1954 and All That - defining folk music

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 02:55 PM

On the contrary; those who fail to make their point always revert to juvenile name-calling.
"Carroll and Co."

I've no point TO make, never did, perhaps you're missing the point.I've no agenda, no nothing, I merely play the music,I've no real need to attempt to put each and every tune into it's own little pigeon-hole. What is it with you people who feel the need to pigeon-hole music? I never really did understand the concept. Who was it who said "there are only to types of music, good music and bad music" ? Because whoever it was got right in one.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 02:43 PM

"I am beginning to suspect that this entire thread is nothing more than a tremendous wind –up on your part."
It's funny you should say that.......!
"consistency in this day and age is a rare commodity"
On the contrary; those who fail to make their point always revert to juvenile name-calling.
"Carroll and Co."
Right lads - down to the pub for a few pints then we'll all go and sink a curry.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 02:36 PM

There is no alternative definition - just a meaningless shibboleth

Um, lots of people don't agree with you with regard to this one. And you're not getting any more persuasive.

how nice you look in your new uniform, Pip - and my, aren't the Folk Police looking younger these days?

You needn't try to charm me with your sweet-talking manner.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: John P
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 01:44 PM

SS, Pip was asking you some questions. Calling him ANYTHING puts you in the same camp with Glueman. Of course, you also just made reference to there being folk police on this thread, at the same time that you're grousing about others' patronizing attitudes. Please stop making these kind of accusations. It really isn't furthering the discussion, and it's not true.

When you say things like There is no alternative definition - just a meaningless shibboleth concocted 7 years before I was born . . . it would appear to have become the cornerstone of a new faith entirely, that which thinks that Folk Song and Traditional Song are one and the same thing. Wrong! you lose the right to bitch about anyone else's tact. Do you really not understand that using phrases like "meaningless shibboleth", "a new faith", "a deeper seated cultural insecurity", "petty pedantry", "but once the folk police begin to close in for the kill", and "thinks that Folk Song and Traditional Song are one and the same thing" is condescending and rude? Do you really think those sentiments are supported by the evidence in this thread?

Without seeing any of Jim Eldon's other videos, I can still say with some certainty that the one in question isn't traditional music, and that you seem to think it is. How is that? And how is my seeing any of his other work going to affect whether or not this particular song is traditional?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 01:43 PM

"It's one of their tactics, Rifleman - they patronise until you give up the will to live."

I've come to expect nothing less from Carroll and Co., and I'm never disappointed, (consistency in this day and age is a rare commodity *LOL*)

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 01:36 PM

"it's a comfort to know that there is at least someone else on this thread who can think outside the box."

We'll call this an epilogue then SS. There is sufficient evidence to support your original proposition - which I didn't see as inflammatory or advocated anything other than the facts. Additional points illustrate 1954 is a partial, ill-founded and outdated conclusion to what folk is. Clear thinkers among the traditionalists admit as much.

To avoid those conclusions requires a degree of evasion no amount of additional words from me will fix. If '54 advocates don't address those points it's because they don't want to see them.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Goose Gander
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 01:03 PM

Sinister Supporter –

I still don't understand a few things:

You're not advocating anything, you're celebrating what happens in folk clubs. And yet this state of affairs has caused you "despair' in the past, and you started this thread to the separate the wheat ("Traditional Song") from the chaff ("all the other stuff currently being done In the Name of Folk"). So you are celebrating the chaff that causes you despair?

You believe that "(t)here is no alternative definition - just a meaningless shibboleth . . ." Is there really no alternative to your insistence that 'folk music is what happens in folk clubs'? No alternatives to a self-referential tautology? I think Don Firth, Howard Jones and Jim Carroll provided some clear alternatives. If you feel like cracking open a book, there are some American folklorists who don't fit into your false dichotomy.

But then have you admitted that you are offering a re-definition of Folk Music? I still say you are comparing unlike things. The 1954 definition, for all its shortcomings, can be applied cross-culturally; your re-definition tells me about what happens in the English folk clubs you frequent, and nothing more.

I have to confess that I am beginning to suspect that this entire thread is nothing more than a tremendous wind –up on your part.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 01:02 PM

Now THIS is a nasty patronising attitude

It's one of their tactics, Rifleman - they patronise until you give up the will to live.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Rifleman (inactive)
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 12:54 PM

"(Waits patiently while half-a-dozen more irrelevant clips are put up)."
Now THIS is a nasty patronising attitude

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 12:36 PM

Can you discuss this song in more specific terms?

I could, but until you've experienced more of Jim Eldon's work there would be little point.

And after your example there it is perhaps it is a little strong in calling novitiate traddies (such as Pip) Folk Police, they're more like Community Support Officers.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: John P
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 12:23 PM

The unwillingness to engage with the point by the folk police - is astounding. - Glueman

Apparently, trying to find out what others mean by traditional music makes me the folk police. I guess the definition of "folk police" is being degraded now, too. I've been accosted by the real folk police often enough to know the difference. There really are people out there who take on, in the real world, while music is actually being played, the task of chastising those who don't play it "right". I understand that some folks, if they've been similarly accosted, might be gun shy about it. I haven't, however, seen the police in this discussion, and I'm not sure that disagreeing in an internet debate rises to that level in any event.

SS, I still don't get what about that video you thought was traditional. I'll watch more of his stuff tonight, but this particular clip is about as far from any normal definition of traditional music as I can think of. Can you discuss this song in more specific terms?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 12:19 PM

This will have to be my last post on the thread.

Sorry to see you go, Glueman - I know we're coming at this from slightly different corners but once the folk police begin to close in for the kill, it's a comfort to know that there is at least someone else on this thread who can think outside the box.

Sorry - you're lying - the terms in which you presented a night at your club make that fairly obvious.
But just in case I'm misjudging you - what do you think of what you described?

All I did was to describe an average night at The Fleetwood Folk Club, much like dozens of other folk clubs I've been to over the years; I'm not hyping it, nor am I advocating it, simply celebrating what happens. What do I think of it? Does it matter what I think of it? Fact is the people who go enjoy themselves very much indeed or else they wouldn't go - and on a good night (say 7/10) it can be transcendent.

(Waits patiently while half-a-dozen more irrelevant clips are put up)

Just reminding you of what we're on about that's all. Here's another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Y_tuSsCXw

You're clearly celebrating the way things are in (some) contemporary folk clubs

All clubs I'd say, Pip - to a greater or lesser extent anyway; even those where Trad. is high on the agenda, such as The Beech.

proposing that the word 'folk' should be used to reflect those clubs

Not just the clubs, but the usage of the word as a whole, from CDs, radio stations, magazines, labels, fora etc etc. And not proposing, just telling it - er - like it is.

and advocating that the rest of us join you in abandoning any alternative definition.

There is no alternative definition - just a meaningless shibboleth concocted 7 years before I was born that has even rejected by the people who came up with it. Still, it would appear to have become the cornerstone of a new faith entirely, that which thinks that Folk Song and Traditional Song are one and the same thing. Wrong! Now - go figure.

Otherwise - how nice you look in your new uniform, Pip - and my, aren't the Folk Police looking younger these days?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 12:00 PM

SS, if this thread was pure description without any advocacy it would have died in five minutes - I think everyone posting here, from Jim to Bryan to glueman, already knows that a free-for-all gallimaufry of varying styles and standards is widely on offer under the banner of 'folk'. You're clearly celebrating the way things are in (some) contemporary folk clubs, proposing that the word 'folk' should be used to reflect those clubs and advocating that the rest of us join you in abandoning any alternative definition.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 11:18 AM

Bryan,
Please feel free to put my abusive PMs up for all to see, but I would request that you waited until this thread has run its course.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 10:48 AM

"Why are you doing this?"
How about - so he won't have to give a straight answer to any of the questions, as he has done throughout this thread.
"Not proposing or advocating anything"
Sorry - you're lying - the terms in which you presented a night at your club make that fairly obvious.
But just in case I'm misjudging you - what do you think of what you described? (Waits patiently while half-a-dozen more irrelevant clips are put up).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 10:46 AM

This will have to be my last post on the thread. The unwillingness to engage with the point by (a group hitherto avoided as a cliche) the folk police - is astounding. Every rhetorical trick has been played plus wounded feelings, evasion and avoidance, snippy personal attacks none of which get to the heart of the topic.

The 1954 definition should be consigned to the era that spawned it. People have pointed out where the weaknesses and limitations are, if vested interests are playing for time addressing them that's their problem.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 10:37 AM

Can you describe why you think he's a traditional singer?

Jim Eldon is an idiosyncratic genius whose understanding & mastery of Traditional Song is second to none. That he chooses to apply this genius to other aspects of his (our) immediate popular culture is nothing short of miraculous. Like other idiosyncratic traditional genii (Davie Stewart to name but one) he remains an acquired taste, but the best things in life always are. Jim is the pure drop and a national treasure besides.

For more, check out the Jim Eldon Appreciation Society thread and have a look at the other videos of Jim on Corona Smith's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/CoronaSmith.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 10:36 AM

Thank you for finally responding to my post of a couple of weeks ago, Jim, although I had hoped for a reasoned discussion rather than a tirade of abuse based on a version of what I had said twisted out of all recognition by your own prejudices.

I tried to take these off line, but you insisted otherwise.

Yes, you had become abusive in your PMs so I decided I'd rather have witnesses if I was coming under attack.

I hope the operation goes well. It may put you in a more agreeable frame of mind.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: John P
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 10:22 AM

Here's another new Jim Eldon video - the last English Traditional Singer & an example to us all

SS, I've agreed with everything you've said about traditional music until this. Can you describe why you think he's a traditional singer? I see someone who is putting himself up as a performer even though he's not a very good singer or fiddle player, doing a parody of a modern composed song. And doing it all in a silly costume. Where's the traditional?

This is why we get into debates about the meanings of words. If someone like yourself who should know better calls this traditional, what should I call the music I play? "Folk music" is lost to me. "Traditional music" is going. Why are you doing this?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 10:22 AM

This is better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQcKAdT41No

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 10:13 AM

Not proposing or advocating anything?

No. As I say, just telling it like it is by way of a personal accommodation of the reality of Folk Music as we understand the term here in the UK.

Otherwise:

deliberate misuse of the term by those such as yourself who appear to want to extend it to cover anything.

It does cover anything, Howard - that's the point. Why can't you be happy with the term Traditional Music? Why do you want to repress the celebration of Folk Music as well? Even the IFMC recognised this in changing their name to ICTM.   

Worse, it is gravely damaging to the future of what should properly be termed "folk".

Priceless stuff. But according to The Rules of The Revival (and the 1954 Definition) it is already dead; so how can it possibly have a future? As I asked earlier on: if a song is removed from the natural habitat that defined it as a Folk Song in the first place, is it still a folk song when those criteria (i.e. those of the MCMLIV Shibboleth) are no longer being met?

Meanwhile, some properly defined "folk" music being played by properly defined "folk" musicians:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1uGV38sphU

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 10:04 AM

For me, the description of a folk club I quoted above would fit comfortably into Dante's 'Inner Circle of Hell'. So what - that's me and my taste.
The question for me is, is this now what I can expect at a night at a folk club - is this typical, and if it is, should it be?
Have the clubs moved so far away from what I came to expect over the years I've been involved?
What do people now expect to get out of a club, apart from a pleasant night of song and music (which, for me, goes without saying) - or are people now content with SS's 'Magical Mystery Tour'?
Anwers to this would not only satisfy my own curiosity, but I am sure it would go some way towards settling part of my long-running dispute with Bryan.
Sorry - don't really want to monopolise this thread.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Howard Jones
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 08:37 AM

SS, you say you are telling it "like it is". Assuming you're correct, the question is, why is it like that? Why is the meaning of "folk" apparently being extended ever more widely, to include music which is not traditional and has no resemblance to or affinity with traditional music?

Sometimes the reason is commercial. Big festivals understandably want to bring in as big an audience as possible. Folk is not mainstream taste, so some festivals want to target a broader audience by putting on acts which are closer to the mainstream. However, the closer they are to the mainstream, the less close they will be to folk.

In some cases, it is laziness, or perhaps timidity. Some club organisers are possibly reluctant to tell some would-be performers that their material isn't appropriate, or to establish a clear musical policy. In other cases, it is a deliberate choice to encourage as wide a range of music as possible, and to accept whatever people want to play.

Why does it matter? Because the wider the range of music described as "folk", the greater the pressure on what might be termed "core" folk music. This has been under pressure from popular culture for at least the last century, and probably longer. For example, for years Walter Pardon was hardly ever able to sing his folk songs in public, because his audience wanted to hear modern popular songs. Those songs could have been lost, it was only his discovery by the folk revival which enabled him to bring them out again.

If I am "pedantic" (which anyway I dispute) it is because I value folk music and I want it to retain its integrity, not see it eroded away by laziness or ignorance, or worse, deliberate misuse of the term by those such as yourself who appear to want to extend it to cover anything. What is described in the quote in Jim Carroll's post of 15 Apr 09 - 08:17 AM may indeed be a good night out, I'm not questioning that, but to describe that melange as a "folk club" is just to dilute the real meaning. Worse, it is gravely damaging to the future of what should properly be termed "folk".

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 08:23 AM

Missed a bit,
Sorry mystery guest - don't understand your point?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 08:17 AM

"On an average night in our Folk Club (see HERE) we might hear Blues, Shanties, Kipling, Cicely Fox Smith, Musical Hall, George Formby, Pop, County, Dylan, Cohen, Cash, Medieval Latin, Beatles, Irish Jigs and Reels, Scottish Strathspeys, Gospel, Rock, Classical Guitar, Native American Chants, Operatic Arias and even the occasional Traditional Song and Ballad. We once had a floor singer who, in his own words, sang his own composition which he introduced with the Zen-like "...this is a folk song about rock 'n' roll...".
It all goes down am absolute storm, warmly welcomed and appreciated, irrespective of ability (don't worry, I'm not about raise any GEFF Ghosts here, even though I feel half the charm is in the shortfall between intention & result) and I'm sure we're not alone is this - a Folk Club being a place where people come to do pretty much what they like, but it remains, somehow Folk Music."
This may be what people look forward to as a good night at a folk club, but it certainly isn't mine, pettily pedantic as that may sound.
I particularly liked " and even the occasional Traditional Song and Ballad"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 07:54 AM

"a Folk Club being a place where people come to do pretty much what they like, but it remains, somehow Folk Music."

"the wider our appreciations of Folk the better it will be"

"it is the Folk Sensitivity of the individual singer that makes any given song a Folk Song"

"whatever your dig-bag might be, we welcome you in the name of Folk and the message shall forever be - Come All Ye!"

Not proposing or advocating anything?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 07:20 AM

Corruption is a good word, but I prefer perversion, albeit in the natural course of things. Wonder what it is about Folk that inspires the sort petty pedantry that we're seeing here just now? A sure sign of a deeper seated cultural insecurity the cause of which we might well ponder, or not, as the case may be.

Anyway - watch out for those GUEST posts the pair of you as you run the risk of deletion which would be a shame.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 07:11 AM

Would that be the royal 'we' Jim?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 07:00 AM

"the last English Traditional Singer & an example to us all:"
It seems we've moved on from a corruption of the term 'folk', to the corruption of the term 'traditional' - and people wonder why we bother to involve ourselves in these debates!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 06:54 AM

It may not be the ideal, but realities seldom are.

Actually, cross that out. After reading Pip's timely compilation of some of my musings below I realise it is ideal.

Here's another new Jim Eldon video - the last English Traditional Singer & an example to us all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c49jHz1M9nM

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 06:34 AM

As I say, Pip - not advocating or proposing, simply telling it like it is. What's the problem?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 05:24 AM

I'm not proposing or advocating anything, MM

Must have been a different Sinister Supporter.

20 Mar 09 - 05:36 PM

On an average night in our Folk Club (see HERE) we might hear Blues, Shanties, Kipling, Cicely Fox Smith, Musical Hall, George Formby, Pop, County, Dylan, Cohen, Cash, Medieval Latin, Beatles, Irish Jigs and Reels, Scottish Strathspeys, Gospel, Rock, Classical Guitar, Native American Chants, Operatic Arias and even the occasional Traditional Song and Ballad. We once had a floor singer who, in his own words, sang his own composition which he introduced with the Zen-like "...this is a folk song about rock 'n' roll...".

It all goes down am absolute storm, warmly welcomed and appreciated, irrespective of ability (don't worry, I'm not about raise any GEFF Ghosts here, even though I feel half the charm is in the shortfall between intention & result) and I'm sure we're not alone is this - a Folk Club being a place where people come to do pretty much what they like, but it remains, somehow Folk Music.

Date: 22 Mar 09 - 01:23 PM

I like Folk as Flotsam because, although a traddy, I like people - everyday people, coming to a folk club after a hard day's work in the fields (or on the cabs, the Job Centre, the hospital, the school, the building site, the ministry, or computer terminal) to sink a few pints and sing whatever they want to sing without someone telling them it isn't folk. This is where the Horse definition wins out, because it comes from the folks themselves, not the academics telling us how it ought to be, but obviously isn't.

Date: 23 Mar 09 - 07:25 AM

In my lifetime Folk has been everything from the Traditional Northumbrian Pipe Music of Billy Pigg to the Free-Form South African Jazz of Johnny Mbizo Dyani who frequently spoke of his music as being Folk. I think of everything I do as being Folk - be it This or This. No good can ever come out restricting anything, on the contrary, the wider our appreciations of Folk the better it will be.

Date: 25 Mar 09 - 09:55 AM

it's about what speaks to the individual singer and what s/he is moved to sing on their next visit to their local folk club, singaround or festival. It is their Folk Sensitivities that moves them to be there in the first place, and to have chosen a song with respect of that sensitivity, be it traditional or otherwise, but I'd say that ultimately, it is the Folk Sensitivity of the individual singer that makes any given song a Folk Song, be it a traditional ballad, a Christy Moore song, or their version of a Johnny Cash cover of a Nine Inch Nails song.

Date: 30 Mar 09 - 11:44 AM

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: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 04:52 AM

...although in some cases:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2u1SMdJ9a8

My faith is restored!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 04:35 AM

Is the 'anything goes' approach proposed and (apparently)advocated by Sinister Supporter an improvement?

I'm not proposing or advocating anything, MM - simply stating the facts of the case and trying, somehow, to accommodate them. It may not be the ideal, but realities seldom are.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 04:24 AM

Thanks Shimrod,
I was told by a friend last night - "the operation's a doddle - it's what you catch while you're in there that's the problem" - ah well.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 04:19 AM

Hope all goes well, Jim!

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 09 - 03:59 AM

Bryan,
Sorry and thanks - wasn't putting it up for sympathy ( routine - new hip); just an indication of my present ability to take part (going in tomorrow - not today as stated).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 08:59 PM

M.Ted

Nothing that Sinister Supporter has put forward is nearly as appalling as the fact that he cooks with Philadelphia Lite, and puts it on pasta.

Oh, much worse than that is that he drinks "Greene King Sun Dance ..... more of a lager I'd say, hence I drink it chilled."

I'd love to see him go into the front bar of the Lewes Arms and order THAT in a loud voice.

P.S. Can't really respond to Jim if he's about to go into hospital but....PHEW! I hope all goes well, Jim.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 08:29 PM

Nothing that Sinister Supporter has put forward is nearly as appalling as the fact that he cooks with Philadelphia Lite, and puts it on pasta.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 04:59 PM

"Except join in discussions like this when the opportunity arises - Jim Carroll."
Sorry, have I missed something.
I have joined in this discussion - I have enjoyed being part of this discussion - I believe disussions such as this should take place - I have never at any time said they shouldn't - if it wasn't me who posted up the 54 definition in the first place I have certainly done so several times over the last few years in order for it to be discussed.
Shouldn't I have done?
"remember how bad it was thirty years ago and have rarely been in a folk club since."
- referred to me"
In which case I apologise unreservedly - I have misunderstood Bryan's message.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 04:08 PM

By the by, I always took -
"lead by people who remember how bad it was thirty years ago and have rarely been in a folk club since."
- referred to me, as it fits perfectly and I've admitted as much.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 04:05 PM

A lapse, it should of course read; "discussing the 1954 definitions".

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 03:51 PM

"some on Mudcat present it as an article of faith" - Glueman
I've asked similar questions on this thread, but please, where did this come from? - Jim Carroll

It's based on things like:

"I'm not contesting the 1954 definition….. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it." - The Snail
Except join in discussions like this when the opportunity arises - Jim Carroll.

Surely you must see that criticising the very idea of discussing the 1954 discussions comes across as authoritarian? I've used 'article of faith' as an analogy before because it precisely fits the attitude, something based on uncritical dogma and an appeal to sentiment, beyond any rational discussion.
It's also based on Mr Bridge's conventional putdown which goes (to paraphrase only slightly) "I've explained it before (1954), if people are too stupid to see I'm not wasting my time," as though disagreeing or pointing out the fault lines were a mark of stupidity or, more often, disloyalty to an idea. I'm at a loss as to how discussing what is a definition aimed at harnessing some abstract ideas can be equated with idiocy or disloyalty. It reminds me of religious debates - or non-debates - with priests at school which also revealed institutional myopia about where to look for the truth, and a tendency to reprimand and patronise when people looked in the 'wrong' place.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 03:20 PM

Bryan, As requested.

"The last two clubs I attended in the UK (last Saturday and last Thursday) were not as you have described"
So? Does that negate everything I and others have told you about our bad experiences at clubs

"Then perhaps you understand why I get a little peed off when you describe the policy we operate as "crass", "dumbing down", "promoting crap standards".
You persistently have argued that the only standard necessary for allowing a singer to sing at a club (you later made it clear that it didn't effect your club because you never got bad singers asking to sing) was the desire to do so, whether they could hold a tune, remember a text or understand a song – or not.
I have said, and I repeat, a singer should, at the very least, be able to do those things. Once they have shown themselves unable to do so, they should be encouraged, offered help from more experienced singers… however you feel you can help them, but they should not be encouraged to practice in public before an audience, certainly not a paying one. To encourage a potential singers to do so is demeaning to them, dismissive of the audience, and detrimental to the future of the music – CRAP STANDARDS.
You have accused me of attacking your club – I didn't; I said the above and will repeat it as often as you like. It was you who brought your club into the argument – I believe you said you consulted your committee before stating that was their policy   

"I'm not contesting the 1954 definition….. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it."
Except join in discussions like this when the opportunity arises.

"Accept that you've lost control of those two words but don't throw the music away".
Maybe that's your solution to things you disagree with – sorry, not mine.

"…..damning the whole UK folk scene to hell."
Do I – where? I I thought that, why should I bother involving meyself in these discussions? I have said I recognise there are good clubs – in my opinion not enough of them – and promoting crass standards is not going to improve matters.

"BREAKTHROUGH! But couldn't you try and help us rather than hindering?"
This is you at your patronising and dishonest worst Bryan.
I was going to leave this and agree that we should disagree but I came back from holiday to:
"lead by people who remember how bad it was thirty years ago and have rarely been in a folk club since." which I have no doubt was a snide reference to our past arguments, and as inaccurate an analysis as your recent effort at telling me my opinions.
I tried to take these off line, but you insisted otherwise.
I am quite enjoying this discussion – I am learning a great deal from it and I am being given the opportunity to gather my own thoughts on the subject. Unfortunately I am not going to be able to be involved to the end as I'm into hospital tomorrow and will be there for a week.
I have no intention of going head –to-head with you on this matter and nausea up a good discussion in the litle time i have to participate.
Anything else you have to say on the matter – pm me or start a thread.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 02:35 PM

"some on Mudcat present it as an article of faith"
I've asked similar questions on this thread, but please, where did this come from?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 02:16 PM

Not sudden at all MM, and only brought to the table because of continued sniping that critics of '54 don't understand what they're talking about.
If I read SS correctly he mapped out the differences between the definition and what happens currently under the folk banner. It's pleasing to see you also believe 1954 isn't as comprehensive as it's often imagined, some on Mudcat present it as an article of faith - the minimum requirement to ascended master enlightenment and a line between 'us' and 'them'.

We all draw our lines where we will. My preference is for acoustic music, preferably with traditional instruments (though I won't leave in a huff if there's a guitar) with a strong tendency towards the tradition - while being aware how arbitrary both the music and the preference are.

Since arriving here I'm impatient with those who can't - or more often won't - see the flaws in the definition and flit between patrician putdowns and earthy reprimands without addressing the criticisms.

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 02:01 PM

Phrasing the same question in three different ways

Not at all. I was curious to find out which of three different positions you were arguing from: "I like the ways people use the word 'folk'", or "I like the idea of people using the word 'folk' in lots of different ways", or "I don't care how people use the word 'folk'".

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Goose Gander
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 01:59 PM

Glueman -

I don't believe anyone here said that the 1954 definition couldn't stand some updating. I certainly never said that. And I've cited some folklorists who have expanded upon the term in the specific field of folk music, and there are others, so I have no idea why you believe that the "folk music debate is stuck in the anthropological model of '54" . . . The question remains: Is the 'anything goes' approach proposed and (apparently)advocated by Sinister Supporter an improvement?

And why the sudden interest in scholarship, Glueman?

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 01:34 PM

As I said Bryan, I was not wishing to confine clubs to just traditional songs; the list I provided were, in my opinion, people who have used the tradition to write songs. They have always been around the scene and they have always had my support, even if I didnt particularly warm to my work.
"WHAAAAT?!
Whenever the state of the clubs has coome up you have constantly given the impression that those of us who are concerned are ether making it up or exaggerating 'ding, ding; I'm on the bus' - is it alll coming back to you now, or am I making that up?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: 1954 and All That - defining folk music
From: GUEST,glueman
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 01:33 PM

"the term 'folk' in the definition is consistent with its use in folklore, folk dance, etc." MM

Actually, the study of folklore draws upon an array of critical techniques such as narrative theory, ideology, semiotics (and many others) none of which undermine the collection of lore and myth. By comparison folk music debate is stuck in the anthropological model of '54 you suggest. It's a brittle and defensive approach which leads to the antagonism seen here, a 'warring discourse' if you like full of personality cults and ego.