen on primitive Swedish cinema, Russian silents and the problematics of the French nouvelle vague. Anyone wanting to examine Carry On films, or Hammer schlock or look at tv ads seriously met resistance which was in the end, snobbery.

Now I enjoy a Victor Sjostrom silent or Nikolai Larin as much as the next man but the faculties for criticism and pleasure are the same for both. The folk argument is stuck at the same stage of cod purity dressed up as taste. Folk has never had its reformation.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Working Radish
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 06:50 AM

There is nothing you can do about it. If you enjoy going there, enjoy it for what it is.

I'm slightly puzzled by this response. Obviously there's nothing I can do about it (other than encouraging traddies to go along in large numbers). I was just pointing out that your experience isn't universal, and that the people being critical of actual existing FCs aren't all people who remember how bad it was thirty years ago and have rarely been in a folk club since.

Anyway, what goes on at the local FC doesn't bother me personally - I know where to find the kind of stuff I want to find. I'm more concerned about people in the same position I was six years ago, wandering along to their first FC and thinking "Hey, people singing whatever they like in whatever style they like, and not bothering too much about practising or getting it right! This folk stuff is a good laugh!" It is a good laugh, but an evening of traditional music is something else. FCs where anything goes are a lousy gateway drug - they don't do nearly enough to get people on to the hard stuff.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: mark gregory
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 06:40 AM

For a long time folklorists were loath to recognise that folk songs don't have to be rural, anonymous, unaffected by print or records or radio ...

I was just reading the NYT obit for Archie Green and came across this:

"Mr. Green, a shipwright and carpenter by trade, drew on a childhood enthusiasm for cowboy songs and a devotion to the union movement to construct a singular academic career. Returning to college at 40, he began studying what he called laborlore: the work songs, slang, craft techniques and tales that helped to define the trade unions and create a sense of group identity.

"He countered the prevailing, somewhat romantic notion that folklore was isolated in remote, marginal groups," said Simon Bronner, who teaches folklore at Pennsylvania State University. "He showed that each of us, in our own work lives, have a folklore that we not only perform but that we need."

I think folklorists like Archie Green and before him George Korson, A.L.Lloyd, Ben Botkin, Alan Lomax, with their interest in the folklore of industrial workers - Industrial Folk Song - pushed the reach of folk song a long way beyond the 1954 definition.

However the search for a watertight definition of folk music remains as seemingly unreachable. Some suggest we abandon the term and talk instead about vernacular song or poplore. I think we just have to put up with folk music as a workable if evolving concept. As Charles Seeger put it "the folk have changed and their music has changed with them"

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 06:13 AM

Pip Radish

For what it's worth, my main point of reference is a folk club that was founded less than ten years ago .... the last time I went it was packed to the rafters .... certainly never a dull moment.

So what's your problem? The fact that it calls itself a folk club but doesn't do folk music to the 1954 definition? Tough. There is nothing you can do about it. If you enjoy going there, enjoy it for what it is. If you don't, go somewhere else. If there isn't anywhere else, get together with a few like minded friends and start something. As you said, the character of that club is defined by the chap who runs it. Go thou and do likewise.

Asking Bryan How He Does It thread

Not He, They. We have a large group of residents all of whom care about what they do. I'm not saying we're superstars but some of us are pretty good. By our own attitude and the sort of guests we book we create an atmosphere and a culture which is self reinforcing.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 05:41 AM

SS hits a bullseye again.

Folk isn't being threatened by drippy singer-songwriter birds who want to replace identikit folk chicks doing authentic material, but by artificially constructed and out of date barriers.
I like traditional material too, and I certainly don't need anyone wafting a piece of paper to validate it. There is indeed, no line.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 04:46 AM

It's dawned on me that perhaps the problem here is an assumption that only "folk" can legitimately be performed in a "folk context". It is demonstrable fact that a far wider range of music than simply traditional folk is performed in these places

That is the very crux of what this thread is about - Folk Music and Traditional Music are not synonymous.

and so there seems to be a desire to label all of this as "folk" in order to bring it into the fold.

Not to bring into the fold as just, just recognise what happens in a folk context as folk music, irrespective of genre. Folk music isn't about genre, its about context. I think, perhaps, that this has always been the case.

The question is, where do you draw the line?

There is no line. This is an evidence based music, strictly empirical. Folk Music is what Folk Music does.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 03:56 AM

Thanks for posting that link to the Aug/Sept 08 thread, Pip. Not a lot of evidence there for 'folk police'.

I was amused by the anecdote of the woman at a singaround who insisted on using a taped backing track. I once encountered a woman whose performance consisted of playing a tape of herself!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Ian Fyvie
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 08:33 PM

Don Firth

You would have liked tonight's (technically yesterday's...) Brighton SIngers' Folk Club singaround.    see: myspace.com/fyviesfolk   

Visiting us tonight - a harmony band singing traditional English folk songs - and the average age of the band well under 50! Lots of hope for the future I'd say.

Last December, another of our local singers' club sessions (Brighton Cellarfolk) booked a brilliant 5 piece harmony band from 30 miles along the coast. Again people come together from outside the folk scene "establishment' to enjoy our rich unaccompanied harmony folk heritage - taking it to wider and younger audiences.

Slightly off thread but...... if you're worried about what you might have read about the folk scene in England, don't be. It is, as it always has been, extremely diverse. Websites make it easier than ever to find what you might like and what might not be to your taste.

My highly personal opinion is that traditional English folk is on the up. My examples above show people a lot younger than me taking a keen interest in traditional folk.

Disagreement in my experience of mudcat debates seems to be between the camp that sees Folk as the consumer product - all else is inferior/not valid; and those who prefer folk as it should be- folk sharing folk songs. It's nothing new, indeed some say it goes back to the indignation the commercialised (albeit 'not-for-profit' commercialised) folk scene had for Ewan McColl and his London based Singers' Club of the 1960's.

Folk has survived this antagonism for 40+ years and mudcat will also show you that both SIngers' Clubs and Concert Clubs are all doing reasonably well and should have no problem surviving the likely depression.

Ian Fyvie

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Nick
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 07:48 PM

Don

I'm sure that if you went to some places your worst concerns would be realised but most of the places you'd find in the part of the world I frequent I think you'd enjoy. Most places I go have a bunch of people who enjoy song, enjoy the company of others and enjoy sharing songs and music. From what I can see that's what you do too so I don't think even the fact we speak different languages would make too much of a problem.

I hope you make it one day. Let us know and I'd sure we'd make you welcome.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 06:31 PM

I've never heard anyone dictate to anyone in an actual folk club what they can or can't sing

See also this thread.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 06:18 PM

You might need more compelling logic than an indefinable something before anyone gets to ringfence music definitions for the rest of us.

On the contrary, I think the fact that a definition which was formulated 55 years ago - some time before I was born - works for me now, in the sense of being a reasonably good guide to music I enjoy, is a very good reason to retain it. It's not a value judgment, just a suggestion that one thing is not like another thing.

The campaign about how awful UK folk clubs are seems to be lead by people who remember how bad it was thirty years ago and have rarely been in a folk club since. The scene they describe bears no resemblance to the scene I know in the 21st century.

For what it's worth, my main point of reference is a folk club that was founded less than ten years ago, and pitched towards singer-songwriters right from the off (the MC sings his own stuff, which is mostly in a C&W style; very good stuff, incidentally, but quite a long way from trad). I haven't been back much recently, but the last time I went it was packed to the rafters - so many performers that we were down to one song each - and I reckon about 1 song in 10 was traditional. Not all singer-songwriter stuff - some Beatles, some Radiohead, some George Formby. It was a good night in its way - certainly never a dull moment.

Snail, it sounds as if the "anything goes in a folk club" problem* - like the "can't be bothered to learn" problem - isn't one that your club encounters much. Maybe when Jim gets back from his hols we can restart this discussion on an Asking Bryan How He Does It thread. Or maybe not.

*Yes, I realise not everyone thinks it's a problem. Not everyone's typing this comment.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 05:53 PM

"I've never been to the British Isles. I would love to go for a whole variety of reasons. But if my reading on the folk clubs (derived from what has been written in these threads by people on the scene) is correct, I would undoubtedly visit just to see for myself, but if they are, indeed, as described here, I probably wouldn't hang around very long."

Don, I assure you that you would be very welcome!

As for these slightly ridiculous 'definition' threads, I have a feeling that they are partly to do with our very British reserve. We all attend folk clubs, and all applaud each other very politely, but inside we're all ABSOLUTELY SEETHING - and have been for years. You see this conflict has very deep roots, some of which, I suspect involve the personality and politics of Ewan MacColl (he may have been dead for 20 years but some people have never got over him - even some of us fans).
The other problem, I believe, is related to the nature of British folk clubs 30 or 40 years ago. At that time folk clubs were very popular and provided an easily accessible platform. Certain artists and agents, who couldn't get platforms elsewhere, began to colonise the clubs and some people became alarmed at this and began to fear that the music that they liked to listen to in the clubs (i.e. traditional folk music) was being displaced by a mish mash of singer-song writers, comedians, guitar heroes, pop-based material etc., etc. When some of us protested (usually in a very mild-mannered, typically British fashion) we were accused of being 'folk policemen', 'folk fascists'etc., etc. Since then our folk clubs have become polarised between clubs which have a traditional policy and others where 'anything goes'(and whose members and organisers, I suspect, don't really like folk music).
Even now any hint from people like me that folk music might be a definable and limited genre is met with howls of outrage and hysterical, and completely baseless, accusations of authoritarianism. In actual fact I've never heard anyone dictate to anyone in an actual folk club what they can or can't sing - and I've been attending British folk clubs for over 40 years. I'm sure that lots of wild anecdotes, about being beaten with rubber truncheons for singing a Bob Dylan song at the Singers' Club in 1968, will follow - complete bullshit, of course.

In conclusion just ignore our silly arguments and come on over. In my experience American guests are very well received.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 04:34 PM

Don Firth

I've never been to an English folk club, but the impression of them that I get from reading various threads here on Mudcat is that I probably wouldn't like them all that much.

Actually, Don, I think you would like the ones that I know very much indeed. They are populated by people who value and love the traditional music of the British Isles while recognising the quality of music from other parts of the world; Judy and Dennis Cook did a floorspot at The Lewes Arms Folk Club last night.

The campaign about how awful UK folk clubs are seems to be lead by people who remember how bad it was thirty years ago and have rarely been in a folk club since. The scene they describe bears no resemblance to the scene I know in the 21st century.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 03:57 PM

That's that irony thing, right?

Not in the slightest.

And who the hell is WAV?

Perhaps the Definitive WAV Thread

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 03:53 PM

You might need more compelling logic than an indefinable something before anyone gets to ringfence music definitions for the rest of us. My background is not a folk club so bad authentic singers and competent inauthentic ones go right over my head.

I buy traditional music I like, consume, purchase in the market place, attend festivals if there's someone I especially want to hear but as far from a back room creation of the good old days as it's possible to imagine.
Where do we devourers of songs go when the clubs don't serve our requirements for folk?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 03:12 PM

'Maybe you don't really like folk music.'

'Does it mean that you don't particularly like traditional music.'

variations on the stock answer from the pro 54 crowd to anyone who even remotly dares criticise or disagree with the '1954 definition'

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 02:54 PM

I agree, Pip.

". . . an awful lot of traditional material has something - does something - which only a little contemporary material does."

One of the major things that attracted me to traditional songs in the first place is that these songs have a history, a provenance—roots. Singing them gives me a sense of connection with the people and events that produced them in the first place and then sang them for their own enjoyment and expression.

I do sing other songs, some very good songs that are not traditional, but the majority of the songs I sing are traditional. And, no, I don't sing them merely because they are traditional.

####

Perhaps I don't even have a horse in this particular race. Out here on the west coast of the U. S. and A., I've never been to an English folk club, but the impression of them that I get from reading various threads here on Mudcat is that I probably wouldn't like them all that much.

First, there was a discussion of some clubs prohibiting, or at least frowning fiercely upon anyone who sang a song that wasn't from his or her own culture and background. For example, if you're from Cornwall, don't sing a song from Yorkshire. If you're an American dropping in, sing American songs, even if you're especially interested in songs from the British Isles and that's what you're there to learn. And God help you if you try to sing in an accent or dialect not your own, even if you do it well enough that most people can't tell that it isn't your own.

Rules, regulations, restrictions, prohibitions.

Then there is the war over the "infamous" 1954 definition. Apparently, in a "folk club," no two people can agree on what "folk" means. And in some "folk clubs," one rarely if ever hears a song that might actually fit the 1954 definition, in preference to a mix of songs that the singers themselves have just written (and declared "folk" songs) along with the latest popular hits liberally mixed with Beatles' songs.

In the one, you stand there in a straitjacket with a sock in your mouth, afraid that you'll have the buttons cut from your uniform and be marched around the compound in disgrace if you pick the wrong song to sing, and in the other, the club is as shapeless as Odo, the security officer in Star Trek:   Deep Space 9, a shape-shifter who has to sleep in a bucket or he'll simply flow down the nearest drain.

I've never been to the British Isles. I would love to go for a whole variety of reasons. But if my reading on the folk clubs (derived from what has been written in these threads by people on the scene) is correct, I would undoubtedly visit just to see for myself, but if they are, indeed, as described here, I probably wouldn't hang around very long.

Okay, folks, rip me to shreds.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 02:00 PM

More authenticity? More quality? More bangs for your buck? I've no idea because I can't hear the difference.

I'm fairly pragmatic about this, actually. I know from experience that traditional music is likely to interest me and that singer-songwriter work is likely to bore me. Some traditional performances are arse-achingly boring, and some singer-songwriters are stunning, but (for me) the balance of interest vs boredom is mostly the other way round. As far as I'm concerned, an awful lot of traditional material has something - does something - which only a little contemporary material does. So I don't think throwing open the doors to contemporary material is likely to result in a more interesting evening.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: michaelr
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:58 PM

"...the sense of unity we find in the Folk Scene..."

That's that irony thing, right?

And who the hell is WAV?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:47 PM

Darowyn/Dave--I listened and I loved it!

I also think that this Ableton business, while, it seems to have little to do with folk clubs, folk festivals, and such things, is of great importance to those of the anthropological/ethnomusicological bent who study "the folk process", and, even as we speak, there are probably a number of people who are studying it.

Also, the guitarist was great--

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 01:13 PM

"I've read this sentence several times, Glueman, but I don't really understand it."

In the the Mudcat world 1954 definitions exercise some people because they believe they lend traditional music something 'more'. More what is the question.
More authenticity? More quality? More bangs for your buck? I've no idea because I can't hear the difference. If I have to look up in a book whether a piece is original or a pastiche it doesn't matter, I've already left the aural dimension music occupies. So it's of interest only to people who are interested in non-musical factors.

Fans are fully entitled to like Bolivian jula julas or lyrics containing a plethora of consonants, that's their business. What they aren't entitled to do (IMO) is dictate where the boundaries of folk are in musical terms.
The reality is an unhealthy number of folk enthusiasts believe this dubious historical verissimilitude translates into something they can hear and it informs their tastes. Well sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, I certainly wouldn't rely on it and yet many people seem to think folk is what-they-like musically which is completely illogical.

The problem may well be in the club rather than folk. I enjoy traditional music as a consumer but participatory folk music that isn't progressive seems a complete absurdity.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Darowyn
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 12:01 PM

People have been dismissive of the idea of an Ableton community- but it does exist.
Somewhere about two generations away from most Mudcatters, there is an Ableton community. Groups of young musicians spend a lot of time swapping and sharing loops and tracks, and building evolved works of considerable complexity.
Have a listen to my former student- Snakeman- especially the track called "Colourblind Cafe"
You can find the track here:
Snakeman's Myspace Page
In the context of the internet age, the process is similar to the folk process, as the piece changes and incorporates the contributions of many people.
I'm not saying it's folk music in the English traditional stylistic sense, but its creation has a lot in common. Listen and you will see my definition of World music in action too.
This is not a live recording- it has been assembled from samples recorded separately-even the ambience is flown in from the Motorway services on the M5!
Everyone on this track is an former student of mine, except the guitarist, who was a colleague.
I'm really proud to have worked with them.
Cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 11:10 AM

"It isn't hard to understand why someone would want to label traditional music but it's impossible to comprehend why they'd marshall their musical preferences around it."

I've read this sentence several times, Glueman, but I don't really understand it. Does it mean that you don't particularly like traditional music so you can't understand why anyone else does? If that's the case, why are you here? Would you really like to replace it with something that you find more acceptable?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 08:52 AM

A few random thoughts in this rather silly thread -

What is the definition of a "folk context"?

perhaps it shouldn't be called a "folk" club

Perhaps not but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. In analogy with the tins of soup, read the the small print, the mnufacturers name, the list of ingredients and additives. If you're still not sure, give it a try and if you don't like it try a different one next time.

An interesting anecdote from the excellent evening with Tom McConville, Claire Mann and David Newey last night (see separate thread) at the Lewes Saturday Folk Club last night, a young woman we had never seen before did a floor spot and said "I'm sorry, but I don't know any traditional songs but here's one by John Martyn." and then sang Spencer the Rover. Make of that what you will.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 07:10 AM

It's a queer thing that yer always come away from traditional music feeling better

At least we can agree on that.

As I said above, when I started going to the local singaround I'd been going to a folk club for five years on a pretty regular basis (sometimes weekly). In that time I'd had some great nights (and some mediocre ones), but I'd never heard Ranzo or Jones's Ale or Thousands or more. (I knew Thousands or more because I'd heard the Coppers do it on telly. Never heard the other two.) I like traditional music & I'd like to hear more of it - and I'd like more people to have more chances to hear more of it. Folk clubs seem like a good place to start.

On the other hand, SS has got something...

The important thing is the sense of unity we find in the Folk Scene as a whole which comes through the mutual appreciation of the diversity which is essential to the very nature of Folk. You know - this sort of thing:

Yes, I'll drink to that sort of thing.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 07:06 AM

It's dawned on me that perhaps the problem here is an assumption that only "folk" can legitimately be performed in a "folk context". It is demonstrable fact that a far wider range of music than simply traditional folk is performed in these places, and so there seems to be a desire to label all of this as "folk" in order to bring it into the fold.

I am quite happy to accept that in a folk club you can expect to hear more than traditional folk. I've sat in folk clubs and listened to, and enjoyed, music hall songs and monologues, Django-style jazz guitar, singer-songwriters, comedians, and Les Barker's poetry - none of which I would consider "folk" but none of which felt out of place in that context. The question is, where do you draw the line? The answer to that depends not only on your personal preferences but also on the preferences of the audience and the musical policy of the club.

If you want to have a club or singaround where people can do their versions of chart hits, I'm the last person to stop you - but I share the view of those who've suggested that if this makes up the majority of what is performed then perhaps it shouldn't be called a "folk" club.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 06:35 AM

"...a similarly redundant and essentially divisive criteria to that of the 1954 Definition."

Aye.
It's a queer thing that yer always come away from traditional music feeling better but leave talking to people about traditional music feeling worse and like you've just had your pocket picked.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 06:08 AM

SS - don't ever, ever, compare me to WAV. Ever.

Sorry about that - a tad below the belt I admit. In my defence, I was thinking of WAV at his most Quixotic; boldly tilting at those flailing windmills of folk generality that obscured his vision of a properly traditional music as defined by a similarly redundant and essentially divisive criteria to that of the 1954 Definition.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 05:05 AM

It's a point of view in the light of what I listen to and read here. I never got snippy or used the word dick. I stay out of folk clubs because while I might like the music, they may contain people who are snippy and use the word dick about those who disagree with them.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 04:49 AM

SS - don't ever, ever, compare me to WAV. Ever.

It's hard not to feel slightly sorry for those who insist on 1954 accreditation.

Word to the wise - it's probably a good idea not to say that kind of thing in front of the people you're talking about. It makes you look a bit of a dick.

My acoustic tastes fit the traditional pretty well but not exclusively and I don't need kite marks to know what's folkish.

My acoustic tastes fit the traditional pretty well but not exclusively, and I'm happy to say that not everything I like is folk. Now who's marshalling their tastes around a label?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 29 Mar 09 - 03:34 AM

It's hard not to feel slightly sorry for those who insist on 1954 accreditation. It reminds me of old Harley owners who insisted Japanese V-twins lacked something because they didn't shake themselves and their rider to pieces, or Bentley owners who turn a blind eye to the fact they lured their chief designer from Skoda.

It isn't hard to understand why someone would want to label traditional music but it's impossible to comprehend why they'd marshall their musical preferences around it. Hobbyists are harmless enough but they're curators at best and you wouldn't necessarily want a museum keeper as a musical guide.

Folk enthusiasts have a balanced view to 1954, generally speaking. When the gate keepers bolted the door they went ahead and fitted a perfectly usable entrance round the side. So we're down to labels and badges and by and large, labels are only important to people who like labels.
My acoustic tastes fit the traditional pretty well but not exclusively and I don't need kite marks to know what's folkish.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 11:57 PM

"I have found more really good songs than I can possibly learn in several lifetimes."

And we keep finding "new"ones, or at least, ones that are new to us all the time.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 09:51 PM

". . . no fun in folk music?"

Betsy, I've had a lot of fun in folk music, and even made my living at singing songs--traditional, or "folk" songs--for a goodly portion of my life. And I don't write songs at all. I know several hundred tradtional songs, and rummaging through various collections of traditional songs, I have found more really good songs than I can possibly learn in several lifetimes. Fun? You bet!!

Maybe you don't really like folk music.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Betsy
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 09:07 PM

I don't have a CD player, but I have loads of CD's which people have sent me, because they have recorded my songs. All of them sing (as I understand) the songs better than I do ,(or did) so let's all think about what we're saying on this thread, because,the music and song come come first.If there is no fun in folk music - I want to be out of it.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Goose Gander
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 07:42 PM

"It was a rubber penguin not a duck."

My apologies.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 07:03 PM

The disagreement is about whether we think that's a good thing or a bad thing.

It matters not what our personal tastes might be, or yet our specialisms; we get on with that regardless and bring that to the pot. The important thing is the sense of unity we find in the Folk Scene as a whole which comes through the mutual appreciation of the diversity which is essential to the very nature of Folk. You know - this sort of thing:

Matt Armour - When the Saints go Marching In

Matt's legacy is the human warmth of inclusivity. His singarounds were legendary in this respect - a utopia of perfect belonging & community regardless of whatever stripe of folk you were.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 06:32 PM

This isn't a matter of opinion, but a matter of observable fact.

I refer the learned gentleman to my earlier squawk:

""Is" and "ought" are never that far apart; if you talk about how the world is, you're usually also saying that you like it that way, or else that you'd like it to change. (Unless you're a geologist.) I think we can all agree, by this stage, that in practice the word "folk" means anything and nothing. The disagreement is about whether we think that's a good thing or a bad thing."

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 06:29 PM

It's just that it seems to me... that leaving it undefined has had deleterious consequences, particularly in terms of limiting people's exposure to traditional music.

You're beginning to sound like WAV, Pip.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 28 Mar 09 - 06:19 PM

no one gives a flying fuck about your opinion, my opinion, or any opinion that has been posted here

On the basis that "no one" includes you, Ron, I'm slightly hurt. Then again, on the understanding that "no one" includes me, I don't have to pay any attention to your opinion - so never mind.

Still. Just between us Mudcatters, in the full awareness that hardly anyone outside the hallowed virtual precincts of this site gives a damn, what do you think the definition of 'folk' is? Or do you think it's better left undefined? It's just that it seems to me (just between us Mudcatters, etc) that leaving it undefined has had deleterious consequences, particularly in terms of limiting people's exposure to traditional music. You may not be an enthusiast for traditional music, in which case you won't necessarily think that's a problem, but I am and I do. Obviously the opinion of one keyboard-bashing traddie isn't going to change the world, but I think it's worth expressing - just between us Mudcatters, you understand, and in the full awareness that hardly anyone outside the hallowed virtual precincts of this site gives a damn.