1954 and All That - defining folk music

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 03:18 PM

Rifle
"arrane or should I say re-arrange a number or that will take the said tunes oout od the realms of "1954"
The correct spellings are 'arrange', 'out' and 'of' - in that order (if you mean what I think you mean).
Bryan
No; I was referring to the long running 'crap begets crap' argument - of which we have a fine example.
Tried to take the argument off-line so as not to nause up a good discussion.
SS
".....familiar conviviality "
Whoops - my mistake; I thought this was about a definition of folk song.
Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Goose Gander
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 03:27 PM

"Designated Folk Context"

That's even worse. No one I know talks about music this way.

'Sinister Jabberwocky' wasn't name-calling, it was a literary reference based upon your tortured prose and your uses and abuses of logic.

Again (feeling like a broken record, or a sample loop), your argument is circular and self-referential. The 1954 definition describes the processes by which folk music evolves. It's not where the song comes from, but what happens to it along the way. It can be applied cross-culturally. Your definition – 'Folk Music is anything that happens in a Folk Club' (I paraphrase) - does not seem to be an improvement, not to me anyway.

I thought our exchanges had been friendly so far. I'm not trying to be offensive, but I know that I come across that way sometimes.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 03:33 PM

I think we are trying here to simultaneously describe and define folk. The two things aren't the same. References to, for example, a folk "style" are pretty meaningless.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 03:35 PM

What is it with certain Mudcatters that they can't play nicely without resorting to abuse and name calling?

Um, "Primadonna Firth"?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 03:44 PM

Here there is an evident paradox, whereby the less obviously Folk in terms of Form becomes the so much more satisfyingly Folk in terms of Content

Mu. I'm starting to think La Easby has a point (although I h*te those wr*tch*d *st*r*sks) - the problem we've got here is actually the word 'folk'. If you'd said, for example, that you prefer Fairport's first album, even though it's not traditional material, because it sounds more rough-edged or full-on or heartfelt than the others, then we could have talked about the music. If you say that it's more *folk* even though it's less *FOLK*, and yet somehow it's *F*o*l*k* in a way that transcends f/o/l/k, then we just end up talking about words.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 03:47 PM

I'm starting to think La Easby has a point - the problem we've got here is actually the word 'folk'

EUREKA!

(Or should I say E*R*K*? Or *U*E*A?)

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 04:29 PM

SS,
Having somersaulted somewhat clumsily away from your statement that you 'know what you are in for' in a folk club, can I draw the conclusion that, given your definition (sic) you haven't the slightest idea what you would find there (pig-in-a-poke keeps springing to mind). If so, doesn't that take away my right to choose what I would like to hear - especially as I think I know what a folk song is, I have hundreds of friends who think they do, and if any of us are in any doubt - well - there's always 'The Penguin Book of English Folk Songs' to fall back on.
The nonsense of all this is, if it were ever to be taken seriously (and we burn all the books mentioning the word), it would seem that I could go down to the Dog and Duck Folk Club and listen to songs that might be booed off the stage at the Pindar of Wakefield Folk Club.
What I could (or not) expect could depend on the organisers' personal taste, Judgement, knowledge, or lack of any or all of these - or even what he or she had for breakfast that morning.
This is 'singing horse' writ silly - or as Humpty Dumpty was reported to have said:
"When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less".
And what ARE we going to do about the related disciplines? Are we going to declare UDI from folklore, folk dance, folk tales, folk customs, folk music?
The term 'folk' did not originate with the IFMC in 1954, but was coined as 'folklore' by William Thoms in 1846 - 160 odd years old and still going strong! It was adopted in relation to song some time around the beginning of the 20th century and incorporated into the 1954 definition because of the common origins shared by all the disciplines I've just mentioned.
As I said earlier in this thread, none of this nonsense makes the slightest difference in the long term.
Folk song is fully documented and will survive long after the clubs have distorted and diluted themselves out of existance and all the hangers-on have moved away to find another peg to hang their musical hats on.
Somebody mentioned the term 'democratic' earlier. Personally I can't think of anything more George Orwellish than to sit back and allow a tiny splinter group to re-write the dictionary to suit their own lack of imagination.
'Tradition and folk different'
No they're not; they are two sides of the same coin - folk referring to the origins of the songs, tradition to the transmission and filtering process that made them what they evolved into - joined at the hip.
'The word 'folk' has pretty much been left for people to use as they please'
Only within the narrow Freemasonry of the folk clubs – and not universally there, but only where personal tastes and interests have made it convenient to have it so. Elsewhere, where it is used, it still retains its meaning - want a list of books, articles, collections of music, dance, folktales, folklore, customs.... which still sit comfortably with the term in its original sense – can't wait for the huge J M Carpenter Folksong Collection to see the light of day.

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: M.Ted
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 05:26 PM

Thank you, Jim. Thank you. And thank you again.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 06:38 PM

Um, "Primadonna Firth"?

A justified retaliation given DF's somewhat magisterial approach to matters of philosophical absolutes, a vanity which extends so far a put himself (and M.Ted) on a par with (and I quote) Aristotle, Socrates, and a whole pantheon of logicians and philosphers. I might even add a sic here, in honour of the pedantry embodied by DF himself, however so heartened I might be that even He might make the occasional mistake.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 07:29 PM

Got at you a bit, eh, Sinister?

If you will reread the context within which the remark was made, you will see that I was merely citing the principles of rational debate laid down well over two millenia ago and which have proven useful in arriving at a conclusion that will reflect, as much as is humanly possible, what is going on in the real world.

Even when one finds that conclusion is at odds with what one would wish it to be.

Some folks find this sort of approach far too restricting because it frowns on the ad hoc redefining words in order to slither, serpent-like, through the thorny thicket of the rules of logic in an attempt to dupe others into accepting the ridiculous.

Perhaps if you acquaint yourself with the works of the ancient Greek philosophers I referred to, you will see that I am merely reiterating what they said, not setting myself on the same level. Hence,the error of your characterizing me as a "primadonna."

And the fact that you admit that this characterization is a "retaliation" speaks for itself.

Have a beer and simmer down a bit.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 08:04 PM

Don, mate, calm down! The man's simply attempting to describe and understand what he sees when he visits a folk club in the UK. In doing so, he's putting forward the not-that-controversial idea that "f*lk" is what you've got, rather than what you want. The traddies are a minority within a minority. That's not an attack on traditional folk music (if it was I'd be guilty of self-loathing, as a bit of a traddie myself). It's the reality of what's out there. We can piss and moan all we like, but as Canute demonstrated, we can't turn back the tide. It's been coming in for about fifty years! I'm just glad there is a small but healthy scene of young people singing and playing traditional music (not always to my taste - some of them can be a little anodyne) that exists on the festival scene, the arts centre circuit and parts of the folk club scene. I'm glad that there are troopers like Dick Miles and Keith Kendrick and Brian Peters (to name but three) out there. And I'm also glad that there are singarounds like my local at the Beech where I can hear and participate in mainly traditional music once a fortnight and enjoy the company of some fine (and some not so fine, but that's life) singers. But that doesn't escape the fact that at the popular well attended local folk club we have near us, you'll hear loads of homemade music that the players, singers and listeners happily call folk... yet nary a traditional song between them. We can stand around grumping about how "that's not folk" or we can mount pickets and write letters or we can piss on their chips in whatever way we can... or we can just accept that if they want to call what they do folk, that's okay. No-one's getting hurt. The traditional songs and ballads and tunes are still there. We can still sing them, play them, study them - whatever we want to do. All we have to do is let go of that pesky, confusing, meaningless little four letter word... we don't even need it any more.

And we don't want to end up like those sad individuals who still haven't got over the fact that gay now describes a sexuality not a mood.

Meanwhile, I want to second Rifleman, way up this thread, who gave us a timely reminder that listening to and participating in music is supposed to be fun.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 08:38 PM

Don't need to calm down, Spleen, I'm fine.

The opening salvo in this little exchange was the descent into personal put-downs, and I will no longer participate because it has degenerated to a slagging match. Sinister may be a very fine fellow in all respects, and judging from what I've seen of his work on YouTube, he does some quite interesting stuff. Whether it can be called "folk" or not is certainly debatable, but frankly, I'm not too sure that the outcome of that debate one way or the other is worth the time an effort.

And again, from the impression I get of English folk clubs, at least on these threads, I think I'll just stay where I am. I do, however, hear far different reports from people I know who have been to English folk clubs. But perhaps not the same ones you folks frequent.

I still maintain that the 1954 "definition" is a description of what is rather than an ironclad rule about what ought to be, and I personally can't find much fault with it--save that there are people who get bent out of shape if something they cobbled together two days ago falls short of fitting the description, and they insist on having instant acceptance of their efforts as a "folk song."

You can't just sit down with your ball-point pen and a sheet of paper and write a folk song. It just ain't done that way, never has been, never will be.

I might add at this point that since when does singing songs that fit right in with the 1954 definition mean that it's not fun to do so? I think it may be that there are people here on this very thread who just don't really like folk music!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Peace
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 08:43 PM

I like a few of them. But then I can't recall EVER liking the total volume of any type of music.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: curmudgeon
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 08:54 PM

I've read every post on this thread, some very well thought out, others reactionary. There are far too many egos involved, and too much mindless verbiage.

So now, let's stir the pot with another definition of folk song from Mark Twain:

"A folk song is a song that nobody ever wrote."

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: M.Ted
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 09:12 PM

I don't mind being set on a par with Artistotle, Socrates, etc--with study and discipline of thought, one may ultimately contribute new ideas to the philosophical canon--you can't contribute to the folk/traditional canon that way though.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 02:32 AM

666!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 02:39 AM

Nero, is that you?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 02:48 AM

"I will no longer participate because it has degenerated to a slagging match."
Hope you're not serious about this Don.
'Sinister Jabberwocky'
Personally I've always found them pretty cuddly.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 02:53 AM

"I think it may be that there are people here on this very thread who just don't really like folk music!"

I see no evidence of that Don. There may be a few who believe music isn't about pleasure however.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 03:02 AM

"I can't recall EVER liking the total volume of any type of music."

Amen to that! This could also apply to the total volume of music created via a particular process, or the total volume of music sung in a particular context. There again, does anyone like a song just because it's traditional? That would be plain weird...

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 03:22 AM

"There again, does anyone like a song just because it's traditional? That would be plain weird..."SC

A point I've tried to make repeatedly. Exclusiveness of this kind does suggest a condition or mental state everyone is anxious to distance themselves from. I can't get past the barminess.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 05:11 AM

SS, you and I seem to be talking about different things. I have been attempting to establish some parameters for determining whether or not a piece of music is "folk". You appear to be talking about an attitude of mind.

The difficulty I have with this approach is that in order for people to get together "in the spirit of folk", or for them to decide to designate their event as a "folk" club or "folk" festival, or even if just in their own mind what they are doing is "folk", they must have some concept in their mind of what "folk" is. It cannot be because of the type of music being played, because according to you folk music is defined by the context, not the other way around. So what distinguishes these events from other people getting together to play or listen to music in more or less formal contexts who would put a different label on what they are doing? What is it that makes them decide to label these events "folk"?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 05:33 AM

Jim Carroll

No; I was referring to the long running 'crap begets crap' argument

...and quality begets quality. Your point?

I really wish you'd read and respond to my post of 24 Mar 09 - 11:48 AM.

"arrane" is the Manx for song by the way.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 05:42 AM

Exclusiveness of this kind does suggest a condition or mental state everyone is anxious to distance themselves from.

If nobody is willing to admit to suffering from this condition or mental state, might it perhaps be that nobody does?

I've made my own position very clear: "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."

Of course, I also like loads of music that can't be described as either 'traditional' or 'singer-songwriter'.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 05:48 AM

Spleen Cringe

Don, mate, calm down! The man's simply attempting to describe and understand what he sees when he visits a folk club.........

Excellent post, Spleen. I would only say that I refuse to give up the word "folk" just because others use it differently.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 06:20 AM

What is it that makes them decide to label these events "folk"?

I will leave it to our pantheon of Great Philosophers to answer that one, Howard. All I've done here is to report on the facts of the case and conclude that Folk Song is demonstrably different from Traditional Song and make a few suggestions as to why that might be.

Elsewhere on Mudcat we find this actuality of Folk readily and rightly celebrated, such as in the love the young people writing folk thread, where my only concern might be with the comments regarding the artist's evident youth, comments which reflect the general Folk Demographic which I feel (and fear) informs much of reactionary carping we have seen on this thread.

That said, I find myself in generally agreement with many of the points put forward here, especially those of Jim Carroll & Don Firth, even though I feel the conflation of Folk Song and Traditional Song is no longer appropriate to the realities of either, nor yet helpful to our understanding of them in terms of ethnomusicological phenomena. Maybe this is why the International Folk Music Council changed their name to the International Council for Traditional Music, the stated aims of which are to further the study, practice, documentation, preservation and dissemination of traditional music, including folk, popular, classical and urban music, and dance of all countries.

That makes perfect sense to me; to look at music the way it is, not how we might wish it to be according to some long redundant and essentially divisive criteria.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 06:21 AM

Speaking purely from observation, there are people who simply don't like music. Apart from humming the odd music hall tune my mother never put music on the radio or gramophone purely for pleasure in her adult life, neither would she seek out places where music was played. My father likewise, though he had a few army songs he'd come up with on a long walk. Now you could say they were both conduits for the folk process in action, or you could say they just didn't respond to music that went much further than a nursery rhyme to fill an empty moment.

Experience suggests some people who claim to like folk music exclusively operate with a similar emotion detachment to what most of us might understand by music. The tradition in its more austere forms requires little intuitive response to musicality but is more demanding on recall, repetition and what one might call poetics. I defer to no-one in an enjoyment of austerity in folk, classical or any other genre but the 'pleasures of the text' are undoubtedly different from those of tuneful forms.
Clearly there are exceptions but if I were to make a box that fit a larger percentage of arch traditionalists than excluded them it would be one that contained structured works which did not rely on empathetic musical emotion for their thrall.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 06:32 AM

Howard - The difficulty I have with this approach is that in order for people to get together "in the spirit of folk", or for them to decide to designate their event as a "folk" club or "folk" festival, or even if just in their own mind what they are doing is "folk", they must have some concept in their mind of what "folk" is.

Oddly enough I don't have any difficulty with this, partly because I've seen it happen. Week 1: a Folk Club is announced; six singer-songwriters, one traddie and a hopeful who knows a couple of Dylan songs turn up, and do three songs each (the last guy struggling a bit with the third one). Week 2: eight singer-songwriters, two traddies and two hopefuls turn up and do two songs each. Week 92: 16 singer-songwriters, four traddies and eight hopefuls turn up and do one number each. What you can expect one week is mostly determined by what went on in the previous weeks, which in turn was mostly determined by what had gone on before. It's a self-sustaining, iterative mechanism, sustained by feeding on itself and on innovators who wander in. You could call it the folk club process...

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 06:45 AM

And another thing...

I do believe people to be more important than what type of songs they sing. In this sense folk is simply the people who turn up a the end of a hard working week to share a few songs in good company. I go to Folk Clubs as much for the crack & the banter as I do for the music. I'd even go so far as to say, no crack, no good, BUT rarely have I come across such a club - maybe once, naming no names, but the occasion was marred when I complemented one guy at the bar and he took this as a cue to try and sell me his CD-R.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 07:30 AM

Pip: when this hypothetical folk club was set up, the person doing so must have had an idea of what sort of music they were expecting to attract and what they meant by "folk", or they would not have used that label. Likewise the singer-songwriters presumably also have a notion of "folk", which they consider their songs fall into. People who write songs which they consider to be in other genres are less likely to assume that a folk club is a natural venue for them. So we need, if not a definition, at least an understanding of what is folk, and what is not.

SS, what you described can just as easily be experienced with other musical forms. I have a friend who plays classical music with an amateur orchestra, and that's as much to do with socialising as it is with playing music. I don't see any difference in concept between that and a folk club. Where I do see a difference is that a folk club should present folk music, but you've ruled that out because to you anything played there is de facto folk. So there must be something else which makes it justify the label "folk".

Hardly anyone, with one or two exceptions, is arguing that "folk" should mean only "traditional". That meaning was lost long ago. However, if a song is not traditional then it must have something else which qualifies it to be thought of as "folk". The further a song gets in style and content from traditional idioms, the more difficult it is for me to recognise it as "folk".

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 08:13 AM

Definition schmefinition. Our club in Exmouth uses the appelation Folk night.I have found it hard at open Mics inviting people to come to the event because they don't believe they are folky enough. Theyb are not using gtheir own definition, rayher an assumed identity projected by others. I now use the term acoustic night as often as 'folk' just so people don't get put off. A typical night will include a shanty crew, an acoustic band playing english/irish tunes, a couple of unaccompanied traddies, some blues, a couple of singer/songwriters, some appalachian stepping to fiddle accompaniment,a young man of 17 playing hendrix and pink floyd covers, a veteran of the fifties playin rock n roll and some groups or individuals playing mainly trditional stuff to instrumental accompaniment. Sometimes we also get a close harmony group. Not a microphone in sight, and intense listening and appreciation.
    Basically 'folk' to us means anything that you can get up and do without technology, that people can enjoy and perhaps join in with and owes some debt to ordinary music of the people ( not necessarily Folk of the ( non-folk) elite).
    Just like it was when I first went to clubs in the sixties when there was an eclectic mix of contempoorary American, blues, sea songs,Irish rebel songs, a few unacompanied traditional singers, ragtime and singer sogwriters. There was a time when 'traditional'became de riguer, which was fine for those like me who love that style, but it meant a generation seeing 'folk'as stuffy and not to do withy them. The new generation have joined back inn to reclaim mlive acoustiv music, so our folk nights have performers representing each decade from teens to octogenarians. All the folk, not just some.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 08:31 AM

I get very angry when I see the term 'singer-songwriter' used so disparagingly in some of these posts.

Who the bloody hell do you think created 'folk' songs in the first place?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Spleen O'Cookieless
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 08:35 AM

Who the bloody hell do you think created 'folk' songs in the first place?

James Taylor?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 08:45 AM

James Taylor?

Ewan MacColl?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 08:55 AM

A L Lloyd?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 08:57 AM

And if clutching a guitar is a pre-requisite for the sneering term then you can add Nic Jones, Martin Carthy, Dick Gaughan, plus any number of others, to the list.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 09:00 AM

Definition schmefinition.

This is more like the sort of post I was expecting when I opened this thread, with my request Likewise, if you will, your experience of what is actually being sung in The Name of Folk these day and how you feel this fits, or doesn't fit, with the 1954 definition.

Exmouth, eh? Sounds like my sort of place!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 09:14 AM

The Name of Folk

It seems to be the non-1954 definitioners that are turning Folk into a religion.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 09:17 AM

"Basically 'folk' to us means anything that you can get up and do without technology, that people can enjoy and perhaps join in with and owes some debt to ordinary music of the people"

As good a definition of folk as I've come across in this bearpit.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 11:42 AM

It seems to be the non-1954 definitioners that are turning Folk into a religion.

I think the 1954 Definitioners did that when they turned a theory into a holy writ; a shibboleth by which to judge the true words of Folk thus revealed to Mankind by dint of Holy Folk Process alone.

Seriously, Snail - what goes on Lewes on an average night? And would a boring old traddy like me be welcome?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Goose Gander
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 11:51 AM

"I think the 1954 Definitioners did that when they turned a theory into a holy writ; a shibboleth by which to judge the true words of Folk thus revealed to Mankind by dint of Holy Folk Process alone."

This is nonesense. Why do you use this pompous sort of language?

And this comes from someone who admitted that his theory of 'designation' was akin to Transubstantiation, or an 'occult practice' . . .

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:06 PM

"I think the 1954 Definitioners did that when they turned a theory into a holy writ; a shibboleth by which to judge the true words of Folk thus revealed to Mankind by dint of Holy Folk Process alone."

I might be wrong but I get the feeling someones taking the piss, least that's the way I read it, so , please, lighten up a wee bit, if that's posible.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:12 PM

"I think it may be that there are people here on this very thread who just don't really like folk music"

I blieve I've commented elsewhere that posts like this are variations on a theme (dare I say trad. arr.?) and a standard response from the pro 54 crowd who don't agree with anti-definition crowd. I've see similar remarks posted again and again.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:24 PM

I get very angry when I see the term 'singer-songwriter' used so disparagingly in some of these posts.

Who by? Which posts? Genuinely puzzled here.

Snail: It seems to be the non-1954 definitioners that are turning Folk into a religion.

There certainly seems to be a lot of resistance to the idea that there are good and bad folk performances - that you can be bored to tears by something that's undeniably folk or transported to another dimension by something that undeniably isn't.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: John P
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:26 PM

I like the idea of folk music being a group of people getting together at the end of the work week to enjoy a few songs. From a definition standpoint, of course, it includes all genres of music, but from a process standpoint it suits my experience of making music in a social context. I'm not sure about the no electricity thing, however. While it is true that no amplification is needed to produce a great evening of music, I don't think it ruins it, either. We live in a world that includes electricity, and some folks' instruments require it.

Sinister Supporter, I'm sorry if you think that about the people who find value in the 1954 definition. Would you be willing to consider the idea that the attitude you describe is taking place within yourself, and not in the posts on this thread, nor in the minds of anyone here? Most of us have been at some pains to try to make everyone understand that there is no policing, authoritarianism, demands for anyone to do anything, or the making of holy writ. It's odd to see a intelligent and thoughtful person like yourself drawing conclusions that are at such variance to what has actually been said.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:41 PM

Apart from the hotline to merrie olde england that is Lewes folkclub, where are these venues that serve up a diet of traditional and only traditional tunes? Am I debating with those who claim to sing and play trad. and are talking up some trade or is there a healthy audience all over benighted albion who receive such undiluted pleasures?

I smell humbug.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:54 PM

Our local singaround bills itself as 'mainly but not exclusively' traditional songs. I'd guess about 70 - 80% trad most nights ... except a few weeks back when it turned into a bit of a McColl-fest.

BTW, Sminky: The James Taylor thing was a joke.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 01:04 PM

Just poking a little fun at the capitalisation of Folk and the definition that it is whatever takes place in the sacred precincts of a Designated Folk Context.

Seriously, Snail - what goes on Lewes on an average night? And would a boring old traddy like me be welcome?

The first entry in our list of objectives is -

To provide a programme which reflects the club's long-established interest in traditional music and song and contemporary folk music/song derived from the tradition.

That is, essentially, what happens. If you come into the club, you will be asked if you want to do a floor spot. While we might be able to tell by looking if you are old, that is no bar. We will only find out if you are traddy (which is welcome) or boring (which is not) when you do your spot. We tend to give performers and the audience a bit of advance warning of ther turn so any sudden rush to the bar on your subsequent visits is nothing to do with me.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 01:16 PM

Well, Sminky, I think you WILL hear a prejudice against "singer-songwriter" music around these parts. We've listened to many, and we've found them boring. I think the implication of the term "singer-songwriter," is a person who sings almost exclusively the songs he/she has written. And most often, those songs don't "work" when anybody else sings them.

There are exceptions, of course. In the U.S., Bill Staines is one songwriter whose songs are eminently singable. If you go to a Staines concert, you will hear the whole audience singing along. That's because there's a communal aspect to his songs, and you won't find that characteristic in the songs of many who call themselves singer-songwriters. Also, his songs usually tell a story that begs to be told over and over again.

Mudcat, after all, is a traditional music forum, interested primarily in music that has withstood the test of time - and music in that style. Many of us primarily sing songs written by known songwriters, so they're not purely "traditional" - but they share that communal element and an element of storytelling that you will find in traditional music.

The performers I like are ones who sing songs from a variety of sources. They may write some of the songs they perform, but they perform only the best of their songs in public.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Apr 09 - 01:32 PM

Rifleman, regarding my observation that there are people on this thread—and others involved in folk music groups—who don't really like folk music, there are precedents in reality for that statement. I am acquainted with a woman who calls herself a "folk singer" and who tells me she writes "folk songs." I've heard her sing some of her songs and even though she's somewhere in her thirties, she is still writing songs about teenaged angst, particularly her own, which she seems unwilling to outgrow. Typical navel-gazing stuff. Her tunes are not very interesting because she, herself, has a limited singing range. They tend to be a cluster of unrelated notes, and for the life of me, I can't recall any of the tunes she has written. And if she didn't repeat some of the lines over and over again, her songs wouldn't last much more than a minute, but they generally go on for at least three.

"What sort of songs do you sing?" she asked me. I reeled of the names of a few songs in my repertoire. Traditional British and American. She wrinkled her nose as if there were a bad smell in the room and said, "Oh! That kind of stuff!" generally dismissing the whole field of traditional music and me with it.

And I have mentioned before the fellow whose repertoire consists of the songs of Jacques Brel. Traditional songs don't interest him in the least, and he suffers through others singing them so he can get a chance to sing Marieke or Ne Me Quitte Pas with his absolutely atrocious French accent. Wot the bloody 'ell is 'e doin' there in the first place? He's there because there is a gathering of people who come together to sing traditional—yes, folk songs. He doesn't give diddly-squat for folk music. He just wants an audience for what he wants to sing.

And these are not isolated incidents, nor are these people all that rare.

And another thing:   it isn't a matter of liking only traditional songs, or liking them only because they are traditional, or liking all traditional songs. I can't speak for others, but my personal musical tastes are pretty broad, including early music, Baroque, classical, some chamber music, some opera, some country and western, some popular music, but I don't much care for a lot of rock and rap. I sing mostly songs from the British and American folk traditions, but I also sing a few songs that are not, but in terms of style, fit nicely into a program of traditional songs. And of the traditional songs I sing, since there are usually several versions available, I select the version that I prefer, since, due to their varying poetic, musical, and generally aesthetic qualities, I don't consider all versions to be equally good. And there are some traditional songs that don't appeal to me at all, so I don't sing them.

Where I get a bit fed up with discussions of this kind is that those who disagree with a particular viewpoint soon resort to attempting to belittle those who hold the viewpoint by accusing them of being incapable of independent thought and adhering to their viewpoint because they are intimidated by some higher authority and haven't the guts to question it or even examine it, thereby dismissing both them and their viewpoint.

This (Pedant alert! Pedant alert!) is an example of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy:   trying to refute an argument, not by addressing the argument directly, but by attacking the person making the argument.

And there's a lot of that going on in this thread.

Don Firth