Does any other music require a committee

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 03:27 PM

Greg Stevens, I've spent considerable time being raged at in the last week for suggesting '54 has any impact on what folk music is played. Show me where??? they've demanded with multiple question marks. Followed by Who? and How? and any other word that could carry a butcher's hook.
Sooner or later to progress the discussion beyond 'The Definition' I felt duty bound to summarise those apoplexies aimed in my direction and calm nerves. My comment wasn't a sudden splash of enlightenment, it was a summary of everyone elses's annoyance.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: GUEST,Sedayne (Astray)
Date: 18 Apr 09 - 05:29 PM

The Incredible String Band didn't need a committee.

Henry Cow were a committee!

http://media.photobucket.com/image/Henry%20Cow/zklang/NowWillYouJoinHenryCow.jpg

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 05:22 AM

OK, let's put the 1954 definition to one side. What gives you the idea that folk music is in any way run by a "committee"?

I'm not talking about the organisation of individual events. Some are run by committees, some are not; the same applies to any genre of music. They all make their own individual decisions what to put on, based on their own preferences and those of their audience, but these are so varied that it should be possible to find something which matches your own tastes. However it is precisely this variety which undermines the idea that there is some higher authority dictating what is and what is not acceptable.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 05:38 AM

Actually, I find the concept of the '54 definition extremely liberating, whereas so many posters appear to find it constraining. It's perfectly possible to play any music badly, or in an uninteresting way, or to fluff notes by playing something other than you intended or forget the words. But the key aspect of the '54 reliance on evolution and variation is that you cannot actually play or sing it *wrongly*. So 'the folk police' are to my mind the antithesis of the '54 definition. As any committee would be.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 07:42 AM

"What gives you the idea that folk music is in any way run by a "committee"?" - HJ

Folk is mostly decided by big personalities exercising their tastes from available acts rather than committee consensus or academic rigour. Most of the stuff performed wouldn't stand up to a critical definition but everyone knows what to expect and few are disappointed. 1954 acts a gravitational pull, an anchor if you like, without shaping what folk means in its details. There will always be those who believe only the tradition means folk and such people tend to be more vocal than laissez-faire types but outside Mudcat the wider folk world gets by without it.

If people insist on a defining framework all present day performers could accept (and why should they?) it would need to accommodate change and developments beyond historic ones. Defining the spirit of folk music rather than the letter is a notorious difficult thing to pin down. My reading of SS's folk club is what I'd regard as a pub talent night, everything from Glenn Campbell covers to army songs to people showing the three chords they've just learnt on a guitar. In spirit it's undeniably the organic response of working people to make their voices heard - and what could be folkier than that?

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 07:48 AM

DMcG you make a very valid point. Where 54 falls down is in the critical detail. I've asked before but nobody's given an explanation to what change is and how it is quantified. My Aunty Dot - a notorious Malaprop - might sing 'Speak Bonnie Bloke' for the Skye boat song: at what point is a song changed so as to lose any similarity with its roots and who decides if it's old or new, folk or comedy?

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 08:22 AM

Ok, let's try an example - made up, I hasten to add.

Let's suppose I decide to sing a version of "Willie o' Winesbury" (Child 100), to a tune similar to one of the recognised versions, but instead of following the verse 9 from 'B'

"Ne wonder, ne wonder," quoth the king,
"My docter shoud like ye;
Gin ye were a women, as ye're a man,
My bedfellow ye shoud be"

with the king granting permission for him to wed the daughter, I choose to decide to have the king and lover go off in a gay relationship, leaving the daughter bereft. Now, that would be based on a traditional song, but does not correspond to anything in the tradition (as far as I know!). People could be kind and call that a interesting variation; or they could be fume and declare it misses the whole point of the traditional song, or that it is a parody or travesty or a dozen other things. The one thing they cannot do really do is declare it to be wrong. On the other hand, it would not, in my view, actually be a folk song unless other people took it up and started singing that variation.   So I am 'allowed' to make the change, but it is up to other singers to decide whether it actually becomes part of the tradition (which is as near to a committee as we get).

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Brian Peters
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 09:53 AM

> I've asked before but nobody's given an explanation to what change is and how it is quantified. <

This is probably because most of us aren't particularly interested in fine-tuning our idea of what is and is not folk music to that degree. Many of us who love traditional songs cheerfully perform other kinds of material alongside them. In considering the tradition, we acknowledge grey areas that exist because singers from that tradition have been happy to learn songs from books, from the radio or from records ever since the technology became available. Most of us are not actually 'purists', however much that insult is flung around. On the other hand, when a recently-composed piece is shortlisted for a high-profile 'Best Traditional Song' award, then people are going to get hot under the collar about it.

It's worth remembering, glueman, that the folk 'scene' - or, as some still refer to it, 'the revival' - has never really been connected with mass culture. Not even in the way that talent shows, or karaoke, could be said to. It was instigated by certain key individuals as a musical, cultural and political movement, and appealed disproportionately to a highly educated audience - which is why it's always attracted more than its fair share of navel-gazers. With respect to your original question, it could be argued that, back in the 1950s, those instigators did indeed attempt to promote a particular model in terms of repertoire, style and performance venue. The folk club model has survived to this day, but the old edicts on repertoire and style lost their grip pretty quickly, to be replaced by the looser, more disparate arrangements pertaining in most folk venues from the 1970s onwards. Recently, larger, more commercial organizations have increased in significance, so that these days 'folk music' looks more and more like a small branch of a fragmented entertainment industry.

There's no 'committee', though.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 10:02 AM

Who are these "big personalities" who "decide" folk?

I can think of a few big names, but their influence doesn't go much beyond the events they promote themselves. Even the biggest folk impresarios control only a tiny fraction of the folk scene, although the events they put on may be among the bigger ones. If you don't like what they put on, there are plenty of alternatives. Of course, it can be a boost to a performer's career to get booked for a prominent festival or concert, but I very much doubt that anyone wields "You'll ever work in this town again" power.

If anyone has "decided" the direction of folk, it is the innovating performers who inspire others to follow them. Martin Carthy, Nic Jones and John Kirpatrick, to name but a few, have helped to develop playing styles and approaches to song accompaniment on their respective instruments that have been widely imitated. But that's a by-product of their own talent and professionalism rather than a deliberate attempt to decide or control folk music.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 10:26 AM

"most of us aren't particularly interested in fine-tuning our idea of what is and is not folk music to that degree" - Brian Peters

That's true and probably the only sensible attitude to take on the subject. However there are those on Mudcat who take an uncompromising stance, the - "1954's the definition, if people are too stupid to understand, screw them" position. I believe if you're going to be that prescriptive your source is going to be both impeccable and served by peerless logic, not bull at a gate didacticism.

HJ, it's not that I don't like what's put on, I do most of the time. My tastes are eclectic; nu-folk youngsters, traditional British recordings of Topic, world music. If there is a split at the heart of folk it's that the high degree of professionalism of name artists has placed folk firmly in the entertainment industry. I'm happy to pay £20 to see such entertainment but SS's craky homespun stuff may be nearer folk's true roots than polished bravura instrumentals by pro's at the town hall.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 10:45 AM

but I very much doubt that anyone wields "You'll ever work in this town again" power.[quote]
funny that , only the other week,Ralph Jordan,shouted at me on this forum,and said I would be unlikely to get any gigs in the south east.
but here I am playing Waltham Abbey,monday april 20,and the star Romney Marsh,april 21.
what a jolly good job,that people dont have that power,yours sincerely humourless,certified asshole,never to work again in the south east, pedant.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: GUEST,GUEST, Jas W'sp'n
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 11:48 AM

"I'm happy to pay £20 to see such entertainment but SS's cranky homespun stuff may be nearer folk's true roots than polished bravura instrumentals by pro's at the town hall. " - Glueman

Having listened to SS's cranky homespun stuff for half my lifetime, I fully endorse that sentiment.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Brian Peters
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 11:58 AM

Howard's point about role models is a good one. I bought a Fylde guitar because Nic Jones played one, and nicked my granddad's collarless shirt out of his wardrobe because Martin Carthy wore one on the cover of 'Crown of Horn'.

More signicantly, my guess is that the popularity of the English concertina - not previously a 'folk' instrument - in the folk revival is to a large degree down to Alistair Anderson.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: greg stephens
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 12:01 PM

Gluieman still persists in suggesting that the 1954 defintion is something prescriptive that tells people what to do.This is absolutely barmy drivelling nonsense. I can(and do) sing traditional folksongs and tunes. I can(and do) sing newly composed songs and tunes.As can Glueman.There is absolutely nothing, not a word, not a mention, in "1954" that I should not do these things, or that I should do these things. You can do absolutely what you bloody well like, and play whatever music you like. The 1954 defintion makes no suggestions, offers no guidance about this whatever. There is no "committee".
Come on Glueman, don't keep running and hiding. Just point us out the sentence in 1954 that says you are not allowed to sing rock songs, or make up songs about your girl friend being nasty to you, or about being like a rolling stone.
I am in total agreement with Brian Peters on this (as I am on most subjects!).

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 12:19 PM

I didn't mean SS's own stuff was cranky, I like it very much indeed, I was referring to the stuff that passes through Fleetwood's folk clubs.
Greg I never rise to posts with 'barmy drivelling nonsense' or 'running and hiding' in them. There's clearly too much anger bottled up to have a reasoned discussion. It's not that 1954 is prescriptive of performance, it's that people on Mudcat insist 1954 is the definition of folk music, giving them a free hand to say whether what people play is or isn't folk. I don't believe one source, especially a 55 year old one gives anyone that authority.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 12:25 PM

More signicantly, my guess is that the popularity of the English concertina - not previously a 'folk' instrument - in the folk revival is to a large degree down to Alistair Anderson.
no, in my case it was Lou Killen, and Alf Edwards who was using it to accompany songs,
In fact it was Alf Edwards,who used it to accompany BertLLoyd and it was he who introduced it to the folk revival,it was he who I heard first.My parents had all Bert lloyds recordings,they predate Alistairs involvement in the FolkRevival by some years.
another ofAlfs pupils was Peggy Seeger ,who used it on the radio ballads,again some years before Alistairs appearance.
of course Alistair is a fine player,but he appeared in the folk revival after Peggy, Alf and Lou Killen

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 12:27 PM

"However there are those on Mudcat who take an uncompromising stance, the - "1954's the definition, if people are too stupid to understand, screw them" position. I believe if you're going to be that prescriptive your source is going to be both impeccable and served by peerless logic, not bull at a gate didacticism."

Again, I can't help feeling that there's a fair degree of distortion and exaggeration here. I may be wrong but I don't recall anyone calling you "stupid", 'glueman'? Perhaps someone did (and it was wrong of them) but most 'defenders of 1954' on here seem, like me, to find it useful when thinking about the limits of the genre, that's all. I am also (I can't speak for anyone else) of the opinion that it is the only workable definition and no-one has, as yet, come up with anything better. Most of the 'home made definitions', that have featured on here so far, just seem to have been tailored to fit the maker-uppers' preconceptions - the primary preconception being that 'all music is folk music' and that you should be able to sing anything you like in a (British) folk club. A further point is, of course, that in many folk clubs you CAN sing what you like, and no-one is going to stop you!

A deeper question, which you might like to ponder, 'glueman', is why do some people seem to need some sort of 'official sanction' for what they do? And why do they 'throw their toys out of the pram' when that official sanction is not forthcoming? If certain people believe that 'all music is folk music' then those people have to take responsibility for that point of view, wherever it may lead - and not expect some committee to 'rubber-stamp' it for them.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: greg stephens
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 12:35 PM

Glueman: your original question was "is folk self-regulating or decided from above"? My answer is "no, it is not decided from above. You can do what you like".
You also make a very strange assertion in your last post,that you disapprove of people having opinions of what is or isn't folk. Who is it precisely that you wouldn't permit to have opinions? Just people who disagree with you, or does it apply to everybody including yourself? I personally feel free to play whatever I like, and to define folk however I like.I would just like to check whether you would allow me to do this.
Just answer my very simple questions in my last post. It would clarify your postion for us: it is difficult to know what to argue with, as you change so rapidly.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 12:41 PM

I'm trying to follow the logic Shimrod but you may have to help me out. There's little to no exaggeration, those words were pretty much identical to ones I've read expressed on the topic recently. What I'm suggesting is people can't say on the one hand they don't want to delve too deeply into definitions of folk and insist 1954 is definitive on the other. That definition is full of holes, abstractions and generalities that don't hold up if people are going to be completely prescriptive about it.

As for rubber stamping, I require no other sanction than some posters stop upbraiding others about work falling inside or outside tentative definitions.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 12:58 PM

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Brian Peters - PM
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 11:58 AM

Howard's point about role models is a good one. I bought a Fylde guitar because Nic Jones played one, and nicked my granddad's collarless shirt out of his wardrobe because Martin Carthy wore one on the cover of 'Crown of Horn'.

interesting,I remember The first time I saw Fred Jordan,I had no desire to dress up like him, Bob Lewis in his shepherd smock.,had an even more opposite effect.
when I saw Miriam Backhouse,in a short skirt,I didnt feel it was necesarry to have the same stage gear.
neither did I get a wheatstone aeola because Alistair played one,I got one because they are bloody great to play.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 12:58 PM

What was the question Greg?

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 02:08 PM

This is one of those "When did you stop beating your wife" sort of questions. It assumes that folk music does require a committee, but fails to produce any evidence to support this assertion.

To repeat the point made ad nauseam on the other thread, the 1954 definition is about defining traditional music for academic study. It never was intended to define what is performed in folk clubs, in Britain or elsewhere, and the committee which created it was not interested in that. If you don't like it as a definition of traditional music, then feel free to come up with another. However the fact that it's been around for 55 years substantially unchanged suggests that it does what it was intended to do.

What doesn't seem to be capable of definition is the wider genre of "folk" as entertainment. If there were an overriding authority then the boundaries could be laid down, as it is it's left to everyone to make up their own mind.

So I ask again, where is the evidence for some committee that's directing folk music?

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 02:28 PM

"That [1954] definition is full of holes, abstractions and generalities that don't hold up ..."

But it isn't! To me, it's a coherent and logical description of how the music evolved.

Of course it's always possible to find exceptions - but I've always found 'exception hunting' to be an intellectually dubious practice. It reminds me of a religious fundamentalist, I met once, who constantly quoted 'research' performed by 'biblical scholars' at the 'University of Hicksville'. These, so-called 'scholars' were continually looking for exceptions and anomalies in the data in the scientific literature. Every time they found one they would cry, "Aha! This proves that the Theory of Evolution is wrong and the Biblical description of Creation must be true!" Of course, it proved no such thing. Every scientific theory is provisional and if enough exceptions and anomalies build up then it may need to be revised. But just rejecting a theory because it just happens not to fit with your preconceptions is not enough.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 02:36 PM

Cranky? Homespun? Moi?

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 02:50 PM

"This is one of those "When did you stop beating your wife" sort of questions." - HJ

I agree, but viewed from the other side.

"It assumes that folk music does require a committee, but fails to produce any evidence to support this assertion." - HJ

Seriously, read the question:
"folk requires authority from outside to determine it according to some sources."

We've agreed some posters believe 1954 is the basis for deciding what is and what isn't folk. There is sufficient evidence, read every What is Folk thread for some background. Whether those people sit on committees and decide which acts to book based on that provenance is impossible to say and is beside the point anyway.

"Is folk self-regulating or decided from above?"

This is a question, not a statement. The answers are mixed, largely depending on whether posters think 54 has filtered down to booking level. It certainly has to Mudcat opinion level.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 02:59 PM

"To me, it's a coherent and logical description of how the music evolved." - Shimrod

Depends how strongly you hold it. If you think it's a cast iron guarantor of rightness, I'd be worried. As a reflection of one moment in time written by collectors and folklorists with a specific agenda, it's about what you'd expect. More an 'in emergency break glass' concept than an assault weapon to beat the opposition to a pulp.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Musket
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:10 PM

I'll carry on calling what I think to be folk, folk.

I will tell anybody who wishes to listen that the most common definition these days is any acoustic music played in pubs (in the UK.)

There are other manyfold definitions, but these are mainly by those who try to make a science out of evolving abstractions.

In fact, they tend to annoy me in the same way as those who rattle on about "real ale" and buy halves, making tasting notes in little books. Whatever floats your boat, but that doesn't stop me giggling.

Sadly, many treat music in this way. Great if it keeps folk clubs going, but don't scratch your heads too much when every year means the average age of those attending goes up by a year.

I tend to vet folk clubs before asking my wife to come with me. Some of the sadder people tend to embarrass me. I enjoy folk for the music, for the laugh and joke with mates and for the nostalgia. Not for the jobsworth committee types, the ones who could with a good wash and those who go through life with a chip on their shoulder. One prat who posts regularly keeps trying to tell me that folk music is exclusively something to do with the struggle of the workers ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:27 PM

I'll risk a few questions of my own relating to definitions, more in hope of a reply than expectation.

Who are 'the people'?
Is the folk process on-going or past tense?
What precisely is the folk process?
How many stages of transfer are required for the folk process and who decides?
What are the stages of alteration and transfer, especially at their minimum acceptable level?

It almost seems rude to ask them but they're the ones that are used most to support the definition argument. Opinions will do.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:35 PM

This is taking the answer to one question and applying it to another.

To the question "What is folk?" the 1954 definition is one answer. If it keeps getting referred to constantly on Mudcat, that is because people are forever asking the question. In the real world, it is a non-issue. It is never mentioned. It has nothing to do with what goes on in clubs, which is decided by the organisers of the clubs.

If by "the music" you mean the academic study of traditional music, then yes, it needs a committee, and conferences, and study groups, and all the accoutrements of any branch of study, musical or otherwise. So the answer to that question is also "yes", since any other form of music which is subject to academic study will be the same.

If by "the music" you mean "folk" in the sense of a genre of entertainment, then the answer is "no", it does not require, and does not have, a committee.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: michaelr
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 03:59 PM

Ye gods, I'm bored to tears with this whole subject, but I would like to have this explained:

"1954... the year when Lonnie Donegan recorded Rock Island Line, a fact of more significance to the current folk scene"

I've heard the song, it doesn't much sound like folk music to me, more like rockabilly. How on earth is it significant to the folk scene 55 years later?

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 04:09 PM

"Rock Island Line" was skiffle. It was the skiffle craze that led on to the folk revival.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 04:10 PM

I `ad that "Glueman" in my cab the other day. In `is pin stripe whistle and briefcase, `e looked like a pox doctor`s clerk all smellin` of "Old Spice".
`e said, "`ere Jim,could you get me to "The Elephant & Coolie" please, we got a Folk Club committee meeting and I`m chairman. Big decisions tonight".
I said, "What. You gonna put the prices up or something?"
`e said, " Nah, we`ve gotta decide what is and what aint a folk song for our club"
I said, "`ere, they`ve been on about it for ages on that Mudcat and they still aint got anywhere. You`ll be there all night."
`e said, with a laugh, "Yeah. I know but the guvnors` stumping up the refreshments and I wouldn`t miss that for all the tea in China!!

Whaddam I Like??

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: michaelr
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 04:23 PM

""Rock Island Line" was skiffle. It was the skiffle craze that led on to the folk revival."

Isn't skiffle the about same as rockabilly except with acoustic instruments? In other words, an American hybrid derived from black blues and white Appalachian country music? How exactly is that supposed to have led to the revival of English and Celtic traditional song?

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 04:29 PM

Ta all for the contribution. I'm leaving this thread unless anyone requires mon presence on the basis that if the page doesn't open up instantaneously it's gone on too long. Feel free to cast nasturtiums once I've shut the door and if anyone has an answer to those questions, I'm all ears.

Toodle-oo for now.

Yours Gluely.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 04:34 PM

Whether those people sit on committees and decide which acts to book based on that provenance is impossible to say and is beside the point anyway.

If you don't want to talk about committees, don't ask questions about committees.

How many stages of transfer are required for the folk process and who decides?

Required for the folk process to do what? The folk process exists as soon as somebody hears a song and sings it in a changed form. The last time I saw Pete Shelley he stopped What Do I Get? halfway through to tell the audience we were getting it wrong - it's "What do I get? Oh, ohh, what do I get?", not "What do I get? Whoa-ohh, what do I get?" That change was the folk process in action, in a very small way.

Required for the folk process to change one song into another? That's an unanswerable question - a bit like saying "How many grains make a heap?" Everyone who believes there is such a thing as the folk process can nominate songs that have been through the folk process and songs that haven't, and most of the time we'd probably agree on which was which. And then there are borderline cases - we can kick some of those around if you're interested. But I very much doubt that we'll come up with a precise definition of where traditional songs come from, or feel the need of one.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: MartinRyan
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 04:39 PM

glueman

I'm leaving this thread unless anyone requires mon presence on the basis that if the page doesn't open up instantaneously it's gone on too long.

If you're looking for instant satisfaction then folk music is definitely the wrong tree up which to be barking!

Regards

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 04:46 PM

Hey Sinister, you know you can edit the 'inactive' out of your name: log in and click here.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 04:49 PM

Cool, I nominate The Buzzcock's What Do I Get As a folksong in the finest English tradition.

Be seeing you.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Jack Campin
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 05:16 PM

Isn't skiffle the about same as rockabilly except with acoustic instruments? In other words, an American hybrid derived from black blues and white Appalachian country music? How exactly is that supposed to have led to the revival of English and Celtic traditional song?

History doesn't have to make sense. It's what happened.

In fact skiffle has rather folkier roots than rockabilly, deriving from kinds of music that had far fewer professionals and had much lower entry costs. It was THE moment in the sun for DIY instruments, which have sadly faded from the scene since on both sides of the Atlantic.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 06:02 PM

"Cool, I nominate The Buzzcock's What Do I Get As a folksong in the finest English tradition." - 'glueman'

NOW we find out what this was all about! 'Glueman' wants his favourite punk effusion admitted to The Canon and rubber stamped.

OK, 'glueman' it's a folk song.

Signed: The Committee

THE END

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 19 Apr 09 - 06:09 PM

Mornington Crescent!

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: John P
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 05:14 PM

What I'm suggesting is people can't say on the one hand they don't want to delve too deeply into definitions of folk and insist 1954 is definitive on the other.

Sure we can. There are songs that are clearly traditional and songs that are clearly not. In between is a huge gray area, the size of which is completely subjective. 1954 is only definitive in that it describes a process. It doesn't actually purport to put any specific song in one column or another. Each individual gets to populate their own gray area, although most people don't find that very important.

Who are 'the people'?
The ones who aren't cats or dogs or horses or bugs, I guess.

Is the folk process on-going or past tense?
Ongoing, in my opinion. Others have a different take on that.

What precisely is the folk process?
Read 1954, and then decide for yourself. My own take on it is that changes can be accidental or purposeful. Others have a different take on that.

How many stages of transfer are required for the folk process and who decides?
Unspecified. Doesn't matter. There are no requirements. No one decides, or rather everyone decides for themselves if a given song is traditional. The number of removes from the original isn't important.

What are the stages of alteration and transfer, especially at their minimum acceptable level?
Unspecified. Doesn't matter. There is no minimum acceptable level. No one decides, or rather everyone decides for themselves if a given song is traditional. The types of changes from the original aren't important. Here are some examples:
1. I learned a song twenty years ago. I recently heard the recording I learned it from, and without knowing it I had made slight changes to the lyrics and the mode.
2. I recently learned a new song. I found versions of it in three different sources. I came up with a version that works for me. All the parts came from an old source, but I ended up with a version that never actually existed in the tradition.
3. A young man, 200 years ago, goes to a dance in another town. While walking home the next morning, he finds himself humming a song he heard the night before. He thinks he gets it right, but everyone in his town usually sings things in the dorian mode rather than a straight minor. By the time he gets home, the melody is dorian. He also heard, or remembered, the chorus wrong. They were singing "Every rose grows merry in time" and he thought (he'd been drinking) they were saying "Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme".
4. A singer from a village, the one who always gets asked to sing at weddings, learns a new song from another singer who came through town. While practicing it to add it to her repertoire, she decides that a couple of the lines are hard to pronounce clearly. She makes some changes to adapt it to her voice and performance style.

I don't feel any need to define things too closely. To me, traditional music is a different genre of music than contemporary music, one that I happen to like more than most modern music. Personally, I include a tremendous amount of newly composed music in my definition of traditional; music that is indistinguishable from the "real" old traditional music may as well be traditional for my purposes. Others, obviously, have a different take on this.

I'm sure that makes it clear as mud . . .

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 20 Apr 09 - 06:05 PM

"Others, obviously, have a different take on this"

Indeed. To be consistent 1954 would have to evolve to the demands of folk, a word here, a phrase there.

"or rather everyone decides for themselves if a given song is traditional"

Now that is sensible.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 02:59 PM

1954! Feck! Arse! Folk Process! Girls! That Would Be An Ecumenical Matter! Anything - Anything - but Susan fecking Boyle...

I'm losing the will here lads...

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

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 03:53 PM

Weird road, good tune. I was hoping to start the Susan Boyle backlash but you beat me to it. Better than Charlotte Church is as far as I'll go. Wonder who'd win a snakebite drinking contest...?

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Tootler
Date: 21 Apr 09 - 06:57 PM

I use the section between the A66 and M6 reasonably often. It's a nice run and a reasonably quiet road.

Kirby Steven is a pleasant town with a couple of good tea rooms.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 04:08 AM

Kirby Steven is a pleasant town with a couple of good tea rooms.

Have you noticed it still has a lot of pre-war iron railings still in situ too? It's always fascinated me that - maybe KS was too remote for the war effort propaganda machine.

Otherwise - some fine antique shops (one of which was rumoured to be selling Anne Briggs's bouzouki a few years back), Lish Young Buy-a-Brooms still thronging the church gates in the wee small hours of a Sunday morning; a shop called 2 Ravens which has a choice selection of 2nd-hand books, Green Man merchandise and other Gothic / Pagan / New-Age gew-gaws. There's a chippie called Coast-to-Coast which was a favourite of Wainwright (though I can't say I was overly impressed myself; KS is too far from the sea for decent fish & chips). Frank's Bridge is worth a look - a nice place for a picnic certainly; and one of the sculpted stone benches by the Tourist Info has acquired a reputation as a fertility seat. In the church you can see the Loki Stone - see Here for more - and some fine medieval sculpture. If it's a toilet stop you want though, hang on to Tebay!

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 04:29 AM

Kirby Steven

It's Kirkby Stephen for goodness sake.

In the church you can see the Loki Stone

Mudcat used to have a server called Loki, but that was before your time.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 05:25 AM

Read "An Official Guide to Kirkby Stephen in Westmorland" by John Waistell Braithwaite, 1913. He was a relative of mine.

Subject: RE: Does any other music require a committee
From: glueman
Date: 22 Apr 09 - 05:31 AM

"too remote for the war effort propaganda machine"

Propaganda indeed. I read that most of the collected railings ended up being dumped in the Thames estuary.